One of the French epic fights of the period was the stand of the 84th Ligne commanded by Colonel Gambin against the Austrian command of General Gyulai. The 84th Ligne found itself alone and unsupported in Graz and attacked by over 10,000 Austrians. The fourteen-hour fight, most of it in and around the St Leonard Cemetery in Graz, cost the 1,200 French at least 400 casualties. Austrian losses could have been as high as 2,500 in killed, wounded and prisoners.
The 84th Ligne was awarded a plaque to be carried on their regimental eagle bearing the legend 'Un Contre Dix.'
It should also be noted that the 92d Ligne commanded by Col Nagle came to the relief of the 84th Ligne in Graz at the end of the action.
Hi,
some links about the action .. the french article give a nice overview of the event over 6 pages !
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k320049v.texteImage#
https://library.hungaricana.hu/en/view/MitKuKKriegsArch_1907_3_05/?pg=310&layout=s
best regards
@john fortune You are exactly right in that at the AWI period battle honours on colours was in it's infancy, Gibraltar in 1784 really being the first as we now know them.
However, the comittee has at least been consistent with retrospective claims. Both AWI and '45 were rejected on the grounds that they were civil wars.
Wellington was known to only favour honours where there was an associated medal, but you could argue that as the owner of 13 clasps to the Army Gold Cross and the largest number of clasps than anyone else to the Military General Service Medal, I suppose he would say that!
That's an impressive list, David but as the dates attached indicate it might give a misleading impression.
As I indicated in my previous post, the system of what today we recognise as 'battle honours' only evolved during the course of the Napoleonic wars, following the campaign distinction awarded to participants after the victorious Egypt expedition of 1801.
The system of battle honours as we recognise it simply didn't exist during the AWI.
When in 1784, following the epic defence of Gibraltar in the 1779-1783 siege, the 12th, 48th, 56th and 58th regiments were authorised to bear the word 'Gibraltar' on their regimental colour and appointments, it was an unusual gesture. The service of selected regiments in a campaign had never been acknowledged in that way before. It was thus the earliest shared honorary distinction awarded in the British army.
Prior to Gibraltar, only two regiments bore honorary distinctions on their colours: The 18th or Royal Irish, for Namur in 1695 (Grannard's) and the 15th King's Light Dragoons for Emsdorf in 1760 (Elliot's Light Horse).
The siege of Gibraltar was of course part of the wider conflict that grew out of the American War of Independence (AWI) following the French Spanish and Dutch declarations of war in support of the colonists. The final raising of the siege was embraced enthusiastically by Parliament and people in London, perhaps in an effort to eclipse the ultimate failure to defeat the rebellion in America. To that extent we might see the granting of the Gibraltar distinction, while undoubtedly merited, as an act of propaganda and expression of public relief prefiguring the Egypt distinction eighteen years later.
It is sometimes claimed that no battle honours were awarded for the AWI "because it was rightly decreed that battle honours should not be granted for a war with our kith and kin." This is perhaps a little disingenuous. There were certainly unequivocal victories in America, as well as hard fought actions of more ambiguous result, which might have merited recognition. More relevant perhaps is that the war ended in military defeat, the loss of the Thirteen Colonies, and a personal affront to the authority of the King. However, there is a simpler truth which is that at that date battle honours as we understand them were simply not a part of the culture of the army.
Nonetheless, when in the C19th regiments began to lobby for retrospective 'honours,' given the final slight to Royal authority in America it is perhaps not surprising that neither Long Island or New York, Brandywine Creek or Germantown, Charleston or Camden, were among the distinctions sought as additions to regimental colours.
It is probably no accident that America instead became the point of origin of a number of unofficial distinctions that later regimental tradition claimed had their origin in battles fought against the American, French, or their Indian allies: the 'red feather' of the 46th South Devons (Paoli Tavern 1777); a similar red feather of the short-lived Fraser's Highlanders ( Paoli 1777? Tappan 1778?) later associated with the 42nd Royal Highlanders; the white feather of the 5th Northumberlands, later tipped red (St Lucia 1778). Even the victorious Seven Years War in America was brought into the act with the 35th Royal Sussex claiming a white feather distinction that originated on the Plains of Abraham in 1759 (The 'Roussillon Plume'). Equally tenuous, some KRRC in years gone by claimed that their scarlet badge backing commemorated a fight on the frontier between the 60th and Indians (more red feathers). The 60th also dated their motto 'Celer et Audax', now borne by The Rifles, back to Wolfe's campaigns in Canada during the 7YW. The origins of that celebrated phrase, authorised in 1824, may not be entirely clear but tact prevents my commenting further. In general, however, few of these traditions have a firm historical basis, although even today claims are made that the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment bear a red cap distinction that commemorates a red feather adopted by the 40th Regiment after Germantown in 1777. As it is, the Rifles motto aside, I believe only one surviving authorised distinction can be claimed to date from the Americas in the AWI period: the red-tipped hackle of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, originating with the white feather trophy of the 5th Regiment dating from St Lucia in 1778 although this was only authorised in 1824; the red tip in 1829. In addition, the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment wear the 'Roussillon Plume' emblem of the Royal Sussex (c.1880) as part of the their collar badge but its origins are even more tenuous, although naturally I would also be careful about declaring that in public. 😷
@Kevin F. Kiley The short answer for the American War of Independence is no.
For earlier and contemporary conflicts:
'Tangiers 1662-80' granted 1909
War of the Grand Alliance
'Namur 1685' granted 1910
War of Spanish Succession
'Blenheim' 1704 granted 1882
'Ramillies' 1706 granted 1882
'Oudenarde' 1708 granted 1882
'Malplaquet'1709 granted 1882
Gibraltar 1704-5' granted 1909
War of the Austrian Succession
'Dettingen' 1743 granted 1882
SYW
'Emsdorff' 1760 granted 1766
'Minden' 1759 granted 1801
'Moro' 1762 granted 1827
'Wilhelmstahl' 1762 granted 1836
'Warburg' 1760 granted 1909
'Guadaloupe 1759' granted 1909
'Martinique 1762' granted 1909
'Belleisle' 1661 granted 1951
Bengal Wars
'Plassey' 1757 granted 1829,1835,1841,1844
'Buxar' 1764 granted 1829
Operations in Oudh and Guzerat
'Korah' 1766 granted 1829
'Guzerat' 1782 granted 1829, 18
1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Mysore Wars
'Amboor' 1767 granted ?
'Sholinghur' 1781 granted 1781,1841,1889
'Seringapatam' 1799 granted 1818, 1820, 1822, 1822, 1823
'Mangalore' 1784 granted 1823
'Carnactic' 1780-1784 1790-1792 granted 1829, 1844, 1889
'Nundy Droog' 1791 granted 1841
2nd and 3rd Carnactic Wars
'Arcot; 1751 granted 1841
'Condore' 1758 granted 1841, 1894
'Wandiwash' 1760 granted 1841
'Pondicherry' 1761 granted 1841
War against France and Spain
'Gibraltar 1779-83' granted 1784, 1908, 1909
'Jersey 1781' granted 1881
'St Lucia 1778' granted 1909
'The Saints' 1782 granted 1909
The first I can find for North America was
French and Indian Wars
'Louisburg' 1758 granted 1882
'Quebec 1759' granted 1882
Pontiac's Conspiracy
'North America 1763-64' granted 1914
War of 1812
'Niagara' 1813 granted 1815
.'Queenstown' 1812 granted 1816
'Detroit' 1812 granted 1816
'Miami' 1813 granted 1816
'Bladensburg' 1814 granted 1826, 1827, 1854
Absolutely no mention of the Amercan War of Independence at all. The official reason given is that it was a civil war, with both sides remaining crown subjects. Like the '45 it would make the award by the sovereign as the font of all honour inappropriate. So we will no more see a battle honour for Brandywine as we would for Culloden.
Worthy as undoubtedly the conduct of individual units may have been, the whole episode appears to have been airbrushed out of British and later Imperial officialdom's military consciousness.
@Kevin F. Kiley I hope this helps?
Data taken from "Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonealth Land Forces 1662-1991" by Alexander Rogers, The Crowood Press, Trowbridge 2003
Were any unit awards issued for the War of the American Revolution? There certainly were more-than-deserving units that fought in North America and elsewhere during 1775-1783.
'National Military Record'
The Times, September 13 1822
The Army
Military records
Records of the services of regiments,
directed by order of the commander in chief
His Majesty is pleased to command, that with a view of preserving a remembrance of the particular service and achievements of the British Army, a National Military Record of all the battles and actions in which the regiments have been, or may be engaged, shall be prepared by the Inspector of regimental colours, and deposited in the office of the Adjutant General; and this record shall contain the following particulars, viz:
1st. An account of all battles in which the troops have been, or may be engaged, as aforesaid
2nd. Paintings of the colours and trophies captured in the several engagements
3rd. The names of the Officers killed and wounded in each action
4th. Names of those Officers, who in consideration of their gallant services and meritorious conduct in the said engagements, either have been or may be distinguished and rewarded with titles, medals, or other marks of his Majesty's gracious favour; together with the names of all Non-Commissioned Officers and privates as may have especially signalled themselves.
5. A list of the corps engaged in each action, together with paintings of such badges and distinctions as H.M. may have been graciously pleased to authorize to be borne on their standards, colours, appointments, in commemorations of their distinguished conduct and signal intrepidity.
(See. A Biographical Memoir of his late Royal Highness, Frederick, Duke of York and Albany. Watkins 1827. p.511-12)
The phrase my father employed frequently was 'coming up with the rations.' Yes indeed, the distinction for Egypt, accompanying a communal sigh of relief that Britain was not caught in an endless cycle of military failure, set the tone for the subsequent years, with distinctions, medals and clasps being awarded for campaigns and battles in Europe, Americas and the East. The lobbying and sleight of hand continued long after, with words like 'honour' 'awarded' and 'granted' being used promiscuously by regimental historians and others for items that were little more than non-regulation ornaments slipped under the radar.
The notion of what today we recognise (in English) as 'battle honours' was in its infancy in this period and the award of honorary distinctions to be borne on colours and appointments was to a considerable extent arbitrary. There certainly certainly seems to have been no systematic basis by which these might be awarded. If Napoleon chose to garland a regiment with a motto or slogan, that was surely his business. It was good for propaganda and good for morale. However, it doesn't seem to have been that common in the French Army at that time- I have note of about ten examples of varying reliability- although that does not necessarily mean that the episodes that inspired the awards demonstrated conduct that was of equally rare and outstanding merit. There was doubtless an element of whim involved. The distinctions and the standards they graced also attracted the interest of the enemy although, ironically perhaps, the most celebrated in British circles, the so-called "Invincible standard" captured at Alexandria in 1801, later subject of an unseemly regimental wrangle at home, bore no such legend. The fiction and ensuing fuss, which seems to have been invented and perpetuated entirely by the press, then bounced back across the Channel with Bonaparte denying such a standard had ever existed. The scandal lasted longer than the war. The British army was no stranger to spurious awards, perhaps the most egregious being that of the 34th Cumberland for 'Arroyo Dos Molinos' (Arroyomolinos) in 1811. This was granted in 1845 supposedly in compensation for the loss, as a result of uniform changes, of a spurious cap distinction associated with the battle, which had never in fact existed. This was especially questionable because the 34th had really only been involved in the pursuit and mopping up at Arroyomolinos, although that had included an impressive bag of prisoners including, ironically, the headquarters of the French 34e Ligne with their corps drums (still paraded as trophies by the Duke of Lancasters every October). When a couple of regiments that had done the actual fighting enquired, not unreasonably perhaps, whether they might be considered for this new, retrospective distinction, they were refused; the lost cap distinction being cited as a special case. The 34th later resumed a version of the 'lost' cap distinction, maintained in form or another by its successors until 2006, and so shamelessly got two bites of the cherry.
The process of lobbying for distinctions, both retrospective and current continued throughout the C19th as part of what today we might call the 'branding' of regiments encouraged by Frederick, Duke of York and persisted after the creation of the Awards Committee in 1882. Thus we saw a certain regiment in 1909 being granted a distinction for 'Tangier 1662,' which its successor now boasts as the "oldest battle honour in the British army." Bit cheeky.
So FIBUA then? If we apply the same criteria Baring’s 2nd Light should have had “eins gegen zwölf”. Considerably higher casualty rate too notwithstanding running out of ammunition. No colours to put them on though
"In June 1809, the French under GD Broussier had a half-hearted siege of the city and fortress of Graz in Styria under way. The approach of a relief army from Croatia under FML Ignaz Gyulai, caused Broussier to abandon the siege. Marshal Marmont and the Army of Dalmatia then approached form the South on the opposite side of the Mur, and Broussier returned to the city and launched an attack, driving Gyulai back. Broussier then received orderes from Marmont to march South down the West side of the valley of the river Mur. He detached 2 battalions of the 84e Ligne to the East bank to "chase off the 150 Hussars and as many Croats" that the French believed were all that was left in the vicinity of Graz, plus 3 companies of Leger to hold the bridge at Gosting, North of the city. As it turned out, Gyulai was much closer to Graz than the French realized, setting the stage for this interesting engagement, which is detailed in John Gill's "1809: Thunder on the Danube, Volume III"" https://blundersonthedanube.blogspot.com/2011/05/engagement-at-graz-june-26-1809.html
"Two battalions of the 84th Line with 2 guns entered the town of Graz, seized the stable and cleared the streets, and took 450 prisoners. The Austrians held only the church and cemetery. Fierce musketry halted the 84e, but at midnight the French scaled the cemetery's walls and took the defenders by surprise. Approximately 120 Austrians surrendered. The French realized that there were more Austrians in the neighbourhood, and the 84th considered a withdrawal only to find that the whitecoats had surrounded them. The 84e put all prisoners into the church, and took cover behind cemetery wall. Although most of the Austrian forces were militia, they outnumbered the French by 10 to 1, the only first rate unit was the Simbish Infantry Regiment. In the morning the whitecoats attacked the cemetery several times. In one attack they penetrated the church to liberate their comrades, in another attack they dragged off one cannon before the French counterattacked and retook it. In one of the last attacks the whitecoats scaled the wall and captured one of 84th's eagles, but Sergeant Legouge single-handedly entered the fight to save the eagle. Running out of ammunition the French decided to use bayonets and cut their way to safety, and they escaped and met up with a relieving troops sent by Marshal Marmont. For the loss of three officers and 31 men killed, 12 officers and 192 men wounded, and 40 captured, they inflicted an estimated 500 casualties on the Austrians."
I agree - it was a feat of arms, but to look only from the perspective from Nabulieone it would lead us into the realm of myth.
In case there are other sources they should be consulted - but for a lot of people myths are more important than history.
@Hans - Karl Weiß I echo your thoughts on @David Hollins, an exceptional font of knowledge and a thoroughly nice guy to boot. It's a shame because it used to happen on the old forum and continues to happen on TMP. Contributors are either hounded out or just get tired. Some people (and it's often the same people) just can't tolerate the diverse opinion and discussion a forum brings. If they don't want to be disagreed with, go get a blog!
I'm minded of Napoleon's own comments about baubles and leadership. We can either view this plaque as a truthful commemoration or a piece of theatre. I have met American service personnel who are equally sceptical about the modern eqivalent, Presidential Unit Citations, thinking it says rather more about the President who gives it and politics at the time. Napoleon is not just a general, he is also a politician. Everything he does therefore needs to be considered from that angle.
We are rather more fortunate in the UK in that battle honours are decided on by a rather shadowy committee and largely free of political interference. Like medals, there are many who feel hard done by, and like my father and father-in-law who had to wait half a century for their General Service Medals could complain, hardly swift.
I think therfore that this is definately a feat of arms, but as losses of a third were not so unusual in Waterloo allied battalions for example, I would want to know more of the circumstances before I could accept the award was justified.
Do we know how this unit was exposed in this way? Was it French incompetence or some lightening move by the Austrians?