The Company and the Evolution of the Regiment
At the start of the civil war the regiment as a unit of military organisation was still somewhat 'new-fangled'. John Keegan [16] goes so far as to say:
Although the term had been used as early as 1544, its application tended to be rather haphazard. Henry VIIIs three battles or 'wards' in France in 1544 had been called regiments,
and in 1585 the entire expeditionary force to the Netherlands had also been called a regiment. [17]
By 1588 the 25 wards of the City of London supported 4 regiments (imaginatively called the North, South, East and West Regiments), each of 10 companies, and commanded by a Colonel (a term with similarly loose application). Apparently, however, and significantly, although the four
regiments were formed, none had a colonel. By 1599 the organisation into companies and regiments had been abandoned; instead the 25 wards of London furnished 15 companies of militia. This points to the somewhat secondary nature of the regiment as a formation. At this time a regiment was, strictly speaking, simply an amalgamation of companies - the exact number depending on availability and circumstances - and it was to the company that loyalty seemed to be owed.
The civil wars occur at a time of transition when military practice was at a stage of development from the mediaeval to the modern. Even as late as the start of the civil wars, military organisation still had some mediaeval elements about 108 - the raising of levies by local magnates - and the company was to some extent simply an extension of this. Although the infantry later firmly embraced regimental organisation, it is noteworthy that the cavalry maintained a tradition of (practically) independent companies (troops) well into the civil war itself. Even in London, which by 1616 had formally re-established its four infantry regiments, the companies still seem to have been the primary focus. Each was recruited from a specific area, and although grouped into one of the regiments, the resulting cohesion nevertheless
was focused on the company rather than the regiment, highlighting the company as a social unit:
Indirect evidence of the importance of the company is
furnished by a set of London Trained Band colours described
in Surveys of the Armed and Trayned Companies in
London for Armada year 1588 and also 1599.
[19]
The descriptions are pseudo-heraldic in tone, and have
caused some confusion amongst those trying to reconstruct
them. [20] For present
purposes, however, it does not matter precisely what the flags
looked like. The descriptions are sufficient to enable the
conclusion that these flags were not organised into a system,
as defined earlier, but comprised sets and then only in virtue
of the fact that the companies were grouped into regiments.
One example should serve to illustrate the point. The flags of
the London North Regiment are, briefly, described as follows:
[21]
The interesting feature of this set of descriptions,
apart from the evident lack of system, is that some of the
companies appear to have carried similar (if not identical)
designs. Quite clearly the flags were those of the individual
companies, not of the regiment. In other words the company
served as the focus of organisational attention.
This emphasis on the company seemed to persist even
after the Trained Bands were reorganised into 6 'coloured'
regiments after February 1642 - the Colonels appointed to
command the regiments were aldermen (i.e. political
appointees) with no military experience, and responsibility
therefore naturally fell on the company captains (including the
staff officers - the lieutenant colonel and major).
Nevertheless, military practice in England was clearly
influenced by continental practice, especially with the return
of British professional soldiers from the Thirty Years War.
That the London Trained Bands and Auxiliaries re-organised
themselves into 'coloured' regiments seems to be evidence for
this. It is also evidence to support the claim that the London
Militia was able to 'keep up with fashion'.
Regiments with colour names (such as Red Regiment)
were very fashionable among the Protestant powers in
Continental Europe at the time. Richard Brzezinski
[22] explains that they
were first established by Count Mansfield in 1620 - 21 as
mercenary regiments for the German Protestants. The Swedes
established regiments with the same names (Red, Blue, Yellow
and Green Regiments) in 1625 - 27, and Gustavus Adolphus
increased their number in 1629 - 30. It is hard to imagine that
this did not influence the London Militia's choice of name for
their own regiments - particularly in view of their self image as
warriors in a Protestant cause, and the near deification of
Gustavus Adolphus as a Protestant hero at the time.
But there were undoubtedly other influences as well.
Continental regiments, for example, tended not to distinguish
their companies in the same systematic manner as the London
Trained Bands, that is by the systematic increase in the
numbers of a unifying device. Richard Brzezinski illustrates
some colours from Swedish regiments, and it seems that while
there may have been common patterns of design, these were
not systematically related to one another within regimental
sets. Indeed, as Dave Ryan remarked recently, it is quite
possible that the systematic nature of the London Trained Band colours may have been a uniquely English development. Keith Roberts argues that English military theory was
firmly based on (or largely influenced by) the Dutch style.
Even so, the theory allowed (or failed to prevent)
considerable 'flexibility' of interpretation, depending on
circumstances and, one supposes, the preferences of officers:
'[A]s a result the organisation of regiments varied somewhat.'
Roberts goes on to make the point that, although
heavily influenced by Dutch theory, English military
practitioners also experimented with their own innovations,
often responding directly to prevailing practical
circumstances. Furthermore, and this is a point worth
emphasising:
Richard Symonds provides some clear evidence to
support this. In his Notebook (Harl. Ms 986) he records
flags from the Royalist Oxford Army in 1644. Many of the
regiments have only a handful of colours, certainly fewer than
the notional 10 companies of an average regiment, and the
rest contain mixed sets - colours of different designs. In other
words, the evidence tends to favour diversity of practice, and
diversity of arrangements, rather than uniformity.
Much of the discussion about systems of
differentiation in infantry colours seems to rest on an
expectation of uniformity - that the same practices must have
been adopted univenially, at least within the same army.
It is also worth remembering that Continental practice
may have had an influence in this respect as well. If, as Dave
Ryan suggests, the systematic differentiation of companies
by their flags was a uniquely English invention, it is also
possible that different, more Continental, practices may also
have been used conjointly with the English pattern.
In terms of the present discussion, however, my
contention is that the doctrine that companies within English
regiments were in general systematically differentiated
one from another by the designs of their flags, has been
extrapolated too far. Furthermore, this doctrine is
inappropriately generalised from the relatively simple
geometric designs of the London Trained Band colours (after
1642) to other designs, notably stripes and gyrons.
It has been suggested that regiments carrying striped
flags, may have differentiated their companies simply by
increasing the number of stripes. I have four objections to this
contention. First there is no evidence whatsoever that there
was such a thing as a striped system. There are, of course,
examples of striped flags, but these on the whole tend to be
single isolated examples. Second, as already noted, it is quite
possible that in a regiment bearing striped colours, the
companies may have been distinguished, if at all, by the colour
of the stripes, not the number. Third, from what evidence
there is it is quite possible that isolated companies may have
carried striped flags, but not necessarily whole regiments.
Even had regiments carried several such flags, it is quite
possible that they had only one or two in any case. In other
words, the Isolated examples of striped flags (as shown, for
example, in the Turmile manuscript ff 135, 147 & 148 and
Fitzpayne-Fisher, illustration 44) may have been a true
representation of what was carried - no more, no less.
That is, examples simply of striped flags, but not
representatives of striped systems. Finally, the one feature of
stripes which is inescapable is that as the number increases, it
becomes more difficult to distinguish one design from
another. How could one, at a glance, tell the difference
between, say, six and seven stripes on a field, especially if the
flag is flying?
Furthermore, local practices were often adopted in the face of regulations - the
adoption of the 'Battleflag' among Confederate regiments is a good example. Closer to
our own time, the Second World War and the Vietnam at, to pick two major conflicts at
random, demonstrate the extent to which what is written in regulations and what is
adopted in practice often bear little relation to one other. It is surprising, therefore,
that the expectation of uniformity in practice during the English Civil Wars is so
persistent. Even had the authorities wanted to establish consistent practice across the
armies, it is highly unlikely they would have had the ability to enforce it.
In the case of gyrons, it has been suggested that the
companies were distinguished one from another by increasing
the number of divisions in the Field (see Figure 4). This is, of
course, quite plausible. But it is based on only one example -
and one that is not altogether 'pure' at that. Symonds
recorded the flags of Apsley's Regiment at Aldbourne Chase
on 10th April 1644.
He showed six flags in what has been taken to be 'the'
gyronny system. Unfortunately for this view the Major's
colour (with the wavy pile) appears to be out of colour
sequence. Whereas all the other colours are clearly black and
white, this flag has some cryptic notes next to it suggesting it
may be otherwise. In particular there is an indistinct g
under the flag, which Symonds uses to indicate red, and there
is also an o next to the wavy pile, suggesting yellow.
Thus, the major's flag in this 'sequence may, in point of fact,
have been red and yellow. In other words not part of the same
sequence at all.
A different version of a gyronny system, from the 16th
century, has been illustrated by Ian Heath (p 63). This was
taken from a picture map of the Earl of Essex's Army in
Ireland in 1599 (see Figure 5). What is most striking about
this set of flags is that it combines stripes and gyrons. There
are also some unusual patterns within the set - notably the
design with the large pile extending diagonally from the
hoist into the fly. And it is noteworthy that with the exception
of one flag all the others are parti-coloured into two or
four divisions of the field.
The set of flags in figure 5 raises interesting
possibilities. First these flags are similar in some ways to
Stuart Reid's speculative gyron system (published in
English Civil War Notes & Queries) in which he
suggests, inter alia, one flag in the sequence may have been
divided simply into two halves.
[28]
Second, the similarity of some of these designs to one
another is suggestive of the two flags recorded for the Duke
of York's regiment by Richard Symonds (Hart ms 986, f82v).
Symonds notes that this regiment had 'but 2 ensignes at ye
slighting of Reading'. Moreover, both flags appear to be
identical - perhaps they really were, or perhaps their colours
were rotated as in some of the flags in figure 5.
Finally, while it has generally been assumed that
descriptions of parti-coloured flags referred to stripes, this set
suggests other possibilities. A good example of this is the
following from 1639:
There is nothing in this description to suggest stripes,
or indeed any other kind of design. In similar vein, the
following has also been interpreted as a description of striped
flags:
In both cases, however, it is quite possible that the
designs were other than striped, which somewhat undermines
the contention that early Trained Band flags were inevitably
stripey. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the
last description is at least faintly reminiscent of an illustration,
apparently of a London colour (again!), from a 1641
broadsheet (Thomason Tracts, E669, F4 (32). See Figure 6).
None of this, of course, means that there were no
striped systems. Nor that stripes and gyrons were frequently
mixed. But my contention is that trying to reconstruct whole
sets of flags from isolated examples is a fruitless undertaking,
because practice was very variable.
So, what conclusions can be drawn from this? First, it
is clear that our ideas about English infantry flags used
beyond the confines of London have been disproportionately
influenced by London examples. Perhaps this is inevitable,
given the importance of London as the country's capital. But
we need to be cautious about taking London patterns as the
basis for practice elsewhere in the country. That said, neither
should we err too far in the opposite direction. Clearly there
was communication [31]
throughout the country, and practices (and fashions) will
have become known about sooner or later - although whether
they were adopted is another matter, and largely dependent
on prevailing local circumstances.
As to systems using stripes or gyrons as their
differentiating devices, again the evidence is patchy. From
16th century examples it is possible to conclude that there
may well have been no such thing as a striped system,
simply sets of flags with striped designs. And similarly so
with gyrons. The flags recorded for Apsley's regiment in 1644
give some indication that gyrons may have been used as part
of a systematic ordering of companies, but again the example
from the sixteenth century illustrates an entirely different
pattern from that exemplified by Apsley's colours, suggesting,
perhaps, that there was not a gyronny system, but possibly
several (including those that combined stripes and gyrons
into one set).
Taking into account other considerations, it is clear
that the organisation of regiments varied somewhat during the
civil war. It is also clear that regimental strengths varied
considerably, especially as the war progressed and, at least on
the Royalist side, attrition took its toll and field strengths
began to dwindle. Again with particular reference to the
Royalist experience, regiments were often strengthened with
soldiers from other regiments, which makes the possibility of
mixed stands of colours more likely - as perhaps illustrated by
Symonds in his Notebook. But, further than this,
sixteenth century practice seems to suggest that mixed stands
of colours were actually quite common, and that at that time
emphasis lay with the company rather than the regiment. On
the assumption that sixteenth century
practice may have been continued into the seventeenth
century it is therefore possible that mixed stands of colours
may also have been used during the civil wars, not because
of negative circumstances but as ordinary practice. Of course
this is speculative, but not without some evidence in support.
Whether regiments of the main English field armies, of
both sides, generally adopted the practice of systematic
differentiation of companies by their flags is moot. There is
evidence that some such practice wad used outside London,
but it is patchy and inconclusive. Certainly nothing should be
concluded from isolated examples of flags - these may or may
not have been part of a system. That is, simply
because an isolated flag seems to have a similar design to
other flags that are known to have been part of a system
means relatively little. Such isolated flags may have been just
that - isolated examples.
In the end, perhaps it is unreasonable to expect that
seventeenth century practice was more uniform than is even
possible in the twentieth century. Maybe it is more
reasonable to suppose that seventeenth century people did
what twentieth century people do - use what's to hand, and
improvise the rest. In the matter of flags, the evidence
suggests diversity of practice, not uniformity. And that, to
me, seems eminently reasonable - and very human.
When faced with having to make a choice, and having
little to go on, pragmatism seems to be the best option. The
patterns offered by the London Trained Bands are a good bet
if you want to create a systematic set of colours - nothing I
have said in the article precludes their use if you want to go
along with them. On the other hand you could, if you wanted
to, create an excitingly diverse set of flags - and I don't think
you would go far wrong. But it is worth bearing in mind that
as far as we can tell (which isn't very far) the New Model
Army may well have adopted the Venn pattern - for which
there is some oblique evidence (together with a lot of
imaginative hopefulness). For Royalist regiments in the later
civil war mixed (and small) sets seem to be more normal. Just
one point though - please don't use giant cavalry cornets for
infantry regiments, which were an unhappy feature of early re-
enactment regiments - when no-one knew any better and
which appear regretably to be creeping back into fashion.
1: Contemporary sources
Elton, R. Compleat Body of the Art Military. (1650).
2: Modern Sources
Brooke-Little, J. P. (1973) An Heraldic Alphabet. London: Macdonald.
I would like to thank Dave Ryan, who kept nagging me to
write this article, and without whose generous assistance I
would certainly not have had the resources I currently have at
my disposal to generate the necessary information. Any
peculiarities of logic, wild and unfounded speculations and
errors of fact are, of course, my fault - except the ones Dave
encouraged me in. Thanks also to All and Martha who read
earlier drafts of the article, even though they generally regard
the subject matter as being less interesting than used teabags.
Ede-Borrett, on the other hand, interprets the designs as horizontal stripes, which
is more in keeping with Tudor patterns (Fde-Borrett, 1997: 36 - 37). This all hinges on
the significance of the term 'pane' in the original source. Gush says that it is not an
heraldic term, and that therefore it is reasonably safe to understand it as referring to
stripes. Unfortunately he is not correct. Pane is a term sometimes used in heraldry to
refer to the small rectangles of colour which form the chequy and compony patterns
(Brooke-Little, 1973: 155), which means that these flags could very easily have been
checked. To be fair to Gush, however, he does consider this as a possibility (p 12).
More Systems
at its birth in the seventeenth century the regiment was not merely a new but a revolutionary constituent of European life. (p 12)
The system of recruiting men from a particular
area to form companies of the Trained Bandd was intended as a military measure to endure a quick muster in time of emergency but also led to the formation of strong loyalties, in the companies between the Trained Band soldiers and their officers, most of whom
also came from the dame area. The local association., were
orimally formed to improve military training but as they
were formed of men from the dame didtrict they also
developed a social connection amongst their members
(Roberts, 1987: 8)
Cornehill Coy. Black and white waves Broadstreete Coy. Black and white waves Collman Streete Coy. Blue and yellow waves Bassingshaw Coy. Orange-tawney and white waves Criplegate Coy. (1) Black and white waves Criplegate Coy. (2) Red and white waves Criplegate Coy. (3) Green and white panes St. Martin le Grand Coy. Black and white panes Aldersgate Coy. Green and yellow panes Cheapsyde Coy. Black and white panes
[23, 24]
[25]
In many respects the theory went by the board anyway as
some colonels, particularly on the Royalist side, never managed to
recruit a full regiment. In other regiments, however, the colonel's local
influence remained powerful and he was able to raise extra companies
or incorporate others from disbanded units into his own regiment.
[26]System and Uniformity
[27]But the
balance of probabilities suggests that this is highly unlikely,
and the circumstantial evidence suggests that it was not
attained even if people tried to achieve it (which is doubtful).
Stripes and Gyrons
[27] This expectation has
always puzzled me - particularly in the light of evidence from later, more industrialised,
conflicts. There is, for example, an abundance of photographic and documentary
evidence from the American Civil War which demonstrates, beyond dispute, that
despite regulations and the means to produce materiel to uniform standards, equipment
and practice still varied considerably. No-one has yet satisfactorily explained, for
example, why so many Confederate generals wore the uniforms of Confederate colonels.
And, despite clear regulations about uniforms, those actually worn by the combatants -
of both sides - were remarkable for their lack of conformity to regulation rather than
otherwise.
At right: Col. Apsley's Regiment of Foot The 3rd Regiment of Foot at the Aldbourne Chase Muster, Wednesday 10th April 1644, Source: Symands Notebook, Harl. Ms f79v.
ECW Col. Apsley's Regiment of Foot Flags: Large (27K)
At right: Earl of Essex Army, Ireland 1599, Source: Ian Heath, Armies of the 16th Century.
ECW Earl of Essex Army Flags: Large (49K)
"The King went forth [from Newcastle- upon - Tyne] to see 3
regiments of foote and a troupe of horse. The first regiment was the
Earl of Essex, devided into two squadrons and consisted 1500 men.
The 2 wad the Earl of Newport, devided likewise, and consisted 1500
men. The Collers of the first was orringe tawney and white. The 2
was green and white".(HMC Rutland Papers )
[29]
It is agreed that the Inhabitants of this Burrough
shal be divided into twoe Companies for ye Muster ... And
both to have the Towne Cullors of white and greene with
some little distinction to be knowen one from the other ...
(The Old Ligger Book, 21st June 1633. Newport mss. 45/2
f62V) [30]
Concluding Comments
Note for War Gamers and Re-enactorsReferences and Bibliography
Fitzpayne-Fisher, British Library Hari. Mss 1460.
Good News forall true hearted subjects. 1641. ThomasonTracts F669 f4 (32)
HMC Rutland Papers
Levert, W. The Ensignes of the Regiments of the Rebellious Citty of
London Both of Trayned Bands and Auxiliaries. September 1643 National Army
Museum Ms 6807-53.
Lucas, J. London in Armes Displayed. 1647. British Library Add. Mss. 14308.
Order to Alexander Venner, Public Records Office, State Papers, SP28/3/77.
Symonds, R. Notebook. British Library Hari. Mss 986.
Symonds, R. Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army. British Library, Hari. Mss.,
939, 911, 944; Add. Mss. 17062. Printed by the Camden Society 1859. The Old
Ligger Book. Newport Mss. 45/2
Turmile, J. The Colours or standards and armorial bearings of certain officers in
the parliament army 1642 and a list of the colours taken by the Earl of Essex general
of the parliament army at Udgehill oct. 1642 and also of the colours taken by Sir
Thomas Fairfax General of the parliament Army at Knaseby June 14 1645. Dr. Williams
Library, Ms Modern Folio 7. (Photographic copy at National Army Museum, ref. NP
7373).
Venn, T Military Observations or the Tacticke put into Practice. (1672).
Brzezinski, R. (1991) The Army ofGustavus Adolphus - 1: Infantry. London: Osprey.
Dillon, H. A. (1890) 'On a MS list of officers of the London Trained Bands in
1643'. Archaeologia, 52, 1, 129 - 144.
Ede-Borrett, S. (Undated) 'The colours of Prince Rupert's Blew Regiment of
Foot'. English Civil War Notes & Queries, 14, 5 - 7.
Ede-Borrett, S. (1997) Ensignes of the English Civil Wars. Pontefract: Gosling Press.
Firth, C. H. (1962) Cromwell's Army. London: Methuen.
Firth, C. H., & Davies, G. (1940) A Regimental History of Cromwell's Army.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Gush, G. (1976) 'The Trained Bands of London & their Standards in the reign of
Elizabeth I'. Arquebusier: The Journal of the Pike and Shot Society, IV, I (Jan/Feb
1976) 10 - 14.
Heath, I. (1997) Armies of the Sixteenth Century. St. Peter Port: Foundry Books.
Keegan, J. (1993) A History of Warfare. London: Hutchinson.
Leslie, J. (1925) 'A survey, or muster, of the Armed and Trayned Companies in
London, 1588 and 1599'. Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, IV, 16,62.
Matthews, J. (Undated) 'The colours of Prince Rupert's Regiment of Foot: A
reconstruction'. English Civil War Notes & Queries, 17, 6.
Peachey, S., & Prince, L. (1991) ECW Flags & Colours: I - The English Foot.
Leigh-on-Sea: Partizan Press.
Peachey, S., & Turton, A. (1987) Old Robin's Foot. Leigh-on-Sea: Partizan Press.
Roberts, K. (1987) London & Liberty: Ensigns of the London Trained Bands. Leigh-on-Sea: Partizan Press.
Roberts, K. (1989) Soldiers of the English Civil War (1): Infantry. London: Osprey.
Reid, S. (Undated) '1639 Snippets'. English Civil War Notes & Queries, 9, 19.
Reid, S. (Undated) 'Colours and Cornets'. English Civil War Notes & Queries, 16, 11.
Acknowledgements
Notes
[16]
John Keegan, A History of Warfare.
[17]Ian Heath Armies.
[18] Interestingly the term 'colours', used
to refer to military flags, seems also to reflect the transition from mediaeval to modern.
Although from the 1530s heraldry had ceased to have the battlefield precedence it
once had, ordinances issued in 1562 demonstrated that military flags -ere still
embedded within heraldic practice - 100 men expected to serve under a standard, and
50 under a pennon or guidon. Nonheraldic coloured flags seem to have developed
with the advent of non armigerous captains, who, of course, had no armorial devices
to display, hence the collective term 'colours' (Ian Heath op cit., p 61).
[19] Heath, Armies, p 62.
See also Gush (1976), Leslie (1925) and Fde-Borrett (1997).
[20] 1 am not trying to be
rude to other commentators here. The descriptions are, in some respects, 'potty', bearing
all the hallmarks of someone who wanted to sound technical, but without the requisite
knowledge. The flags have generally been interpreted as striped in appearance, which is
reasonable given the prevalence of striped flags during the sixteenth century. But, as is
so often the case, there is room for interpretation. Leslie (1925) interprets the designs as
bearing a close resemblance to heraldic banners. Gush draws from sixteenth and
seventeenth century models to produce patterns more closely in line with common
practice in these periods. What is surprising, however, is that he portrays the stripes as
vertical (Gush, 1976: 13 - 14).
[21] These descriptions are taken from Gush (1976), page 12. It is also instructive to look at the whole set of descriptions that Gush reports.
[22] Pichard Brzezinskil The Army of Gustavus Adolphus, pp 11-13.
[23] Over the phone.
[24] It may also be significant that regiments of the main English field armies did not follow the practice of colour names, instead adopting and maintaining the tradition of calling themselves after their colonels - a practice which persisted into the regular armies of the 19th century (or even later if you count units such as Wingate's Chindits).
[25] Keith Roberts Soldiers of the English Civil War (1): Infantry, p 14.
[26] Keith Roberts Soldiers, p 15.
[28] Stuart Reid, 'Colours and Cornets', English Civil War Notes - Queries, 16, 11.
[29] Stuart Reid '1639 Snippets', English Civil War Notes - Queries, 9, 19.
[30] This quotation was passed on to me by Roger Emmerson.
[31] Indeed, if Samuel Luke is to be
believed several of the good merchants of London (Parliamentarian loyalists to a
man) were loath to let the small matter of warfare interfere with business. Luke's
scouts reported on several occasions that consignments of goods from London were
mysteriously finding their way to Oxford via a network of staging posts (The
Journal of Sir Samuel Luke, trans., and ed., by I.G. Philip).
Back to English Civil War Times No. 54 Table of Contents
Back to English Civil War Times List of Issues
Back to Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 by Partizan Press
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com