Historical Record of the Thirty-fourth, or the Cumberland Regiment of Foot containing an account of the formation of the regiment in 1702 and of its subsequent — Context and Discussion

(0 User reviews)   302
Cannon, Richard, 1779-1865 Project Gutenberg 2021 Not confirmed
Great Britain. Army -- History; Great Britain. Army. Infantry. 34th Regiment (Cumberland) Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 35,284
Reading time 154 min
Text sections 25

For Historical Record of the Thirty-fourth, or the Cumberland Regiment of Foot containing an account of the formation of the regiment in 1702 and of its subsequent — Context and Discussion, the stored edition analysis reports 35,284 words, 2 hr 34 min estimated reading time, and 25 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 29.3 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Great Britain. Army -- History,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Richard Cannon's regimental history of the 34th Foot from 1702 to 1844, compiled from official records and despatches, with a focus on battle narratives, troop movements, and the regiment's role in the Peninsular War.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.8/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

lubs, others with battle-axes and javelins.

The feudal troops established by William the Conqueror consisted (as already stated in the Introduction to the Cavalry) almost entirely of horse; but when the warlike barons and knights, with their trains of tenants and vassals, took the field, a proportion of men appeared on foot, and, although these were of inferior degree, they proved stout-hearted Britons of stanch fidelity. When stipendiary troops were employed, infantry always constituted a considerable portion of the military force; and this _arme_ has since acquired, in every quarter of the globe, a celebrity never exceeded by the armies of any nation at any period.

The weapons carried by the infantry, during the several reigns succeeding the Conquest, were bows and arrows, half-pikes, lances, halberds, various kinds of battle-axes, swords, and daggers. Armour was worn on the head and body, and in course of time the practice became general for military men to be so completely cased in steel, that it was almost impossible to slay them.

The introduction of the use of gunpowder in the destructive purposes of war, in the early part of the fourteenth century, produced a change in the arms and equipment of the infantry-soldier. Bows and arrows gave place to various kinds of fire-arms, but British archers continued formidable adversaries; and, owing to the inconvenient construction and imperfect bore of the fire-arms when first introduced, a body of men, well trained in the use of the bow from their youth, was considered a valuable acquisition to every army, even as late as the sixteenth century.

During a great part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth each company of infantry usually consisted of men armed five different ways; in every hundred men forty were “_men-at-arms_,” and sixty “_shot_;” the “men-at-arms” were ten halberdiers, or battle-axe men, and thirty pikemen; and the “shot” were twenty archers, twenty musketeers, and twenty harquebusiers, and each man carried, besides his principal weapon, a sword and dagger.

Companies of infantry varied at this period in numbers from 150 to 300 men; each company had a colour or ensign, and the mode of formation recommended by an English military writer (Sir John Smithe) in 1590 was:--the colour in the centre of the company guarded by the halberdiers; the pikemen in equal proportions, on each flank of the halberdiers: half the musketeers on each flank of the pikes; half the archers on each flank of the musketeers, and the harquebusiers (whose arms were much lighter than the muskets then in use) in equal proportions on each flank of the company for skirmishing.[1] It was customary to unite a number of companies into one body, called a REGIMENT, which frequently amounted to three thousand men: but each company continued to carry a colour. Numerous improvements were eventually introduced in the construction of fire-arms, and, it having been found impossible to make armour proof against the muskets then in use (which carried a very heavy ball) without its being too weighty for the soldier, armour was gradually laid aside by the infantry in the seventeenth century: bows and arrows also fell into disuse, and the infantry were reduced to two classes, viz.: _musketeers_, armed with matchlock muskets, swords, and daggers; and _pikemen_, armed with pikes from fourteen to eighteen feet long, and swords.

In the early part of the seventeenth century Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, reduced the strength of regiments to 1000 men. He caused the gunpowder, which had heretofore been carried in flasks, or in small wooden bandoliers, each containing a charge, to be made up into cartridges, and carried in pouches; and he formed each regiment into two wings of musketeers, and a centre division of pikemen. He also adopted the practice of forming four regiments into a brigade; and the number of colours was afterwards reduced to three in each regiment. He formed his columns so compactly that his infantry could resist the charge of the celebrated Polish horsemen and Austrian cuirassiers; and his armies became the admiration of other nations. His mode of formation was copied by the English, French, and other European states; but so great was the prejudice in favour of ancient customs, that all his improvements were not adopted until near a century afterwards.

In 1664 King Charles II. raised a corps for sea-service, styled the Admiral’s regiment. In 1678 each company of 100 men usually consisted of 30 pikemen, 60 musketeers, and 10 men armed with light firelocks. In this year the King added a company of men armed with hand grenades to each of the old British regiments, which was designated the “grenadier company.” Daggers were so contrived as to fit in the muzzles of the muskets, and bayonets similar to those at present in use were adopted about twenty years afterwards.

Cannon's narrative voice is that of a compiler working from official despatches and general orders, not a participant or a literary historian. The prose is functional and declarative, built around dates, place names, and unit designations. A typical sentence might read: 'In January, 1812, the siege of Ciudad Rodrigo was undertaken, and the Thirty-fourth and other corps, under Sir Rowland Hill, made a movement to co-operate in covering the troops employed in this enterprise.' The rhythm is steady, almost metronomic, until moments of action, when the syntax tightens and verbs become more forceful: 'the Twenty-eighth and Thirty-fourth Foot cut off the retreat of the French infantry by the main road.'

The Documentary Frame

The record opens with a General Order from 1836, commanding that an account of every regiment's services be published under the Adjutant-General's superintendence. This bureaucratic origin shapes the entire work. Cannon does not offer personal reflections; he presents evidence: the period and circumstances of formation, stations, battles, sieges, names of killed and wounded, and badges. The language is that of a ledger. When he quotes Sir Rowland Hill's despatch—'No praise of mine can do full justice to their admirable conduct'—the shift to direct speech is striking. It is one of the few moments where a human voice breaks through the catalogue of movements. The reader should note how the official frame constrains the narrative: the regiment is always an object of record, never a subject with interiority.

Pace and the Set-Piece Action

The most vivid passage describes the pursuit of French troops up a 'steep mountain by an unfrequented path.' Here the prose accelerates: the British Foot 'passed a ploughed field at a running pace, and ascended the difficult precipice in pursuit, chasing the enemy among the rugged heights.' The repetition of 'pursuit' and 'chasing' creates a sense of relentless forward motion. This is the only extended action sequence in the excerpts; elsewhere, the narrative moves at a deliberate, reportorial pace, listing marches and countermarches. The contrast suggests that Cannon reserved his most energetic prose for moments of direct engagement. The reader might consider how this uneven pace reflects the priorities of the official record: steady service is noted, but glory is dramatized.

The Regiment as a Collective Protagonist

Cannon rarely names individual soldiers. The Thirty-fourth is the subject of almost every sentence: 'the Thirty-fourth formed part of the covering army,' 'the battalion was employed in an enterprise.' Even when Lieutenant-Colonel Fenwick's conduct is 'particularly commanded,' the focus remains on the unit. This collective voice is reinforced by the constant use of the definite article—'the Thirty-fourth'—as if the regiment were a single entity moving through history. The effect is impersonal but not cold; it conveys a sense of institutional continuity. The reader should note how this narrative choice aligns with the book's purpose: to create a usable past for the regiment itself, not to celebrate individuals. The absence of personal anecdote is a deliberate feature of the genre.

This is a work of official memory, not of literary ambition. The reader who approaches it expecting narrative arc or character development will be disappointed. But for those interested in the mechanics of regimental history—how a unit is constructed in text through dates, despatches, and the steady accumulation of place names—Cannon's record offers a clear example of the genre. Pay attention to the footnotes, which sometimes contain the most specific details, and to the way the prose shifts between the administrative and the martial. The book is best read as a primary source for the study of military historiography.

That rainy afternoon with the Cumberland Regiment’s Peninsula battles—so many spartan, numbered movements—left me restless for something wilder. I kept thinking about resistance, about how a few stubborn fighters shape an empire’s fate. Then I stumbled upon Schamyl’s Caucasus. The fog outside softened, and his lonely defiance felt like a quieter echo of those old redcoats. Life of Schamyl And Narrative of the Circassian War of Independence Against Russia — Reading Companion

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

How will you remember this book?

Save your reaction, strongest insight, and memorable passage.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Where are you in your reading?

2

How much did you enjoy the reading experience?

3

How likely are you to recommend this book?

4

How demanding did the text feel?

Related eBooks