Historical Record of the Thirty-sixth, or the Herefordshire Regiment of Foot: containing an account of the formation of the regiment in 1701, and of its subsequent — Key Ideas to Explore

(0 User reviews)   924
Cannon, Richard, 1779-1865 Project Gutenberg 2021 Not confirmed
Great Britain. Army. Regiment of Foot, 36th -- History; Great Britain. Army. Herefordshire Light Infantry -- History Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 49,972
Reading time 218 min
Text sections 24

Before opening Historical Record of the Thirty-sixth, or the Herefordshire Regiment of Foot: containing an account of the formation of the regiment in 1701, and of its subsequent — Key Ideas to Explore, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 49,972 words, 3 hr 38 min estimated reading time, and 24 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 25.7 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. Regiment of Foot, 36th -- History,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Richard Cannon's regimental history documents the 36th Foot from 1701 to 1852, using official orders, battle accounts, and troop movements. The prose is factual, with precise dates and locations, and includes vivid details such as tigers near Pondicherry and the regiment's role in rescuing a French governor from mutinous soldiers.
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

clubs, 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.

Richard Cannon's Historical Record of the Thirty-sixth, or the Herefordshire Regiment of Foot opens with a royal command: King William IV ordered that each regiment's services be published under the Adjutant-General's supervision. This directive shapes the entire work, which proceeds as a chronological ledger of the regiment's movements, engagements, and casualties from 1701 to 1852. The prose is deliberately official, favoring precise dates, place names, and administrative details over narrative flourish. Yet within this framework, Cannon occasionally includes striking particulars—such as the tigers that made night travel impossible near Pondicherry—that reveal the human and environmental realities behind the military record.

Official Language and Regimental Identity

Cannon's diction is consistently that of a staff officer: he writes of 'completing the establishment,' 'drafting' men, and 'proceeding' to stations. The text is punctuated by reproduced general orders, which lend an air of documentary authority. For instance, the 1836 order specifies that the record must include 'the Period and Circumstances of the Original Formation' and 'the Names of the Officers ... Killed or Wounded.' This bureaucratic voice dominates, but it also defines the regiment's identity through official recognition—such as the 'highly complimentary' orders from Madras in 1798, which are reproduced in the appendix. The reader is thus constantly reminded that the regiment's value is measured by its place in a larger administrative and military hierarchy.

Precision and Its Limits in Battle Narratives

Cannon's battle accounts are terse and factual, often reducing complex actions to a single sentence. The siege of Pondicherry in 1793, for example, is described in a few paragraphs: the army encamped in a wood, tigers menaced the natives, a white flag was displayed, and then French soldiers 'fired two shells, which killed several men.' The narrative does not linger on tactics or emotions; it reports events as they occurred. This restraint can be frustrating for a reader seeking dramatic detail, but it also conveys the regiment's experience as a series of discrete, often mundane tasks—marching, encamping, besieging—interrupted by moments of violence. The record's value lies in its accumulation of such precise, unadorned observations.

Unexpected Details: Tigers, Mutiny, and Rescue

Amid the dry chronology, Cannon includes vivid, almost novelistic details. During the Pondicherry siege, he notes that tigers were 'so numerous that the natives durst not travel in the night.' Later, French soldiers 'embraced democratical principles' and became 'particularly insubordinate,' breaking into houses and threatening to hang their governor. The British soldiers then 'rushed into the town, overpowered the insurgents, rescued the Governor, and preserved the inhabitants.' This episode is remarkable for its specificity and drama, standing out against the surrounding lists of stations and drafts. It suggests that Cannon, while bound by official constraints, occasionally allowed himself to record the extraordinary—perhaps because it reflected well on the regiment's discipline and humanity.

Structure as a Reflection of Military Routine

The book's structure mirrors the regiment's own rhythm: year by year, station by station. Entries often begin with 'During the year 18XX the regiment was stationed at...' and then note any movements or actions. This repetitive pattern can feel monotonous, but it accurately represents the long periods of garrison duty that characterized much of the regiment's service. The reader experiences the same waiting and routine that the soldiers did. When action occurs—a siege, a march, a draft—it registers as a disruption. Cannon's structure thus becomes a rhetorical device, emphasizing the patience and endurance required of a professional army. The appendix, with its reproduced orders and lists, reinforces this sense of a life governed by paperwork and command.

Cannon's record is best approached as a primary source rather than a narrative history. Readers interested in the texture of military life in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries will find value in its precise dates, place names, and occasional vivid details. The work rewards those who read between the lines, noticing what is included—such as the rescue at Pondicherry—and what is omitted, such as the soldiers' own voices. It is a document of institutional memory, shaped by the very bureaucracy it describes.

The way the Herefordshire regiment’s daily records quietly hold the heat of Pondicherry—tigers, mutinies, a rescued governor—reminded me of that long, slow feeling you get when history isn’t about events but about time passing. The Thirty Years War — Volume 03 — A Closer Reading stays with you like that too, a patient weight, the echo of ordinary days inside a larger ruin.

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

What is your current status with this title?

2

Was reading this book enjoyable?

3

Would you recommend this book to another reader?

4

Did the language feel accessible?

Related eBooks