Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:43:58 -0700 (PDT) From: loyalist-lake-history@googlegroups.com John Hogle (husband of Elizabeth Lake) - Ensign or Captain? Wesley Johnston : Apr 13 12:11AM I have found the petition of John Hogle's son. Hogle was the husband of Elizabeth Lake. He was killed at the Battle of Bennington. James Parrot's roster of the company shows himself as Lt. and Hogle as an Ensign under his command. However, all the testimonials refer to him as Capt. John Hogle -- INCLUDING JAMES PARROT'S!! https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS54-GD76?view=fullText&keywords=John%20Hogle%2CBennington%2CCanada%2CCANADA&lang=en&groupId=M9JP-QXH Of the different rosters of James Parrot's company, I have been carrying the one in his papers in Ottawa as the definitive list, but that is the list showing John Hogle as an Ensign under James Parrot's command. Yet, Parrot himself in his 1811 testimony explicitly states Hogle "was appointed a Captain, and served as such, till he was killed at the battle of Bennington". The roster was clearly an after-the-fact roster, though it was very thorough so that it was probably made within a few years after 1777. Does it trump the later 1811 testimony? I don't know. Craig Kanalley : Apr 12 08:36PM -0400 I'll be honest, I don't know a lot about the different ranks, so had to ask ChatGPT for some help (see below). Maybe posthumously they named him a captain out of respect? -   In British military loyalist units during the American Revolutionary War, ranks like Captain, Lieutenant, and Ensign followed the traditional British Army hierarchy, though there could be some variation in provincial or loyalist corps. Here's the difference between them: 1. Captain - Role: Commanded a company of soldiers (typically about 50-100 men). Responsibilities: Leadership, discipline, tactical decisions, and coordination with other officers. Status: Senior to both lieutenant and ensign. Often came from the gentry or wealthy families, sometimes bought their commissions. 2. Lieutenant - Role: Second-in-command within a company, under the captain. Responsibilities: Assisted the captain, could lead a platoon or detachment, stepped in if the captain was absent or incapacitated. Status: Junior officer, above ensign but below captain.   3. Ensign - Role: Junior-most commissioned officer, often very young and inexperienced. Traditional Duty: Carried the company's colors (flag) in battle - a position of honor but also high risk. Responsibilities: Learning military leadership, assisting senior officers, and serving as a sort of officer-in-training. Status: Lowest officer rank. In cavalry units, this role was called a cornet instead. In Loyalist Units: These ranks were often filled by local loyalists. Though the British Army was formal, loyalist or provincial units sometimes had more flexible recruitment and promotion standards. Commissions could be awarded based on loyalty, local influence, or prior service, not just wealth or class.   Craig Kanalley : Apr 12 08:40PM -0400 More food for thought on this exact case- That's a fascinating discrepancy, and it actually touches on some very common issues with Revolutionary War and Loyalist records-especially around provincial ranks, informal appointments, and the chaotic nature of war. Here's a breakdown of what could be going on with John Hogle's conflicting titles: ------------------------------ 1. Rank vs. Command: He May Have Been Acting as Captain Even if Hogle was officially recorded as an Ensign, he may have functioned as a Captain-particularly if he led men in the field. Casualties, desertions, or reorganizations often forced junior officers to take command. James Parrot's testimony in 1811 that Hogle “was appointed a Captain” could reflect what happened in practice, especially if there was no time or administrative process to formalize the promotion. Military records (like rosters) often lagged behind or never fully reflected field promotions, especially for Loyalist units where documentation was sparse or improvised. ------------------------------ 2. Formal vs. Provincial vs. Honorary Titles In the Loyalist/provincial context: Commissions could be issued formally by the British command, or “Appointed” informally by officers in the field or local committees. Some individuals were referred to by honorifics (e.g., “Captain”) even without formal commissions-especially after their death, as a form of respect or recognition. So, Parrot and others may have called Hogle “Captain” because he was acting as one, or had been promised a captaincy before being killed at Bennington. ------------------------------ 3. The Roster May Have Been Retroactively Organized You mentioned that the roster was created after the fact, likely within a few years. It may have been organized according to official commissions or the British military structure-not the on-the-ground reality. That means: Hogle might have still been officially listed as Ensign, even if he was acting Captain at Bennington. The roster could have been trying to reflect paper rank, while Parrot's 1811 statement reflected actual service. ------------------------------ 4. Testimonies Tend to Elevate the Deceased   It's also possible that: Later testimonies-including Parrot's-were written to help Hogle's family (e.g., for land claims or petitions). Using “Captain” added weight to his status and sacrifice. This doesn't necessarily make it dishonest-it reflects how communities honored their fallen. ------------------------------ So Which Source “Trumps” the Other? It depends on what you're trying to establish: For formal rank, the roster is probably more accurate. For field role, Parrot's testimony and other testimonials may better reflect reality. For genealogical and historical interpretation, both are important, and the discrepancy itself tells a deeper story-of improvisation, loss, and how memory was shaped.