Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Why Ohio? Prelude to the French and Indian War

Author's Note: This is the first in a series of posts that I plan on making taking an in-depth look at the Economic, Political, Religious, and Social factors that lead up to the start of the French and Indian War in North America. 

Historic Background
Conflict in the Ohio Valley
In the Ohio valley, the Ohio Hopewellian Native American society and culture was phased out over a period of several centuries as the agrarian culture of the succeeding Fort Ancient[1] Native American society took hold around 1,000 CE.  Growing maize and living in semi-permanent villages the Fort Ancient Native American society flourished until the mid to late 17th Century.   

Further to the east the Monongahela Native American[2] society took root in the late 11th century in what is modern Western Pennsylvania.   An agrarian society based around Maize the Monongahela culture they built smaller, less organized, temporary villages and built less permanent structures than their western neighbors.    Not as numerous as the Fort Ancient Native Americans the Monongahela Society thrived until the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

Scholars believe both the Fort Ancient and the Monongahela societies were decimated by waves of infectious diseases brought by European Settlers and Traders.   The first noted decline for the Fort Ancient society begins in roughly 1625 CE, most likely through their contact and trade with the Mississippian Hopewell Native Americans who were trading with both French and Spanish traders alike.    The more isolated Monongahela culture did not start seeing declines until the turn of the 18th century after the arrival of European Traders from Canada and New England.

The agrarian methods of both tribes of clearing fields and moving villages and clearing more fields created large swaths of unused pristine farmland in the Ohio Valley.   This was noted by the European traders and explores began mapping the Ohio Valley in the 1730’s and 1740’s.

The Changing Native America Tribes
With pressure from European Settlers along the Saint Lawrence Seaway and in New England a few Eastern Woodland Tribes began migrating west into the Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Valley.    The Wyandots, Erie, Seneca and Delaware tribes are examples of the tribes or offshoot of tribes that migrated into the region.  The decimated tribes in the region began to coalesce into new tribes.  The Miami and Shawnee tribes are two such tribes that formed during this period.

In comparison to other localized regions in North America even with the formation of new tribes and the migrations into the Ohio Valley the region was vastly under populated.    Pristine farmlands, large swaths of untamed wilderness could easily have supported four or five times the population of the Native American Tribes that were living in the Ohio Valley and Western Pennsylvania in the mid-18th Century.

Trading Partners
In the Ohio Valley, the Native American Indian tribes of the western Haudenosaunee[3] and the smaller satellite tribes under their protection changed their preference from supporting and trading with the French to the English over the course of the several years in the mid 1740’s.   In theory, the Haudenosaunee[4] were neutral coalition of tribes.   Prior to this period of transition, the western Haudenosaunee tribes including the Seneca and Onondagas, the smaller satellite tribes of the Mingos and Wyandots, along with independent tribes of the Shawnee and Miami had favored trade with the French through a series of agreements dating back nearly fifty years.  

French participation in the War of Austrian Succession, including King George’s War (1740-1748) in North America had depleted France’s ability to provide the necessary trade goods to the Native American Indian Tribes in the Ohio Valley.   This failure can be linked to the lack of the essential Infrastructure, traders, and manufacturing in New France (Canada and Louisiana) as well as the supply of finished goods from Metropolitan France. 

The void in the trade between the French and Native North America tribes provided an opening for the British Colonies, specifically Pennsylvania and Virginia, to expand their trade with the Native Indian Tribes.   Enterprising men like George Croghan and Peter Tustee became accredited and licensed traders by 1747 with large trading networks in the Ohio Valley.   After beginning their careers as agents for Edward Shippen’s company out of Philadelphia these men forged successful trading corporations within the Ohio Valley in the late 1740’s.

George Croghan’s company built six fortified trading posts in the Ohio Valley in the later stages of the 1740’s.   Built along the Miami, Monongahela, Sandusky, Ohio, Walsh and Cuyahoga rivers these fortified trading posts represented the largest threat and continued disruption of French Claims in the Ohio Valley.

European Policy
The push for trade with the Native American tribes in the Ohio Valley was one small piece of the Mercantilism economic policies of both Britain and France.   The Mercantilism economic policies placed in ever increasing value upon the Ohio Valley for very different reasons.   

Mercantilism was a regulated economic system that promoted the accumulation of monetary reserves by the central government by partnering with corporations to limit trade and manufacturing in the colonial areas of the respective empires.    Mercantilism goes beyond taxation and tariffs but makes the Crown a majority partner in many or most corporations involved in trade throughout the Colonies.

Mercantilism has many tenants, for the American Colonies of Britain and France two of the more important tenants include agrarian centric society and self-sufficiency.   

The congregation of potential workers in urban centers drives down the cost of employment under the auspices of supply and demand of the work force.   In this scenario when the potential work force is larger than the required or needed positions than employee salaries decrease.   These lower salaries lead to companies lowering the cost of their finish products.   Under Mercantilism, this phenomenon is addressed two-fold.    In the American Colonies both Britain and France put into place strict manufacturing laws limiting the ability of the Colonies from manufacturing the finish product as well as agrarian centric policies that place a premium on numerous smaller villages and towns over larger urban centers.  

The Governments of England and France expected that their colonies in North America would be self-sufficient.    Under this view the individual colonies would be required to provide enough food, clothing and shelter to keep the colonists feed, clothed and housed which are the basic tenants or foundation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.    Higher levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy would be provided central governments and corporations in metropolitan Europe. 

The Ohio Company of Virginia
The population of the British Colonies in New England exploded from 100,000 in 1700 to 300,000 in 1750.   This population growth swelled the populations of the Urban Centers in New England.  The stress on the agrarian centric policies in this colonial world forced the frontier of the Atlantic Coast Colonies further inland.    These policies of expansion conflicted with the Native American Indian Tribes view of property.    In 1744 the Treaty of Lancaster was signed between the Haudenosaunee and the Colonies of Virginia and Maryland paving the way for settlement Shenandoah Valley in exchange for protecting the hunting grounds in the Ohio Valley.

Between 1744 and 1750 the population of New England alone increased by 50,000 with much of that growth centered on the Region between Boston, New York and Philadelphia.   To the Governors of Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts Bay it was not about relocating the new settlers somewhere else in the American Colonies but somewhere else in their colony.   Massachusetts Bay pushed north into their claims in Maine and Acadia, New York up the Hudson Valley and Pennsylvania west across the Appalachian Mountains into the Ohio Valley.

In 1749 the Ohio Company of Virginia was granted a land claim of 200,000 acres of land between the Ohio, Kanawha and the Monongahela Rivers southwest of modern-day Pittsburg.  This land grant was contingent on the Ohio Company settling 100 Families in the land grant over the next seven years.   An additional 300,000 acres would be granted upon successful completion of the first grant.  
The Ohio Company of Virginia hired Thomas Cresap, a successful frontier trader to identify locations for settlement.   Under his supervision forts were constructed at Willis Creek (Cumberland Maryland) and Redstone (Brownsville Pennsylvania) in 1750.    Later that year the Ohio Company of Virginia also hired Christopher Gist, another successful frontier tradesman to select additional locations.   Christopher Gist would become more widely known as the guide who accompanied George Washington in 1753.   

The Loyal Company of Virginia was another land speculation company also seeking a Land Grant from the Crown in 1749.   The company’s expedition in 1750 established a claim in what is modern Kentucky I Barbourville.

Construction of settlements west of the Allegany Mountains, specifically at Redstone put the Ohio Company of Virginia in “violation” of the Lancaster Treaty of 1744.   Tensions between the Native America tribes and the settlers were extremely high at the time.    The Shawnee Indian Tribe most notably changed it preference back to France as it sought French aid in driving out the English settlers.

The Breadbasket of New France
The rugged terrain and climate of Eastern Canada did not make for easy farming in the early eighteenth century.   In this wooded and rocky terrain, it took a team of four able bodied men one year to clear an acre of land for farming.  This difficultly of clearing and preparing farmland made the entire process of raising enough food for even the minimal population of French Settlements in Canada problematic.   A single bad year of crops could devastate the population.

In the mid to late 1740’s the Colonial Government of New France and that of France concluded that methods of preparing land in Canada for farming would never meet the demands of the growing population.   A new location for growing crops, primarily wheat, would need to be found.     By 1747 the Colonial Government in Canada and Imperial Government in Paris had settled on Pays des Illinois or Upper Louisiana.    It was estimated that four able bodied men would be able to clear four to six acres of usable farmland per year in Pays de Illinois.   The commandant of Fort De Chartes, Major Jean-Gaspard de Bertet de la Clue, nominally the Military Governor of Pays des Illinois was ordered to pursue agricultural interests rather than mining interests that had been central to settlement of Pays des Illinois[i].    

The challenge in 1747 would be moving the grains from Pays de Illinois to Montreal or other locations in Canada.     Much to the irritation of the Government of Canada it was determined in Metropolitan France the easiest solution was an “over land” transit of the farm goods from Fort de Chartes to the Shores of Lake Erie near modern day Buffalo, New York, through the Ohio Valley as opposed to moving the product over land to Detroit than via ship to ports on the eastern shores.  

The Governor of Canada in 1747, Roland-Michel Barrin de La Galissonière, began the process of planning the route through the Ohio Valley.   As part of the preparations de La Galissonière ordered Captain Pierre Joseph Céloron de Blainville to strengthen France’s claim to the Ohio Valley with a military expedition.    The ‘Lead Plate’ Expedition left Montreal in June 1749 traveling through the Ohio Valley for five months before returning to Montreal.

During the period of time between 1749 and 1751 the Governor of Canada, Jacques-Pierre de Taffanel de la Jonquière, chose the terminus of Ohio Valley route in modern-day Erie Pennsylvania.  The route into the central Ohio Valley from Erie would coincide with the Venango Path used by the Native American Indians.    Plans were put into place to begin construction of a series of French Forts from Erie to Pittsburg along the Venango Trail and down the Ohio River to its conjunction with the Mississippi. 

Fort Sandoské
The exact date of the attack of Fort Sandoske’[5]  is not known.  At some point between the Autumn of 1749 and the Spring of 1750 French Forces including soldiers from the Compagnies Franches de la Marine stationed in Detroit along with Canadian Militia and Native America Indians from modern day Michigan attacked and destroyed George Croghan’s trading forton Lake Erie.     The destroyed trading post was rebuilt by the French Forces and officially named Fort Sandoské.

The attack marked the beginning of low intensity conflict between the two empires in the Ohio Valley which escalates into the series of international wars generally referred to as the Seven Years’ War.

Father le Loutre’s War
In Acadia and Nova Scotia another low intensity conflict was occurring between Britain and France in 1749.    The French Jesuit Missionary Father le Loutre lead a guerilla war against the British forces in the region.   The French Forces included Acadian Militia, Mi’Kmaq Indians and a Few French soldiers.  


[1] The Fort Ancient society is named for the archeological site at Fort Ancient, Ohio.
[2] The Monongahela society is named for archeological sites initially found along the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania.
[3] The Haudenosaunee were known to the English world as the Iroquois Confederation.
[4] The eastern Haudenosaunee tribes of upstate New York and New England, particularly the Mohawk, unlike the western tribes, had fought alongside of the English forces against France in New England and Acadia and generally supported the English during this period.   

[5] There is not consensus on the name of George Croghan’s Trading Post it is generally referred to by the later French name of Fort Sandoske’.



[i] Lives of Fort de Chartres: Commandants, Soldiers, and Civilians in French Illinois, 1720–1770 (Shawnee Books)

Focus of Projects for 2018

As January comes to a close, holy cow we are already a month into 2018, it is time to look at the projects I will be working on for the rest of the year.

Wars of the First Triumvirate

The First Triumvirate was composed of Julius Caesar, Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) and Marcus Licinius Crassus. When Crassus died after the battle of Carrhae civil war broke out between Caesar and Pompey for control of Rome. In 49 the senate, backing Pompey, ordered Caesar to disband his army and give up his province of Gaul. Instead of giving up, Caesar crossed the Rubicon river setting off a civil war. After a five year struggle accross many battlefields, Caesar defeated his enemies and was sole ruler of Rome.
https://ehistory.osu.edu/topics/first-triumvirate-wars

The Crusader States in the Era of the Third Crusade

After the failure of the Second Crusade Zengid dynasty controlled a unified Syria and engaged in a conflict with the Fatimid rulers of Egypt. The Egyptian and Syrian forces were ultimately unified under Saladin, who employed them to reduce the Christian states and recapture Jerusalem in 1187. Spurred by religious zeal, King Henry II of England, King Philip II of France (known as Philip Augustus) ended their conflict with each other to lead a new crusade. The death of Henry in 1189, however, meant the English contingent came under the command of his successor, King Richard I of England (known as Richard the Lionheart, in French;Cœur de Lion). The elderly German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa also responded to the call to arms, leading a massive army across, but he drowned in a river in Asia Minor on 10 June 1190 before reaching the Holy Land. His death caused tremendous grief among the German Crusaders, and most of his troops returned home.

After the Crusaders had driven the Muslims from Acre, Philip in company with Frederick's successor, Leopold V, Duke of Austria (known as Leopold the Virtuous), left the Holy Land in August 1191. On 2 September 1192, Richard and Saladin finalized a treaty granting Muslim control over Jerusalem but allowing unarmed Christian pilgrims and merchants to visit the city. Richard departed the Holy Land on 9 October. The successes of the Third Crusade allowed the Crusaders to maintain considerable states in Cyprus and on the Syrian coast. However, the failure to recapture Jerusalem would lead to the Fourth Crusade.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

Colonial Conflict in the Ohio Valley - 1750

Although struggles for supremacy had been going on for many decades between France and England in the New World, hostilities intensified in the early 1750’s as both English and French settlers had attempted to colonize land in the Ohio River Valley, near present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The English settlers, who had moved northwest from Virginia, and French settlers, who had moved east from the Great Lakes, or south from Canada, each thought they owned the rights to the land. 

In 1754, English forces under George Washington had begun their march to Fort Duquesne for the purposes of ousting the French from the region by force. On the way, they encountered a French scouting party near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. Washington’s men massacred the party in what came to be known as The Battle of Jumonville Glen. Washington soon took camp at Great Meadows, a large natural clearing, and ordered the construction of Fort Necessity in anticipation of a French response. The French did respond, as 600 soldiers forced Washington to surrender the fort. The French and Indian War had begun.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Where or Where (and when) to start a campaign.

Battle of Signal Hill - September 15, 1762
Last Engagement in North America of the Seven Years' War
Over the years our little gaming group has talked intermittently on running a campaign for our miniature gaming.   These discussions spring up in part because of the older members fond memories of old campaigns run years (decades) ago and new members who have never really been a part of a campaign. 


Due to the availability of figures and my personal interest I am seriously considering running a campaign based on the French and Indian War in North America. 

The biggest principal of the campaign is to create realistic scenarios for our games which effect the course of the war.   In looking at possible solutions for this I have chosen a Tree Campaign system in which each game has 5 potential outcomes which in turn dictates the scenario for the next game in the campaign. 

The Result of Each Game can be French major victory – French minor victory – Draw – British minor victory – British major victory.   These “results” are regardless of the forces involved, a battle between the Mingo and Chippewa would still be either French or British victory or a Draw.

Further breaking down the results each of the Six major blocks are effected by the outcome.    Britain, British Colonies, British Native American Allies, France, French Colonies, French Native American Allies.   AN example is a Victory by one side might strengthen the resolve of the Native American Allies and thus in the next game more Native American Allies are provided.   Or a defeat results in the loss of resolve and enough losses and the Native American Allies are lessened in an upcoming game.

Certain events also have outcome changing dynamics.   The first time a Provincial Forces is defeated in a battle the British Army will send to North America.    An example of this is battle of Great Meadows (Fort Necessity); the colonial government in Virginia thought this was no big deal, the British Government sent Braddock on an Expedition to Fort Duquesne.     

Where would you start such a campaign? 
  • French destruction of George Croghan’s trading post in modern day Erie PN, 1750
  • French Raid on Pickawillany, 1752
  • Jumonville Glen 1754
  • Fort Necessity 1754
  • Braddock’s Expedition 1755
  • or some other point?  
There are pros and cons to each of these potential starting points.   To me the answer resides in where does a result “change” history.
I personally like the Raid on Pickawillany as a good starting point, even though it kind of violates the tenant of most results will not change the course of the war, unless I get a little “unrealistic” in what scenario’s it generates.   It was debated if Major British Victory would result in an Expedition against Fort Vincennes in Indiana.     

What do other people think?

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

French and Indian War Map

Work in Progress

Thursday, July 3, 2014

What's on my Painting Table

Okay, It's summer and my son is at his mother's and it is time for me to get some serious painting done.

25mm Gauls
I have owned these figures forever, okay since 1997/98, but that's 17 plus years ago.  The figures were originally purchased to play test Warhammer Ancient Battles before its release in 1998.   The figures for years were mounted on 25mm square bases (infantry), primed black and had a splash of color added to them.
I pulled out the box and began organizing for Field of Glory - AKA Fog and slapping some paint on the figures.
16 Figures (one battle group) Javelin
16 Figures (one battle group) Slingers
3 Stands (not quite one battle group) Chariots
32 Figures (one battle group) Geseti Warriors
48 Figures (two battle groups) Hill Tribe Warriors

I have unpainted
16 Figures (one battle group) Slingers - Which I will paint up and sell
10 Figures - Mounted Command

What I need
12 Figures (one battle group) Gesetti Javelin
48 Figures (one battle group) Gesseti Warriors

48 Figures (one battle group) Hill Tribe Soldurii
48 Figures (two battle groups) Hill Tribe Warriors
10 - 20 Figures Cavalry
1 Stand Chariot
1 Stand Chariot Command

I have enough figures painted that I could play a non-legal game but it could be fun.

25mm Caesarian Romans
Again purchased in later parts of 1997 or early 1998 for 'WAB' I have decent number of figures painted up.
64 Figures (four battle groups) Legionnaires
10 Figures (one battle group) Heavy Cavalry
4 Stands Bolt Shooters
2 Stands (one battle group) Elephants
2 Stands Stone Throwers (not legal)
4 Stands Command

Unpainted
64 Figures (four battle groups) Legionnaires

What I need
Slingers/Archers
Light Cavalry

Other Projects currently gracing my table
15mm - 52nd Lowland Infantry Division - WWII - Roer Triangle
Modern Micro Armor - French Armored Division - 1988
25mm Seven Years War - Saxon Prinz Friedrich August Infantry

Sunday, June 15, 2014

French and Grenzer War - A New Beginning

ReCon! was held at Geek Partnership Society this past weekend and the War of the Jumbo Alliances got its name, The French and Grenzer War.   Offered up by the Jeff Knudsen Earl of Garfield (at least that is his title in the War of the Jumbled Alliances), the name has taken hold and I assume will last.  

This was the first ReCon! (roughly a quarterly gameday that has been on hiatus for the past year) at the Geek Partnership Society, for much of the past decade ReCon! has been held in Coon Rapids at the VFW hall.   The Building had ample lighting and considering I brought in four tables it had enough tables for the people who attended.     I am not going to beat around the bush when I say the rooms use provided enough space for the games that were played, but increasing the number of attendees is going to make the space tight.


After Action Report – French and Grenzer War

ReCon! – June 14, 2014


Fort St. Jimmy and the French Garrison



Forces

French Left (Fort St. Jimmy)
10 French Piquets
12 Canadian Militia
10 Ottawa Indians
2 6Lbs Canons


French Battle Line
French Center
36 - Bearn Infantry Regiment
36 – Languedoc Infantry Regiment

French Center-Right
30 – Croat Grenzers

French Right
36 - Colonial Compagnies Franches de la Marine
24 - Colonial Compagnies Franches de la Marine
16 – Canadian Militia

Compagnies Franches de la Marine

British Right
30 – Highland Infantry
24 – Provincial Regiment
10 – Gorham’s Rangers

British Center
48 – Von Mansbach Infantry Regiment
36 – Erb Prinz Fusilier Regiment
12 – Hessian Jaegers

British Right
British Center Left
24 – Colonial Militia
16 – Mohawk Indians

British Left
36 – Dunbar’s 48th Infantry Regiment
24 – Amherst’s 15th Infantry Regiment

British Far Left
24 – Colonial Militia
10 – Hazen’s Rangers

 

Hessian Jaegers


Orders

French Left – Hold Fort St. Jimmy
French Center – Drive the Hessians from the Field
French Right – Take the Blockhouse

British Right – Take Fort St. Jimmy
British Center – Hold against the French Center and assist in taking Fort St. Jimmy
British Center Left – Hold Farmstead
British Left – Drive the French from the Field
British Far Left – Hold the Block House


The Action

British Right moved against Fort St. Jimmy, quickly driving off the Ottawa Indian Allies, had some minor difficulty getting through the Chevel-De-Frise but by late in the game made it to the wall.  The Rangers finally cleared a section of the wall and storm the fort at the end of the game.
Hessian Brigade moves on the French Center.

British Center moved directly against the French Center which moved forward to meet them.   It was quick and bloody as the French Center pummeled the Erb Prinz Regiment.  Von Mansbach attempted to setup a defense against onslaught of the French Center and was defeated two turns before the Rangers stormed the fort.   The French Center was unable to move British Right fast enough to save Ft. St. Jimmy.

The Colonial Militia held the farmstead, as no one cared they were there.

Karlstädter-Szluiner Grenzer
On the French Right one composite battalion of Colonial Compagnies Franches de la Marine moved against the block house with Canadian Militia Support, while the second composite battalion of Colonial Compagnies Franches de la Marine held the link between the forests.   The Zolton’s Grenzers (named after the famous Grenzer Zolton who held an Austrian village by his lonesome for a turn and half against insurmountable odds) moved through the woods and fired on the Dunbar Infantry Regiment.   After most of the day the French and British forces were exhausted and for all practical purposes routed from the board simultaneously, leaving the Amherst’s 15th Infantry Regiment on the field alone.

Strategic Redeployment of the Erb Prinz Regiment to the Rear!

View from above

The game was laid out for 8 players, with an option to expand to 10 players; however only 6 players participated.   While everyone had fun and was challenged by the scenario it would have been nice to have a couple more players.

The Units are for the most part full strength, or fairly close.  The game is  getting to the point of needing setup tables which I think will be a requirement upon completing the last view under-strengthed units.


The Erb Prinz Fusiliers in full retreat

In Batailles de l'Ancien Régime  aka BAR one of the unique aspects is awarding battle honors to units that performed beyond the level of expectation on the Table Top.   On this day no unit earned a Battle Honor.  The Provincial Regiment held strong but could not take Fort St. Jimmy was the closest unit to earn a Battle Honor. 
On the other end of the spectrum the Erb Prinz Fusilier Regiment unit is halfway to receiving a downgrade however.

It was a hard fought game, a minor British Victory that was extremely costly as 2/3 of the Regulars were pushed from the table or removed as casualties. 

British Forces storm Fort St. Jimmy
Rules Questions
Can a unit move full and Shoot?
What’s the penalty for crossing a Chevel-de-Frise?
Who can fight and how can they fight in a wall assault

Rules we got wrong
Fire Modifier for shooting at Chargers.
Who and when can a light unit shoot.

 

 

 

 

Monday, April 14, 2014

French and Indian War - French Piquets

Each French Infantry Battalion had a Piquet Company; permanently assigned to the Company was a Captain, a lieutenant, a second-lieutenant, and a couple of NCO's; all others who were assigned to the Piquet Company was on an temporary basis, usually only for a day or two. In theory each fusilier battalion was responsible for providing 3 to 5 soldiers every day for duty with the Piquet Company. After the term or assignment was up those temporally attached tot he Piquet Companies would be replaced by new soldiers from their permanent fusilier battalions.
In Europe the Piquet Companies were responsible for guarding the camp, providing advanced and rear guard on the March, protecting the Colors, Sentries and various other similar duties.   Those assigned to the Piquet Company were exempted from many of the daily duties of the other members of the Battalion, including camp construction, presenting arms, and the like.
In North America soldiers assigned to Piquet Companies were often assigned on a more permanent basis as the use of Piquet Companies was more widespread and strategic rather than tactical. 
Detachment of Piquet Companies occurred often as these "temporary" companies were assigned duties throughout Canada, ostensibly to protect, organize and train French Settlers and their forts from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico.    It's estimated by one historian that there were as many as 500 such detachments through New France, I am extremely skeptical at such a number because even with only 10 men assigned to each of those (5,000 total) you are looking at roughly 25% to 50% of all regulars assigned out.   While their may have be 500 places that France had forces, the use of Troupes de la Marine, local Militia (Milices Canadiennes) most likely were the forces present.   That's not saying the Piquet Companies were not assigned out that way, rather in much smaller numbers, maybe 20 to 30 as opposed to 500.
Another use of Piquet Companies in North America was creating rapid intervention force, along with a Corps de Cavalrie.   During the Siege of Quebec Colonel Bougainville command such a force with 1,300 infantry and 200 cavalry and was assigned to watch the Western access to Quebec. 
As a gamer the question becomes how does one model this. 
As I am painting up Bougainville's force, I am also creating 10 companies of French Piquets, half will be treated as light infantry/skirmishes the other half in two converged battalions (one Regular, one Grenadier) it seems like the best way to model that specific force.
In addition in scenarios with Piquets I will simply be pulling figures from my Bougainville box. 
But still I am not convinced I made the best choice.