"1793, 1798, and powdered hair" Topic

One day I'd like to have a British skirmish force that I could use for both the 1793 Flanders campaign and the 1798 Irish Rebellion. At first, I thought "both the 37th Regiment of Foot and the Antrim militia have yellow facings and look similar. How fortunate! Just swap out the 1793 light dragoons for Yeomanry and everything will be right as rain!"

However, I'm looking for some clarification on a possible issue. From what I understand, hair powder was already going out of style by the 7YW outside the parade ground. If I were to paint "command base units" (officers, NCOs, drummers, ensigns) with powdered hair and everyone else with natural hair, would this be accurate for both 1793 and 1798?

Indeed, I doubt a dress wig had been seen on the battlefield since the 1750s. It was initially a matter of age with younger men the least likely to seen with wigs or powdered hair while older, more conservative men would persist with powdering or peruques.

Army officers, who had seen active service in America on a daily basis might be more likely to wear their own hair, unpowdered. For the time being, though, powdering the hair remained a ritual for the weekly Colonel's parade and what we might call Full Dress occasions.

However, in 1796 the custom was suspended in the British army and effectively done away with permanently, as much because of the rising cost of flour due to wheat shortages, as ongoing reforms which saw the queue abolished eight years later in 1808.

I believe to have read somewhere that due to the aesthetic views of the colonel the British 28th (?) still was wearing powdered hair and pigtails at Talavera.

- Sorry, seems to have been only lieutenant-colonel Donellan of the 48th, not his regiment:

link

Wigs may be the least of your issues.

Something else to bear in mind, for Regulars, uniforms are different too.

While 1793 is sorta AWI looking, by 1798 it's more Napoleonic looking, with shakos and closed tunics.

When did the change come? I know the new uniforms were in Egypt but, not sure about 98-99.

While 1793 is sorta AWI looking, by 1798 it's more Napoleonic looking, with shakos and closed tunics.

Well, yes and no. In 1793 the standard regulation was indeed the 1768 coat with a raised collar and knee-length black gaiters. In the course of the Low Countries campaigns 1793-95, woollen trousers of brown or blue cloth- first seen in America- were revived for winter campaigning. The hat was approaching a 'bicorne' form worn 'athwart' by infantry, 'fore and aft' by dragoons.

In the course of 1796-99 the coat was closed with the removal of turned-back lapels with regimental facings and button lace; the precursor of the 'Napoleonic' tailed jacket. White binding was removed from the hat.
There is a frequently shared Pierre Turner illustration from Michael Barthorp's 'Infantry Uniforms from 1660' showing a man of the Third Foot Guards ca 1799, clothed in this last iteration, with the addition of white linen trousers.
The transition was completed in 1800 with the introduction of the closed, tailed jacket and the tall peaked 'infantry cap' with brass frontal plate.

I doubt that in the 1799 landings the british were in the new coats and shakos. Maybe sime closed coats were delivered but most pictures i have seen show the older uniform

No caps for line infantry in 1799. As you say, all the prints show the previous uniform. 1800 saw the final 'stillbruck'

@42flanker But would Irish militias like Antrim be using these updated uniforms in 1798 though? Looking at my Osprey on the 1798 uprising, the Antrim militia Sgt Major's hat still has white piping.

Mon fils, I wouldn't know. However,that sounds entirely reasonable. I don't know how often militia received new clothes but if Osprey show that detail, you have some reference to back up your interpretation (if that's what you favour).