"zouave brigade" Topic

hi, i recenmtly read that there was a brigade of zouaves fighting in the army of the potomac, the first question is, well is this true?

next question what regiments made up this brigade, and aere there any sites i could visit to describe the uniforms?

thanks

jon

should have added that i have tried google and got nowhere with this as brigade and zouave have so many hits its not funny

thanks

jon

"brigade" and "zouaves" will not really be specific enough.

"order of battle army potomac zouves" throws up some relevant results on google.

Weeds Brigade is considered to be the "Zauave" Bde.
VR
James Mattes

Romeyn B. Ayres's Zouave Brigade in 1864.

link

I have often heard it refered to as the Peacock Brigade. Hope this gives you a start…

BTW it was made up of the 140th NY, 146th NY, 91st PA, & 155th PA. I know Keith Rocco had a nice painting of the two NY regts at the Wilderness in their Zouave uniforms. Artists seem to like painting zouaves so check out some of their web sights

Yes, Ayres brigade at the Wilderness was entirely zouaves.

I heard one artist half jokingly say that they paint zouaves as the colors work better with most home decors…

My mother worked in an art gallery and it's more than half true. Se LOVED people who wanted to buy art to match the couch. Man could she sell "taupe"

I think there was a small brigade (5th and 10th NY) that fought at 2nd Manassas. I haven't checked other OBs yet to see if it was constituted earlier.

94OVI has it right about the AOP Zouave Brigade in 1864. It is a well circulated MYTH that Zouave and Chausseur style uniforms were eliminated early in the War, not to return! In fact several units wore total Zouave and Chausseur outfits right up to the end, and many others affected articles of the style (false jackets) , gaiters, headgear in various combinations. The bulk of Union units were in the standard issue of course, but there were many more Regts in the European styles than is commonly thought! Some historians claim a lack of reference to Zouave uniforms as evidence of their demise, but others believe that the Zouave style was common enough to simply not be worthy of comment by the writers of letters and reports!

There was also a Zouave Bde in Little Mac's army in the Regular Div – 5th and 10th New York.

The myth about zouaves been fazed out as the war progressed as been shot down time and time again over the last 15 years.

Go 14th Brooklyn!!!

Ayres' brigade in 1864 was only half Zouave. The other half were the remnants of the U.S. Regulars. It was a large brigade, over 3,000 men. More like a small division, really.

140th New York
146th New York
91st Pennsylvania
155th Pennsylvania
2nd United States
11th United States
12th United States
14th United States
17th United States

Only in earlier iterations, was the brigade all Zouaves. The only time I can think of was on the Peninsula and 2nd Bull Run in 1862 when it was only 2 regiments, the 5th and 10th New York.

Weed's Brigade was all Zouave at Gettysburg. The brigade had been awared the uniforms (chasseur, actually rather than zouave) the previous spring as a reward for the excellence of their drill. The uniforms were imported from Europe by the government. I'm guessing that their fine drill was why they were put in the same division as the US Regulars.

At Gettysburg, Weed's Brigade consisted of:

140th New York
146th New York
91st Pennsylvania
155th Pennsylvania

The 146th certainly had their Zouave uniforms. However, the rest did not.

The regimental history of the 155th places them receiving their uniforms in January 1864. pgs. 223-226

While the regimental history of the 140th puts them in Zouave uniforms, contemporary literature does not. In a letter to a Rochester newspaper dated January 8, 1864, under a headline including the notation "The 140th N.Y.V. Turned into a Zouave Regiment-New Uniform and a Pretty Good One," Private Joseph Moon describes the occasion. Also, Porter Farley, in his reminiscences, also marks January 1864 as the time when Zouave uniforms were issued to the 140th, but this section was left out of the version published by the Rochester Historical Society.

I can't speak to the 91st Pennsylvania, but I would guess they were issued them in Jan. 1864 as well.

Just my opinion.

Maybe what happened in Jan '64 was replacing the chasseurs uniforms, mentioned by Scott, with real zouave-ish ones. I'm pretty sure the 155th PA's uniforms were light blue jacket and pants; only the fez was red; and both NY regiments were dark blue jacket and pants, IIRC.

As Paul Stevenson points out, the original Zouave Brigade consisted of only 2 regiments, both of whom were famous for their zouave drill and were thought fit to add to the Regulars, since there were only enough Regulars for 2 brigades.

This division was originally McClellan's reserve, not part of any corps, and meant to be something like Napoleon's Old Guard. Later it was combined with Porter's division to form the 5th Corps.

I have them all in Zouave uniform…. link

I justify it by saying they represent the regiments at some point in the war!

I justify it by saying they represent the regiments at some point in the war!

I do the same thing with units that changed coat styles or flags. My Irish Brigade all have green flags where the regiments were issued them regardless of the fact that the 28th Mass were not present at any battle when all the NY regiments carried their's!

The 155th did not wear Zouave uniforms at Gettysburg. Read this article below.

………………………………………………….

There are some breathtaking views of the battlefield in Gettysburg, but perhaps no other has a better vantage point than Samuel W. Hill. He stands on the northern slope of Little Round Top, with views of not only the Valley of Death below, but to well-known sections of the battlefield such as The Wheatfield, Peach Orchard, Devil's Den and maybe a glimpse of Pickett's Charge.

Hill stands atop the monument to the 155th Pennsylvania Infantry, who were brought to that high ground on July 2 to defend the Union Army's extreme left flank, alongside such well-known men like Chamberlain, Vincent, Weed, O'Rorke and Hazlett.

Lt. Col. John H. Cain brought 424 men to the hill that day. Six were killed and 13 were wounded. And while those numbers aren't staggering compared to those of other regiments – especially Confederate – of that day, it's the story of the monument that brings us here.

Just 23 years after the battle, veterans and family members of the Pittsburgh area regiment arrived in Gettysburg on Sept. 17, 1886 to dedicate a monument to the 155thPennsylvania Infantry. Samuel Hill was not present – at least he wasn't carved in stone. The monument dedicated that day was on that of what today looks like the pedestal. There was no statue of Hill on top.

Courtesy of the 155th Pennsylvania Website
Three years later, when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided it would dole out $1,500 USD to state regiments to help place a monument at Gettysburg, the veterans of the 155th Pennsylvania, according to the monument database Stone Sentinels, decided to add a statue to the top of theirs rather than add another monument as many other regiments did.

The statue bears the likeness of Samuel Hill, of Company F, but not how he looked at Gettysburg. He's wearing the notable "Zouave" uniform, something the regiment earned the right to wear more than six months after the battle. At Gettysburg, the soldiers wore the standard Union uniform of dark blue coat and light blue pants. The veterans – proud of that accomplishment – wished to display it atop their monument at Gettysburg, thus explains the 155th's unusual uniform.

The members of the 155th came back to Gettysburg three years after their first monument dedication in 1886 to rededicate the monument on Little Round Top, this time with Samuel Hill looking down over them and the line the regiment held on July 2.

More about the monument can be found on the Stone Sentinel's website.

Because monuments must all face the enemy in Gettysburg, most views of the 155th monument are from the rear, but if you're down on Wheatfield Road, or even as you first turn onto Crawford Road below Little Round Top you'll see Samuel Hill looking out over the majestic countryside.

From: link

I think since we are playing fictional games, many based on history, I don't think it is wrong to fudge the style or uniform colors from one battle to another. Organization and uniform supply did not remain the same during the various campaigns. Also most of us are painting generic units for our armies unless of course you are capable of putting out the US GNP in painted wargame figures. We spend our money, time, and energy usually lovingly painting our toys especially the favorite units that stir our imagination. So if our Zouave at Gettysburg was actually dressed all in dark blue with a kepi, and we use a figure painted like a zouave to represent him, who really cares about that? Please see the thread on the guy who mispainted some haversacks and was afraid of criticism. We've got better things to do like living our lives.

I am all for painting generic uniforms for generic units. Very logical and flexible.

I think getting down on somebody for incorrectly painting one uniform detail is silly. Heck, even ridiculing somebody for painting their figures badly is rude. They probably had fun doing it, and have fun playing wargames with them. More power to them.

However, if you are going to model and paint a unit "at Gettysburg" then you should probably research and paint the unit as it really looked "at Gettysburg." If not, then don't try to pass it off as a unit painted up and based as one "at Gettysburg."

And if you don't care whether the uniform is correct for the battle you are modeling, that's cool. Really, it is. Have fun with the hobby. Its why we have a hobby. Just don't ask for feedback from people who know.

What Cleburne1863 says.

I stopped playing Napoleonics years ago because of a certain caste of people who were uniform zampolits. Regardless of the detail and quality of painting, there would be more than a few that would say something like "Yes, it is very nice, but that's NOT how they looked in 1812". Stuff like that.

With the ACW period you DO have some nice units, uniform and/or flag-wise, but the vast majority are in plain uniforms, easily painted and able to portray any unit you might need.

But trumping all of that is that these are YOUR toys. YOUR armies. Paint them as you see best. I chose to model the period of Antietam to Gettysburg, because those troops were pretty static in appearance and rosters, though there were a few, easily represented changes here and there. Besides which, we have a great deal of info on that part of the war. But, that was MY choice and it needn't be the right choice for others.

My new project is a unit-based system, where every large stand is a single unit. I am painting separate command stand that could represent either Brigade or Division commanders. None of the large bases will likely have any flags. It's MY choice, and, again, isn't for everyone.

Anyway, sorry for the morning ramble. The idea should be to have fun, both in collecting & painting minis, assembling them into units, and playing the game. If it isn't fun anymore, then either change up what's causing the problem, or explore other areas.

V/R

ACW IS an interestin 4 years of uniform study, the more people post the better the appearance of model soldiers in our collections. After some detailed topics on TMP we can get somewhere close to the appearance of troops of the time.
My confederate troops probably look to light grey than they were but then that`s how I see them, on the table they look fine.
Even in 28mm we can get away with certain details, most of the ranges of figures were made and designed some time ago so should have most of the equipment that we expect
Its not difficult to convert or find a doner figures to convert to a particular unit.
Research any war soldier quickly become less uniform very quickly, The ACW is a good example where there were guidelines but most pictures will throw examples of non- regulation equipment.

In a ACW book I bought for $5 USD there`s a picture of a zouave band never seen that pic before

I'd like to agree with you Cleburne1863, but I can't.

There are some in this hobby who strive to DEPICT specific units in specific actions. They look into the specific uniform worn, the weapons issues and the equipment carried, and seek to duplicate that as much as available manufacturer's inventory and their own talent allows.

Others are seeking only to REPRESENT units. This distinction affords a certain degree of flexibility. Where this line falls will differ from person to person. To me the line does permit a modeler to use figures in zouave uniforms to represent the same unit after it stopped wearing that uniform or before it adopted that uniform, just as it would permit using figures in full dress when campaign dress is more appropriate.

My ACW figures are fairly generic. I do have some unit specific command stands. The flags are correct for the units (to the extent my research allows) at some point in the war, but they may not be correct for the particular action I am representing at that time.

I used the paintings of Don Troiani and Rick Reeves as my painting guide. Because I am told that they do extensive research. I patterned my Orphan Brigade on the works of Rick Reeves.

The ACW was my introduction to miniatures. Then I discovered that Friekorps 15 made specific uniforms and we bought them and painted them up. They may not have worn them long but we didn't care because they looked great.

I still use them. One of my favorites is their version of "Terry's Texas Rangers". But I also have the typical uniforms worn by most of the armies.

If you search for Zouaves on these boards you'll find a long thread of info I compiled as far as which regiments wore what when. It isn't an answer in itself but you can get some great starting info.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Thanks Bandit. I've just ordered my first Zouaves and appreciate the help.