"28th Foot - stovepipe shako?" Topic

The 28th (N Gloucs) Foot has always been a favourite among wargamers and renactors alike as, according to popular legend, they alone resisted the change to the Belgio shako in 1814 and, therefore, can be used for both Peninsular and Waterloo campaigns.

My question is a simple one: where does this story originate? I have never come across the original source. If anyone can point me to it I would be very grateful.

I was under the impression that the 71st also retained the stovepipe.

Wasn't the 71st Regiment an Highland Light Infantry unit which of course had a different uniform from line infantry and would have continued to use the stove pipe shako even after the uniform change in 1812?

I don't know of a primary reference offhand for the 28th, but it's certainly mentioned repeatedly in secondary references such as Haythornthwaite, and nobody seems inclined to argue, so presumably there's one out there. I believe the reason may have been connected to their "rear badge" distinction – after Alexandria they were authorised to wear a small badge on the back of their shakos as well as the plate on the front, so the "look" effectively became a point of regimental honour.

As for the 71st, yep, light infantry – I seem to recall they had a band of dicing around the bottom of the shako, as well as the light infantry badge?

Dom.

Yeah, Dom has it.

Not sure if it was impractical to actually fix two badges on a Belgic or not but in any event Alexandria was the reason.

During the battle the Regiment had to face the rear rank about to deal with an attack from behind and that's how it started.

I know the 71st are light infantry. I know the "stovepipe" thing is in Haythornwaite (and every other reference book). I was wondering where the belief comes from. It's the primary source I'm after.

In the illustrated "The battle of Waterloo, with those of Ligny at Quatre Bras" which was published in 1817, plate 5 shows Colonel Belson and the 28th regiment holding off the French lancers at Quatre Bras. Both the colonel and his men are shown wearing the stovepipe shako complete with a large "28" badge on the front.

The other illustrations show accurate representations of other British regiments. Unfortunatley the majority of these subjects are highlanders, cavalry or light infantry. There are a couple of sketches, however, portraying an unnamed unit in Kempt's brigade and an artillery battery that show the contrasting Belgic shako, so I presume that the illustration of the 28th is correct. All the sketches were by Captain George Jones.

The 28th was allowed to retain its Shako by order of Wellington due the their fighting prowess at during the Peninsular---Also remember when painting the 28th that their Grenadier company had cow hide backpacks captured from a french Regiment in Egypt!!

The following comes from "Cap Of Honor: The Story of the Gloucestershire Regiment (28th/61st Foot), 1694-1975", by David Scott Daniell. I picked up this 400 page volume at the Museum in Gloucester on a visit in 1978.

Note at the end of the first citation (p132), "On the _left_ side was the plume…". Curiously, this sounds to be describing the Belgic rather than the stovepipe shako, I've never come across this quote before. This brings to mind the well-known, and often criticized, painting "The 28th at Quatre Bras, 1815" by Lady Butler which does, in fact, depict the Regiment as wearing the Belgic shako. I wonder…

The second citation unfortunately does not provide the authority mentioned but does give 1830 as the official authorization for the back badge, though the practice probably began soon after Alexandria.

Finally, and as many of you may be aware, the 28th emulated their back-to-back stand once again a century and one half later in Korea. See the United Nations Command's letter of commendation at the bottom.

***************************************
p132

One result of these many orders and dispositions was that the 28th marched out of Brussels, led by Lieutenant-Colonel Nixon, at four o'clock in the morning of June the 16th. The drum-and-fife played "The young May moon is shining, love." Their route was southward, along the high road from Brussels to Charleroi, through the forest of Soignies to Genappe, where they halted for breakfast. A staff officer who saw them wrote:

I recognized Picton's division. First came a battalion of the 95th Rifles in their sombre green dress and black accoutrements. The old 28th followed, having their number both in front and rear of their low caps a memorial of Egypt.

The "low caps" appear to have been a regimental pattern of or they may have been worm only by the flank companies. In the front of the shako was the regimental badge, a lion over a crown over the figure '28,' with the honours, "Barrosa" above it and "Peninsula" below. On the left side was the plume, at the back the Sphinx badge.

***************************************

p146

With the coming of peace [1815], uniforms were smartened up: the military tailor and the sergeant-major, set free from the practical requirements of active service in the field, went in for appearances and new fashions. The shako, which had been a fairly business-like article during the war, was broadened at the top, and became a huge, bell-topped affair of black felt with lace around the top and bottom, carrying a twelve-inch plume. It had a brass plate in front with the number of the regiment and a crown.

The 28th, of course, wore the 'back badge,' a one-and-three-quarter-inch square plate with a Sphinx and the number '28' below. The back badge was being worn in 1805 or 1807, and it was probably assumed as soon as the Regiment came back from Egypt in 1802, though the first-known written authority for wearing the two badges is dated 1830.

***************************************
p399

GENERAL HEADQUARTERS UNITED NATIONS COMMAND
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
17 May 1951
SUBJECT: Letter of Commendation.

THRU
Lieutenant General James A. Van Fleet,
Commanding General,
Eighth Army,
APO 301.

Brigadier Tom Brodie,
Commanding Officer,
29th British Brigade.

TO
Lieutenant Colonel D. B. Grist,
Commanding Officer,
First Battalion,
Gloucestershire Regiment.

1. Your unit has already been officially cited for its heroic stand at the IMJIN River. However, as Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, I wish to add my personal commendation.

2. All members of the United Nations Forces fought with distinction during that particular action but the indomitable spirit of the personnel of the First Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment was outstanding. Their refusal to withdraw prevented an early penetration of our lines and provided critically needed time for other units to regroup.

3. It is with great pride that I join all the freedom loving peoples of the world in expressing admiration of their gallant stand.

M. B. RIDGWAY
General, United States Army

Going back to the headress of the 71st, this was actually blue with a toorie or pom-pom on top as well as the dicing at the bottom. I have read two different theories as to what this was. One says that it was the Hummel bonnet streteched over a standard shako. The other is that it was a bonnet stiffened by itself and a peak added. Personally I think the former more likely but you never know.

I'd agree there, although it seems some sketches depicted it with a cockade and green tuft as per the infantry shako, while others show the pompom on top instead. I'd certainly agree that the bonnet was stretched over a light infantry shako – no way it would have held its shape with just "stiffeners".

Dom.

Thank you Captain Snort and Cheriton, that's very interesting. So, it seems that the commonly held belief that the 28th wore a stovepipe shako in 1815 comes from the sketch by this Captain George Jones. I checked my database and there was no officer of that name at Waterloo, so if he wasn't present it's hard to see why his sketch has always been taken as gospel while Lady Butler's painting has always been scoffed at. Because she was a woman and he was a Captain?

There are a couple of sketches, however, portraying an unnamed unit in Kempt's brigade and an artillery battery that show the contrasting Belgic shako

sounds pretty convincing though…

Many thanks again!

I checked my database and there was no officer of that name at Waterloo

Not present at Waterloo afaik, but he served in the Peninsula, and was with the occupation forces in Paris after Waterloo. He also published a book of eye-witness accounts of the campaign in 1817, so had access to plenty of people who *were* there.

Dom.

>>>sounds pretty convincing though…<<<

Without something concrete about this "…staff officer who saw them:" and his written comments I'm afraid Lady Butler is still rather in jeopardy. The sketch book of 1817 seems persuasive.

The regimental history was first published in 1951, does anyone know anything of David Scott Daniell; anyone who could visit the museum in Gloucester to attempt to find something further? I'll be in Norfolk this summer but had not planned to go west this trip.

BTW, the author's last name ("ll") is not a typo, it is as it appeared in the book. Also, beneath his name on the title page "…from material provided by Colonel R.M. Grazebrook, OBE MC. The history of 1945-1975 was added by Maj-Gen A.H. Farrar-Hockley, DSO, MBE, MC and Major E.L.T. Capel, ERD

Thanks Dom, well it sounds convincing. Enough for me to continue giving my mass of stovepike 28mm infantry yellow facings!

I rarely get to the south-west these days unfortunately. That said, skimming through the Gloucestershire regimental museum's website (which seems very good, actually; if only all regimental museums had similar….) the exhibits they have online, and their dating, very strongly suggest a switch direct from Stovepipe to Regency shako. This one's particularly interesting:
link
[Edit] I see you posted while I was typing – while these things are never 100% certain, I'm definitely happy with the Stovepipe too….

Dom.

Dom:

>>>strongly suggest a switch direct from Stovepipe to Regency shako.<<<

Thanks, that does aid in being comfortable with the stovepipe in 1815. But what of poor Lady Butler…

Michael

A possible explanation here:

link

Note that she actually had a Waterloo-era uniform made: "The design was probably taken from Colonel Charles Hamilton Smith's authoritative Costume of the Army of the British Empire According to the Last Regulation (1812-15)" This does explain the mix-up if right; after all, she's commissioned a regulation uniform of the period, and the 28th weren't wearing one….

Dom.

PS – No disrespect to Lady Butler – Scotland Forever is quite possibly my favourite painting, full stop; I used to live in Leeds and have spent what probably adds up to a worrying amount of time staring at it in the city art gallery….

R.e. Scotland Forever
I also wonder if in fact, despite some chortling from recent experts, Lady Butler might not have actually been pretty accurate with this painting too.
Foundry's Scots Greys and many recent uniform publications all take as read that they wore oilskin covers and no accoutrements would have been worn. Again, I'd love to know from whence these "facts" come into being!
Here's Corporal John Dickson of the Greys – "I had lost the plume of my bearskin on passing through the second column, a musket shot had carried it away."

I have a sneaking feeling that the Geo Jones image is also the main source for the design of the 28th's unusual front cap-badge. The 1817 Jones images are often held up as eye-witness but include Napoleon addressing the Guard etc, and clearly he wasn't present for that. In addition, his pic of 'Colbourne's stroke' shows the 95th in support of the 52nd, but wearing identical white accoutrements and bayonet, which seems unlikely.
I'm afraid Lady Butler wasn't even born til 1840 something, so not much use as a contemporary reference. You may as well take your 95th uniform details from 'The Rearguard', which I have seen done..
Does anyone have the reference to Light Infantry continuing in stovepipes to hand? I believe it is in the 1813 regs. (I'm not at home) I'm not convinced this reg was followed either, but thats another story..

his pic of 'Colbourne's stroke' shows the 95th in support of the 52nd, but wearing identical white accoutrements and bayonet, which seems unlikely.

Sorry Gertrude, I don't quite follow, what's not likely?

With reference to the staff officer who commented on the shakos of the 28th Regiment mentioned above, this quote is from "Recollections of Waterloo" which appeared, written by an anonymous staff officer, in the United Service Magazine. Please note that he does not refer to a plume on the left side of the shako, his description being confined to:

"The old 28th followed, having the number both in front and rear of their low caps – a memorial of Egypt."

I think that Gertrude is being a little critical of Jones. The sketch depicting Colborne's advance only shows half a dozen characters clearly. Two individuals appear to be riflemen – an officer in a braided dolman and a private clearly carrying a Baker rifle and sword bayonet.
Because the sketches are simple black and white line drawings, it is impossible to tell what colour the accoutrements are supposed to be.

Captain Snort:

>>>Please note that he does not refer to a plume on the left side of the shako, his description being confined to:<<<

Ah, so a case of yet another citation being embellished or butchered? The pitfalls of historiography.

>>>The old 28th followed, having the number both in front and rear of their low caps<<<

I'd be interested in your take on the use of the word "low" above. Is it just by way of comparison to the false fronts of the new Belgic shakos, do you suppose?

Many thanks…

I'd be interested in your take on the use of the word "low" above. Is it just by way of comparison to the false fronts of the new Belgic shakos, do you suppose?

Could well be – chuck in the tendency to refer to shakos as caps at times, and it doesn't tell you much. One thing that did occur to me was that they *might* be a regimental pattern as it were; if you look at the picture I linked to earlier, the 1815 shako does actually look shorter than the earlier one. Of course it could just be that they're the same and the artist got the proportions a little out, but it was enough to make me wonder….

Dom.

Link repeated to save searching: link

With the available evidence, I am certainly in favour of the stovepipe having been retained. The reference to 'low caps' is impossible to interpret with any degree of certainty, but it doesn't sound like a Belgic shako to me.

It appears to have been overlooked so far that in addition to the 71st, the two other light infantry units present on the day, 51st and 52nd aslo retained the stove-pipe shako.

I can't offer anything further to the debate, but have yet to be convinced the 28th were wearing anything but the stove-pipe in 1815.

As for Lady Butler, I would not consider her fantastic Victorian era paintings as anything but that!!

It appears to have been overlooked so far that in addition to the 71st, the two other light infantry units present on the day, 51st and 52nd aslo retained the stove-pipe shako.

To be honest I think that's just been taken as a given – the 71st got some discussion because VSB mentioned them, and they had a unique twist on the headgear as it were, but the light infantry retaining the Stovepipe (or rather their own pattern, but very similar to the Stovepipe) is about as uncontroversial as Napoleonic uniforms can be.

Dom.

Lord Hill,
I think Captain Snort has already indicated what I was banging on about in the Geo Jones pic of the 52nd. To clarify, IF the two figures who are usually described as Riflemen are 95th, one would expect their accoutrements straps to be black, whereas they are shown as white.
Captain Snort,
I have to take issue with you in the gentlest possible way. I have a lot of time for Geo Jones pics, but running a critical ruler over them, I notice that the cartridge boxes themselves are depicted as black, so I can't see a practical or artistic reason to depict a rifles black strap as white. The Rifleman is also carrying a stick bayonet rather than a sword. There is a possible explanation, since the pic is dated 1816, it could postdate the suspension of sword bayonet issue, OR the Riflemen shown could be part of the 52nd and not 95th at all, a theory supported by their jackets' tails, which aren't what we would expect to see on the 95th- being curtailed or non-existent on most contemporary images. I'm inclined to 'read' the 'riflemen' as members of the 52nd- the officer wearing a dolman, perhaps as a light Company affectation (the pic appears to depict the left of the line) and the man bearing the rifle- as a member of the 52nd carrying a rifle.
Getting back to the OP, have we a source for Light Infantry sticking with the stovepipe cap? The 1813 reg? Other than endless repetition of secondary sources? I'm not being smart, I'd like to see it in black and white as well as the next chap.

Charles Hamilton Smith illustrated the 52nd, 60th and 95th with stovepipe shakos. His drawings, presumably done at the time, were based on the latest dress regulations and portray line infantry in the belgic shako.

Then there is our friend Captain Jones, who shows the stovepipe for the 52nd, 71st and 95th….

Would it have all been possible for captain jones to have been sketching the 51st or 52nd and have written their number down wrong?

Charles Hamilton Smith's Costume of the Army was produced to illustrate the costume changes of 1811-12(although published 1812-15 in seemingly random order), with the uniform illustrations apparently derived from the patterns at the Board of clothing. CHS sat on the Board of General Officers for clothing at various times so should have been up to date on changes. This has led to criticism that he sometimes illustrated posited changes, trial experiments or projected projects rather than actual practice. Note for instance, the various water canteens and odd patterns of haversacks etc carried in this series.
The occupation prints in Paris virtually all show the 95th in 'belgic' cap. I believe there must be a common root to the mantra of, Light Infantry= stovepipe, but am too wary of relying on images alone, though I'll admit Geo Jones and CHS are among the best contemporary images.
Checked the 1811 regs, and the 1811 (updated to 1816) regs, nothing in there except the usual order on the cap badges.

Funny, a day after that first hand account of Waterloo Scots Greys and plumes I quoted, and the Perrys announce their new line in Scots Greys. In covered bearskins!

Wherre have the Perry's announced this? I can't find the announcement on TMP.

I lnow the Perrys can sculpt quickly but I think it most likely unrelated!

Its on their website

link

no pics yet, so hoping they might still have plumes!

Thanks LH!