"British Trotter backpack...dimensions?" Topic

Hi Guys,

I hope everyone is doing well today.
I've been doing some sizing up for a happy return to Napoleonics sculpting, and I'm hitting some snags. In addition to being surprised that an infantry crossbelt measures a mere 2 1/8th inch wide (sure looks wider in illustrations), I can't seem to find any sizing in my books for the dimensions of a trotter backpack. Would anyone know the measurements, or a site with this information?

Sincerely,
Bob

Funnily enough I was just reading my Osprey on equipment this evening.

It says the Trotter frame knapsack was 18 inches wide, 4 inches deep and 13 inches high

Mike

Please note that there was no such thing as the boxed Trotter knapsack: it is a myth! The knapsacks worn by the British troops from 1812 (distributed after 1812) were based on the pattern lodged by the Board of Ordnance in George Street, London, and as each regiment bought their own from individual suppliers, albeit based on this pattern, the quality and dimensions would have varied. The 2nd Battalion, 3rd Regiment of Foot Guards for example, bought their knapsacks from from Bicknall and Moore of Bond Street. When six companies were sent to the Low Countries in November 1813, they still hadn't received enough of the new pattern to issue them to two companies. If you look at the contemporary paintings by Genty, you will see that there is quite a variance. I am happy to supply more information, if required, having spent the last eight years investigating the Trotter family and their role in army supply. John

@ Inkbiz

That crossbelt data is amazing. 2.125" is 54mm so in 1/32 scale a crossbelt should be 1mm wide. In 28mm scale it should be 0.5mm.

This is astonishing. What's your source? It's not talking about the shoulder straps for the backpack, is it?

4th Cuirassier

I am not sure which belt is being discussed but your calculation is off.

54mm = 1.69mm in 1/32 and 0.96mm in 1/56(28mm)

regards, Graffpad.

@John

Very interesting remarks, I so far had the impression that Trotter undercut the costs of other competitors and therefore supplied more or less most of the British infantry with knapsacks.

So far the best information I could get was the second edition of Chappell, Mike : British Infantry Eqipment (I) 1808 – 1908
and indeed made me believe that the knapsack was more wide than high.
So far in my view only the Perrys did a very good knapsack

@von Winterfeldt, I cannot comment on the Perry's knapsacks as I haven't seen them, but I know of Mike Chappell's book. Most authors have areas of speciality and Mike has a tremendous knowledge of the early 20th Century military and their equipment, etc. However, I do not believe that he has sufficient knowledge of the Napoleonic period to write the material he has on the Trotters. The fact is the second John Trotter (there were three) was out of business by 1812 and that the scandal he and several others had been involved with had led to their being removed from the system of army supply which prevailed up until 1808. The Trotters had been wholesale suppliers of army equipment of various types up to this point, particularly bedding and the like. However, when Lord Melville was tried for corruption, Trotter was brought before the House of Parliament select commitee on three occassions to answer questions about his role in buying the old equipment from the army (such as old tents), refurbishing it and selling it back to the army as new. The whole process was exposed as a scam and immediate changes were made to the system of army supply. The full details will be included in several books as part of the 1815 Limited study. Trotter did indeed provide 'some' knapsacks, and there are several extant examples of 'ebvelope' knapsacks made by Trotters. However, there are extant examples of this type made by other manufacturers and not a single example of a box knapsack by Trotters, because the first 'box' knapsacks did not come into existence until 1823 (as Mike Chappell correctly states). The evidence with regards to the placing of boards inside the 'soft' knapsacks is conclusive: the men put the boards inside to stop having to pack their knapsacks in the difficult method prescribded in the standing orders. All this talk of the suffering because of the wooden construction is utter nonsense, and as the records show, Trotter's business was no longer trading or listed in the London directories whe nthe first box knapsacks were introduced. Not quite the same story the you are given on the three pages dedicated to the subject in the Osprey title.

Interesting stuff. Does this mean then that the knapsack, though not fitted with a frame, would still have looked box-like owing to the loose board inside and the fact that it was stitched into a box shape to begin with?

it seems more wide than long – the traiditonal Airfix and Fosten knapsack is obviously not showing the right shape.

In my view, the Perrys sculpted a nice "Trotter".

The knapsacks varied depending on the quality of the manufacture, and so if you were in the Guards and received a well made item, it would look different from those in the 79th Regiment who received 'the cheapest possible to produce'. If you study the series of plates of the Allied army by Genty, or any of the contemporary artists in Paris during the occupation, you will see the difference between the knapsacks. The boards were inserted by the men to avoid having to pack their knapsacks in the manner specified, in the same way that the sergeants were told to inspect the cartridge boxes, because the men were taking the wooden blocks out of these to make them lighter, and just throwing the cartridges inside. In short, there was a great deal of variation between the battalions.

The Airfix 54mm Guardsman has a square backpack with a flap, like an envelope. The Highlander has the more familiar rectangular item, taller than it is wide, with a pair of vertical straps. From what you are saying, neither is correct?

Please note that all three regiments of the Foot Guards at Waterloo (and even the battalions) sourced their material from different suppliers. The 3rd Regiment of Foot Guards bought their knapsacks from Bicknall and Moore of Bond Street. The Coldstreams records, which are less extensive, indicate that there supplier (name not known) was based in East London. The Pattern was established, but the final item rested with the supplier and the Colonel of the Regiment, who provided the funds to produce the goods. The knapsack was canvas and soft. The Patent Office in London holds records for the items patented by various suppliers durng this time. The first 'box' type knapsack (complete with waterproof cover) was patented in 1815 by John Carpenter. The design drawings etc are extant. But this was after Waterloo, and the first actual 'box' knapsacks appeared in 1823. I will put a number of pictures of the Allied army by Genty on a page for you all to look at. I'll supply the link when I have finished.

Beautiful input here, thank you gents! John, thank you for the informative and generous help.

4th Cuirassier….yes, the actual pack was more wide than tall I'm finding. The source for the crossbelts was from Osprey #114, Wellington's Infantry (1), page 24. I know Osprey isn't always spot on, however some contemporary illustrations do show a crossbelt that seems relatively narrow, as compared to more modern depictions.

Best,
Bob