"French infantry - Overcoat on campaign?" Topic

On of the classic campaign "looks" of the French infantry in the late Napoleonic period is covered shako and overcoat. Is there any empirical evidence on how often troops wore the overcoat, as opposed to the habite? Would entire battalions wear the overcoat and store the habite, or vice versa?

I recall seeing some sketches of 2nd Empire French units which strongly suggested that the colonel of the regt. decided whether his unit wore capote or habite and gave specific orders. If this were the case, the practice of mixing capotes and habites in a wargames unit would be inaccurate.

I've also read that it was regulated by the Chef de Batalione or Colonel.

I've also read that greatcoats were even worn in the summer as they were unlined. The habit was just rolled up instead. I've read troops prefered it because the greatcoat was looser and officers liked it because it kept the habits clean for inspections and the day of battle.

My understanding is the same as boomstick86.

But, be aware that often before a battle, if the weather was not bad and there was time to do so, troops would don their battle dress, which may not be up to parade dress, but was fancier than marching attire. This would especially be true of elite troops.

Variation = realistic. We're talking about soldiers on campaign, the only thing unrealistic is having no variation.

Now, to be clear – I'm not voting against no variation, I am of the mind that a player is entitled to have all his troops in the *exact* same pose and uniform and all if he/she is so inclined.

But the question of realism? We're talking about a war right?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Yes, but we're also talking about an early 19th century european army. Uniforms served many purposes, including identification of friend from foe, as well as espirit de corps. That last reason cannot be underestimated, even today. "Team colors" are even important in football. My military experience, albeit in the peacetime US Army, makes me think that keeping one's unit to one particlular set of clothes was enforced as much as possible. Inspections are not a new thing.

If I may digress, I have seen French figs with blue, brown and gray overcoats, so why where there so many overcoat colors instead of a uniform color?

Good question79thPA. I like a mix of colours in all but my Guard units.
Logistic systems fail on the modern battlefield. I suspect they were a bit of a joke during the 18th and 19th Centurys.

I seem to recall a British officer at Waterloo remarked that the French had been wearing their greatcoats, as they usually had in the Peninsula War.

They had been marching in the rain all night. Of course they were wearing their greatcoats. Yet no movie shows this as it is not colorful. It was however historical.

Most battles were fought by French in grey overcoats against Russians in Grey overcoats or Austrians, or Prussians, or British in their grey overcoats. Yet I, like all of you, prefer to paint in dress, or at least campaign uniforms.

It is difficult to say, usually parade dress was thrown away before the campaign, that is breeches and white parade gaiters to make the burden to carry lighter.
But usually it was tried to wear on day of battle at least the uniform coat (this might be different in the Peninsular War).
At Borodino, for example the Westphalian army had to look as nice as possible, because it was announced that Napoleon will hold a revue before the battle.
There most of the officers had only the dark blue surtout along with them, they were alound to carry it and not the white uniform coat.
In 1813, due to poor weather conditions – seemingly a lot of battles were fought in great coats.

Over the years I have listened to the arguments of Campaign dress versus full dress. All the books and accounts I have read regarding the dress worn for actual battles support the full dress or as near to it as possible, the regiments were always required to look their best prior to and during the actual battle, the old guard kept their dress uniforms in the backpacks specifically for this. As wargamers we are mostly concerned with the actual fighting- full dress it should be!

I like a mix. Practically, one of my units was very thin figures, especially in the legs. I add liquid epoxy to give the "balloon" overalls for Spain. They are the 16th Leger, the elites of which had red edging on vests and coats. They are in full dress, but with varied brown overalls.

I did the same for the 88th line in spain, but in this case scraped away the tails of the Spencer, and painted them white as though in vest. Balloon overall in tan to brown. Covered shakos from off-white, through tan, to German Feldgrau, to brown.

They fight next to other units in full dress – line and light.

I enjoy the variance, especially when I have drummer/cornetist details in contrast to the rest of the unit. The drummer of the 88th has a covered shako, but wears a rose-colored habit faced mid to dark green, with the brown overalls.

GdeP

What is full dress? If it's a matter of sticking a feather plume in it's holder and removing the waxed linen cover from your shako and cartridge pouch, and pulling off your protective overalls to uncover your white trousers, then fine – but I don't believe the lads carried 'dress uniforms' in their backpacks…… they might get stained by the chicken entrails or the broken bottle of wine plundered from the last village……..

The Guard at Waterloo fought very much in a campaign attire – any finery, such as the plume, was protected ready for the triumphal entry into Brussels, anticipated for the evening of the 18th, or the morning of the 19th.
The lads would have smelt awful, their uniforms would have been filthy, and potentially ridden with lice – they would have done their best to look decent, maybe whitening their cross belts and attaching a plume here or there for battle – but whilst on campaign they were roughing it, and would have looked rough because of it.

npm

Breeches were thrown away – so for battle field, field trousers would be predominent – so typical up to 1812 battle field appearance would be trousers and uniform coats.
How to whiten cross belts, when on active campaing – is next to impossible in my view – and yes they would look rough.
For 1813 and later one would have to look at each battle, but in my opinion, mostly the infantry would fight in great coats – at least on the French side.

Would the infantry even have been issued breeches after 1812? Napoleon was levying vast numbers of new recruits each year and must have been cutting corners on equipping them.

Next someone will tell me that their uniforms were laundered before the battle as well.

Ligniere – yes exactly.

NOTE: I have no issue with however someone choses to display their figures on the gaming table, rather it is the academic discussion of how uniform uniforms were that I find… ill examined.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Keeping up appearances in the field is not as hard as some of you may think. 18th & 19th century soldiers usually carried with them as part of their kit:
Pipe clay – whiting belts
Boot black – black leather dressing
A brush – dirt brushes out of wool uniforms fairly easy
Bacon – eat the bacon and use the grease to protect polished iron or steel and rubbed into wood.

Metal was polished using a mixture of ash, dirt, and water
Once a soldier learned the tricks of taking care of his kit is was a simple task. It also made work for idle hands.

I have read accounts of troops standing field inspections in 1704, so it was nothing new by Nappy's time.

It is as hard you you think, espcically when you are really in the field and have no quarters where you can stay, rough it out, try to preserve a clean uniform, sleeping on earth, walking over mud, being rained on several days – as soon as you may have cleaned your kit as soon as it gets dirty again.
You could do such clean ups only when a unit was stationary for one or several days.
It is not just pipe clay dusting onto the belt, it has to be mixed with fluid, then brushed onto your belts and then it has to dry – several hours.
You just cannot pipeclay when wearing your cross belts, otherwise – garantueed – some pipe clay would find its way to the uniform cloth.
I am not saying it was not done, but it would very much depend on the phase of the campaign.

I made a regiment of 3 battalions of Airfix French years ago with great coats on some of the troops.
I built the greatcoats up of moulding clay.
Then I painted all the great coats in a mix of brown and grey.
I called them my veterans.
And woe betide an British who got in their way.

But I think for battle they would have put on their battle dress if possible.

The Napoleon mini series of a few years ago has quite a few battle scenes with troops in great coats, but of course they were often in autumn or winter.

I saw a BBC doc recently on modern British army and an officer showed his kit after a couple of days exercise in the field – absolutely caked in mud – and remarked that he couldn't imagine what his ancestors in all their "finery" would have looked like on campaign.

The Life Guards at Waterloo were said, after the 17th June, to be so caked in black mud that it was impossible to see any red of their uniforms.

A British officer writes of carrying his shako his shako at his waist, it being attached to his sash which was passed through the waterproof cover.

But it would be a brave man who tried to depict any of the above! I guess it's the kind of thing most people prefer to turn a blind eye to, along with all that "warhammer rock" basing – (how many battles were fought on granite?)

There is a lot of opinion in this thread and very little reference to historical evidence one way or the other. Can posters back up their opinions?

I draw my opinions from doing a lot of reading and 30 years of soldiering.
Soldiering is a profoundly 'practical' vocation. Even more so pre 1900.
I have a chuckle to myself when people quote manuals and directives written by some desk officer in Whitehall or Paris in 1806.
Once the troops left their garrisons / barracks and started campaingning the appearance of Regiments / Battalions etc would have rapidly changed. Officers and NCOs would have done their best to enforce / retain uniformity, but more pressing issues such as enforcing discipline, rations (water) quartering and ammunition supply would soon have dominated their time.
The fact Private Tomkins shako was missing would have not been a high priority for his Company Sergeant.
Will I quote reference material?
I'd love to, but I'm far to busy working on enforcing discipline, dealing with rations and quartering and ammunition issues.
;o)
Cheers

@trailape

So historical memoirs and letters from the participents count for nothing. I guess the fellah that said all history is bunk must gave been right. What a waste of time doing historical research!

Hi Alan Charlesworth

So historical memoirs and letters from the participents count for nothing. I guess the fellah that said all history is bunk must gave been right. What a waste of time doing historical research!

Ummm, no.
Did you actually read what I wrote?

draw my opinions from doing a lot of reading and 30 years of soldiering

Note the bit on 'a lot of reading'
What I suggested was those parts of "historical research" that apply to 'Orders of dress' and 'Commanding Officers Directives' might be irrelevant when considering what was actuallly happening at the coal face.
Historical quotes and documents, (like comments on forums) can sometimes be 'cherry picked' to suit a particular argument.

Most of the diarists I've read, cooper, wheeler, Wheatley, Thomas, Kincaid, make some references to the general poor state of clothin. Moccasins, sandals, straw hats, any available trousers they could have found, missing or removed cap badges, lace stripped of and sold to be food and drink.. I can even remember reading about troops in India drilling in shirts, and troops in the peninsula falling in formed up naked!
Whatever the Regulations might dictate the weather, supply lines, comfort ect will work against it.

I don't doubt a fresh of the boat unit might look sharp… For a while, at least until it's ordered on any marches, and troops stationed in garrison might scrub up and have time to repair, polish and re equip.

@Edwulf,

>Whatever the Regulations might dictate the weather, supply lines, comfort ect will work against it.<

I think that's right and the longer the campaign and the supply lines, the worse it becomes. The average Napoleonic soldier was also a pretty basic individual too whose personal hygiene left a lot to be desired by our standards.

Having said that, maintaining ‘uniform' was part and parcel of discipline and I'll bet that on most occasions having that button done up properly assumed a degree of importance in the minds of the SNCOs that we find hard to fathom.

On greatcoats, I seem to remember that French conscripts in 1814 had little more that a greatcoat and shako/forage cap as uniform.

Hi
I agree with XVB.
Even some young officers (YO) today find it hard to fathom why NCOs and Warrant Officers get wrapped around the axles over poor dress standards.
That said, as in my previous post:

Officers and NCOs would have done their best to enforce / retain uniformity, but more pressing issues such as enforcing discipline, rations (water) quartering and ammunition supply would soon have dominated their time.
The fact Private Tomkins shako was missing would have not been a high priority for his Company Sergeant.

Cheers

@ Trailape

I don't like this use of "would have"
How do you know what they would have done?

I am not interested in "would have"
I am only interested in facts as far as we can ascertain them

Le Gen

I don't like this use of "would have"
How do you know what they would have done?

And I don't like the use of the words 'ream' and 'plucked'(they sound dirty)
That said, you are correct.
:o)
Please delete "would have" and please insert:
"IMHO most probably or may have"
In my defence I was drawing on my own personal experiance of having a soldier reporting to me he had lost his soft cap whilst on deployment. I was only really concerned that he had his helmet, rifle, body armour etc.
I kinda suspect that a Company Sergeant fighting across Spain in 1809 wouldn't place the replacement of one of the Lads hats high on his 'list to do'.
:o)
I could well be wrong however,…

@Trailape

OK, well said. I like that "IMHO most probably"

I read once that when writing history at the time, writers do not always comment on what is common knowledge at that time. They expected that everyone reading their material later would know the basics. And yet it is sometimes these basics that we need or want to know.

I'm trying to determine at what point this thread got so nick picky as to be completely useless. I am struggling to identify the turning point.

Cheers,

The Bandit

In his sketches of Bordino, Faber du Faur shows the Wuerttemburg infantry wearing their dress uniforms with trousers; no greatcoats.

Faber du Faur was an eye witness although the color paintings were not completed until after he returned to Germany.

I'm trying to determine at what point this thread got so nick picky as to be completely useless. I am struggling to identify the turning point.

Oh, I don't think people are getting nit-picky.
Hey, if you want to game with your troops in full dress, crack on i say.
I like a mix.
Normally Veterans in battered campaingn dress and conscripts in 'hand-me-downs' of limited issue, ("a hat and greatcoat to go with you musket will do you Lad")
Recently re-equipped Battalions and some of The Guard, (of course)in full dress.
Cheers

@trailape

As I mentioned above, I completely agree with the notion of realism being more gritty and mixed appears in line with yours. I just think it is silly when people claim that in a battle that might involve hundreds of thousands of men there was none of what I will politely call, "minor variation." I think there was a ton of variation…

I also concur that should one want to do all their troops (or some, or whatever) in full dress, more power to em. I have a fair number that way.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I think there was a ton of variation…

I agree completely.
When you see an Army unit on operations today and you see the variation in dress / equipment and soldiers missing kit due to enemy action or carelesness of the soldier, just imagine what it must have been like for an army in the 1800s lacking a fully functioning logistic system.
:o)

?

I think most people would agree that there would be some variation in dress on campaign for the fairly obvious practical reasons.

However, it is the second part of the OP that is most interesting:

"I recall seeing some sketches of 2nd Empire French units which strongly suggested that the colonel of the regt. decided whether his unit wore capote or habite and gave specific orders. If this were the case, the practice of mixing capotes and habites in a wargames unit would be inaccurate."

Assuming that a number of the men would have the option to wear either/both habit-veste and overcoat, would this be left to personal choice or would there be an instruction that was followed by those that could comply?

I think it's important to distinguish between variation that results from the availability of two or more options, and that enforced by shortages/disrepair.

<<When you see an Army unit on operations today and you see the variation in dress / equipment and soldiers missing kit due to enemy action or carelesness of the soldier, just imagine what it must have been like for an army in the 1800s lacking a fully functioning logistic system.>>

Actually, I would think that would mitigate against the level of "variety" you describe. Napoleonic soldiers had far less choice in terms of kit or uniform. Consequently, there was less to lose (and hence what there was was easier to keep an eye on). Variations would more likely include looted items to replace lost/damaged kit, or substitute for disliked items. There is also an element of "individuality" in modern units that simply would not have existed – even if it were permitted – in horse-and-musket periods.

Whatever the generals might feel, colonels and sergeant-majors DID care what their unit looked like, and probably made every effort to create an appearance of uniformity, to the point of swapping kit around (eg different batches of greatcoats) so that sub-units looked as much alike as possible (eg 1st Bn got the grey, 2nd Bn got the beige, 3rd Bn got the rest).

Going off-period slightly, I think that this is something that AWI wargamers should consider more when painting up Continental units; apart from the odd newbie still in civvies, each company would have its personnel clothed as similarly as possible.

Yes, the same as today, I remember – when the US forces in my garrison did not have all desert boots – and go for a parade, all units used their usual black leather boots.
Still – the longer a campaign – the more the variations.
Also soldiers along with bad equipment were placed in the second and third rank, at least for parades