"AWI Brigade of Guards Info" Topic

link

I posted some information about the British Brigade of Guards in North America during the AWI on my blog. I've quoted some information from the Greg Novak book on the rosters of the Northern Theatre of the war plus a valuable link to the Company of Military Historians article on the Guards and their uniforms.

nice one Alt Fritz

now I know what I want for my birthday!

cheers
matt

DAF:

I know the following aren't your words, but there are some things that seem kinda odd here:

"The most readily recognizable changes are the shortening of the coat, the removal of all of the lace from the coat…"

Seems like a lot of work removing the lace, and I'm not sure why. I would question that.

"… and a major modification of the cocked hat. The hat was trimmed down in the back and sides and a front plate was added (from the left over felt or new material?) to create a sort of jockey style cap."

Why would they do that when just uncocking the hat would solve the need for a more practical hat?

"The bayonet waistbelt was stored, and the bayonet was hung from the cartridge box instead."

I'm not sure how that would really work, as the frog to carry the scabbard was part of the belt. They'd have to cut it apart and ruin it.

"Trousers and half gaitors replaced breeches,"

We had a huge discussion on the Revlist on this topic. If trousers mean overalls, they wouldn't need spatter dashes, and if they meant trousers in the pants sense – that would be kind of surprising.

"..and the blanket roll replaced the knapsack."

That is practical, but I'm not sure that was done till later in the war.

"Finally, a wooden barrel style of water canteen (it looks like the mini cask that a mountain rescue St. Bernard dog would have)."

Wow. I have never heard that one, and I am not aware any have ever been found. I'd really question that. I can't imagine anything more ungainly than a heavy wooden cask hanging off of you all day.

I seem to recall a slightly difference write up on the CMH site. I'll have to look when I get a chance, but I'd be interested in hearing where Greg got all this from.

historygamer,

Coats were supplied unlaced, and the lace taken from the previous year's coats; rather than removing the lace, perhaps they simply didn't attach it in the first place?

The CMH article by Bass and Burke cites references for the uniform alterations. I think the hat reference from DAF is a reference to the flank companies' headgear; the centre companies did uncock the hat, but I think the portrait of Dowdswell shows a "trim brim".

The carrying of a blanket instead of a pack is recorded for the troops attacking Bunker Hill (I'll see if I can find a reference, but I think it was an order from Howe for the men to carry three days' rations).

The Guards were given a "tub" water canteen; the sources cited in the CMH article aren't specific, but it is thought that the style was unique and there are depictions of a Foot Guards detachment in the Low Countries in the 1790s using precisely this type of small barrel (I think I actually suggested the "St Bernard" reference to DAF).

Was the same uniform worn later in the south? I think there is a Troiani print showing Guards at Guiliford Courthouse in laced coated and tricornes.

Troiani had it wrong. The lace had long been removed. Guards and line were also not wearing the cocked hat. It was brimmed with the right side turned up.

He also depicts the Maryland regiment in brand,spankin' new uniforms. They were probably wearing hunting shirts.Even the great ones are wrong once in awhile.

It depends which uniforms the Guards had on at GCH – if it was their old uniforms they were wearing when the initially came South, then probably they were similar to DAF's figures, but very tatty. However, somewhere around the time of Guilford, Cornwallis's army received new uniforms and it is open to debate whether they decided to wear them "off the peg" or left it until they had a break for R&R and could do the necessary tailoring to achieve the required level of smartness. Quite possibly they may have put them on when they burned their baggage train, as there was no other way of carrying the new clothing with them.

Good Afternoon

Greg Novak here with some answers of a sort.

For the Guards information, I was indebted to the late Bill Burke and Linnea Bass, who were part of the Northwest Territory Alliance, Bill and Linnea through hard work and perseverance put together a set of orderly books for the Guards covering most of the AWI. A number of published items in historical journals for example which listed the item as a AWI British orderly book turned out after some detective work to be the books Guards – Bill and Linnea matched officers and sergeants for example to determine if the books in question belonged to the Guards. (The case I remember best was an orderly book published in the North Carolina State Historical Journal in the 1930's – which turned out to cover the Guards in the Guilford Campaign.

The uniform for the Guards when they left Great Britain was per their parent regiment. On their arrival at Staten Island the changes to the hats, lace and belts were ordered – in fact the orderly book for this period mentions which transport vessel the company sergeants and tailors were to visit to see what the finished product was to look like.

The removal of lace was designed to remove regimental differences – these were the Guards after all and it would not do to have men in the same companies wearing different coats and lace patterns and showing less than perfect appearance. The other changes were designed to help them adjust to the conditions of war in the America's. The formation as a whole was termed the "Regiment of Foot Guards on American Service".

As an aside – the next time that the Guards sent forth a similar unit of mixed makeup was when some 110 years later the Guards Camel Regiment was sent to the Sudan. The only other formations was the 21st Guards (Pathfinder) Company in WWII.

The company page mentioned – which I was not able to access was done I believe by Bill and Linnea.

Head slap!!!!

Correct above to read Brigade of Guards on American Service

Okay, I asked the Coldstream Guards unit out this way about those changes, and here is what their former commander had to say:

"This was some stuff tried in 1776, some of which was quickly dropped. The specific order for the bayonet thing was:

Brigade Morning Orders 17 August 1776

"Bayonets to be carried fixed to the Pouches according to a pattern to be seen on board the Aeolus. The Waistbelts to be Stowed in some dry manner till further Orders." (1st and Coldstream Orderly Books)

"Bayonets to be carried fixed to the Mens Pouches. . . ." (Glyn's Journal)

We're not sure exactly when that nonsense was changed back, but it was certainly not in force when this order was issued:

Brigade Orders 11 March 1777
"The Waistbelts to Carry the Bayonet & to be wore across the Shoulder. The Captains are desired to provide Webbing for Carrying the Mens Blankets according to a pattern to be Seen at the Cantonment of Lt. Colo. Sr. J. Wrottesleys Company. The Serjeants to Observe how they are Sewed. The Officers to Mount Guard with their Fuzees." (1st Gds Orderly Book)

We don't know if the context of the order indicates that they'd already gone back to wearing the waistbelt prior to this, but it's clear that the bayonet attached to the cartridge pouch was a relatively short-lived experiment that didn't work.

The hat-caps described were probably made with the front plate being constructed of salvaged felt from cutting down the brim of the hats. We don't think that the "jockey caps" lasted too long for the Grenadiers and Lights as there are NO subsequent orders to make them from hats. There was a lot of movement of men among the companies, and at one time, there were two grenadier and two light companies (one for each battalion in the Brigade), and then back to one each – - with no orders for special uniform modifications on the uniforms of the flank companies. Since none of us were around while the samples were "to be seen aboard the Aeolus" or in Captain Wrottlesley's cantonment, we don't know for certain what those or other patterns for things that were made or modified actually looked like.

Same goes for removing the coat lace. There were several variations of how lace was worn – even changing depending on the MONTH – 1st BN with lace only on shoulder straps, then 2nd BN being told to do so as well, then coats being issued "unaltered" and so on. When you get to trousers materials – - – - YIKES! Makes it interesting."

Hi, me again.

SM- are you sure the coats arrived without lace? That does kind of track with some info I had regarding Marines, but seems like a heck of a lot of work to do in the field. Though I have always felt it was not worn in the field during the war by most units.

I would imagine the men were ready to use those barrel canteens to hit the guy on the head with who thought of that dumb idea. Imagine running around a field of battle with such a thing strapped on you, full of whatever.

I thought the idea of fixing the bayonet to the cartridge box sounded dumb. Apparently the Guards thought so too.

The trousers and short gaiters is interesting, and ties into a good discussion we had on the Revlist of what the word "trousers" meant. But, I have seen reference to Marines wearing "trouzers" at Halifax in 1776, and that is supported by pre-war paintings of them.

My guess is that no British unit looked quite the same from one issue of clothing to the next.

The French seem to have managed quite well with the bayonet scabbard attached to the cartridge box.

I'll have to look up a photo of the arrangement you are referring to.

Sounds like the Guards disagreed. And who are we to disagree with the Guards? :-)

"The French seem to have managed quite well with the bayonet scabbard attached to the cartridge box."

SM

The French attached the bayonet via an integral frog on the cross belt that carried the cartridge thus in reconstruction:

link

The bayonet was carried on the belt some way above the cartridge box. Presumably the Guards did not have the benefit of this bespoke arrangement and that would explain the abandonment of the experiment?

Ah…….

I bet that gets a lot of banged hands. Ouch.

The British waistbelt was usually worn over the shoulder, as the war went on. Either way, you could push it off to the side and out of your way. This one seems very awkward.

>The British waistbelt was usually worn over the shoulder, >as the war went on. Either way, you could push it off to >the side and out of your way. This one seems very awkward.

It remained very common for the French up through the Napoleonic era, as well. Center companies wore the frog/cartridge box arrangement up through 1815.

link

Doesn't seem to have been that awkward--it's right up there with the debate about which way the bayonet socket is supposed to face--inward or outward? I've seen outward in many, many prints but a lot of living history types shun the practice.

Just for that I'm changing how the unit wears them.

>Just for that I'm changing how the unit wears them.

You mean attached to our trowzers?

Here is a picture of the Guards:

Sweeeeet. Are they yours DAF?

Yes, they are Fife & Drum figures. I just finished the fifth stand of 8 figures this afternoon and hope to post a picture of the complete battalion in another day or so.

Very nice DAF…