Ben Townsend | 11 Dec 2011 4:45 p.m. PST |
Has anyone come across an order stating that the Light Infantry and Rifle regiments were excluded from the transition to the 'belgic' cap? I'm looking for something concrete before I go out on a limb and suggest that they weren't. After hundreds of hours searching the War Office papers at Kew I've found nothing to support the view that they stayed in 'stovepipes'. As far as I can tell, the lights=stovepipes connection originates with CCP Lawson in the mid C20th History of the Uniforms of the British Army. Thoughts? |
Florida Tory | 11 Dec 2011 4:53 p.m. PST |
Charles Hamilton Smith's print of an officer and enlisted man of the 52nd Light Infantry, published in November 1814, shows them both in the stovepipe shako. His print of riflemen of the 60th & 95th Rifle Regiments, published in May 1813, shows them both in the stovepipe shako also. I am sure there are probably other contemporary images. Rick |
Enry MItchell | 11 Dec 2011 5:07 p.m. PST |
I think the reason the common belief that Light Infantry regiments retained the stovepipe shako is that they appear thus depicted in hundreds of contemporary sketches and paintings. The number of contempory depictions in the Belgic shako equals precisely zero. Some eyewitness artists such as Dighton show, in 1815 for example, all line regiments except the 28th in Belgic shako and the light infantry in stovepipes. I don't think a lack of specific orders giving permission for the lights to ignore the change to the new shako can really hope to stand up to the mass of evidence showing that they clearly did! |
Ben Townsend | 11 Dec 2011 5:07 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the reply Rick. Lawson based his conclusion on the CHS prints, although he says, "There appear to be no orders regarding the subject, so one cannot be dogmatic." CHS also shows a light regiment in the 'belgic' though. I originally came at this question from a 95th Rifles angle, and soon found that there are plenty of contemporary prints showing them in the 'belgic'- mainly in occupation prints of c.1815, and rather less depicting the 'stovepipe' post 1812. There is also an intriguing personal letter from Barnard of the Rifles referring to the new caps in 1813, where he is clearly referring to a new style of caps, rather than a re-issue. The lack of a clear order concerns me as other changes to the cap are recorded in circular letters and general orders, including those changes specific to Light or Rifle regiments. |
Ben Townsend | 11 Dec 2011 5:15 p.m. PST |
Enry, I agree that a lack of the order is not proof in itself, but don't believe that there is stacks of evidence against my theory. The battalion of the 28th at Waterloo may still have been waiting for its new caps- in fact a letter exists detailing the loss of their new regimental caps in a ship wreck- there are however, examples of the universal cap plate for the 1812 cap extant badged to the 28th. Are you thinking of the George Jones drawings of Waterloo rather than Dighton? He does indeed show a rifleman in the stovepipe, but thats only two pics so far including the Hamilton Smith. I believe I can show you eight 'occupation' prints of riflemen in belgics. |
Enry MItchell | 12 Dec 2011 9:52 a.m. PST |
Hi Ben, yes maybe I mean Jones, I wasn't sure and didn't check. I was referring to this line drawings of the battle of Waterloo (the ones that show the 28th in stovepipe). The grey stuff is fast decaying! |
NoLongerAMember | 12 Dec 2011 10:44 a.m. PST |
My understanding, from various sources etc is that any Regiment from the Penninsular that had returned to Britain for sending to Canada (whether they went or not) had the Belgic, also that any Regiment sent to Spain from Britain (although not all those sent from Ireland, there being a different establishment for regiments posted there) in 1813 onwards had Belgics. It is also my understand that the 3rd Battalion 95th always wore a Belgic after 1812. The 28th actively wished to retain the stovepipe and there is a letter from the Colonel covering this. I would suspect (based on intuition and knowing how procurement actually works rather than anything too concrete) that in any Battalion that the lights still wore stovepipes while the rest had Belgics, it was because they still had stovepipes in store at their home depot and had to wear them out fast, so they were given to the lights to get rid of them. |
Enry MItchell | 12 Dec 2011 3:51 p.m. PST |
You've got me looking for George Jones sketches – here's one I just found dated 1814. Looking stovepipish to me. link |
Enry MItchell | 12 Dec 2011 3:55 p.m. PST |
Another sketch showing stovepipes in 1815 link |
Enry MItchell | 12 Dec 2011 4:00 p.m. PST |
|
Enry MItchell | 12 Dec 2011 4:30 p.m. PST |
This one is very specific – sketch dated Sep 10th 1815 at Clichy. Interesting hussar and those faint figures in the background. The troops on the floor in the foreground look like light infantry – they have winged epaullettes. They are wearing stovepipe shakos. |
Edwulf | 12 Dec 2011 5:27 p.m. PST |
Cheers enry, those sketches are interesting. The trousers look different than I imagined. |
Edwulf | 12 Dec 2011 5:37 p.m. PST |
Alot of occupation pics are painted by Frenchmen, who may not have fully understood what they were painting. They may have labled it a light infantryman, but it may have been a light company soldier from a line unit, also with sketches, some are drawn from memory some from life. Maybe one rifleman, losing his cap replaces it with a Belgic and is captured for posterity by a French artist. Not as likely, but possible. I gave never seen any image of rifles or lights in belgics. Even guys who liked to but belgics on pictures set in 1810 show light troops in stovepipes. Must be something In it. |
Ben Townsend | 17 Dec 2011 3:44 p.m. PST |
Artist portrayals:1. Sketches and paintings from life by professional artists. This type of iconographic source combines the accuracy of first-hand observation with the technical prowess of the trained artist and provides the greatest degree of reliability in the period before photography. I prefer sketches because the works are executed closer to the moment of observation then more formal studio pieces. At their best when the artist possesses military experience. Examples: Carle Vernet uniform paintings. Critical concerns: Difficulty in establishing where and when a particular sketch was made; lesser degree of reliability when troops foreign to the home country of the artist are depicted. 2. Sketches and paintings from life by amateur artists. Similar reliability to source 1 above, but style tends to be unpolished or naive. Examples: The ‘naive riflemen' paintings, the Percy Sumner bugler painting. Painting of Alexander Kent by brother officer. Critical concerns: Lack of technical skill can lead to grotesque renderings of points of detail; the provenance of most manuscripts is scanty and many are known only through later copies of the work which have been intentionally or unintentionally altered or modified. 3. Formal paintings and other works (excluding portraits) by professional artists. This type of iconographic source includes the large commissioned battle paintings displayed at the salons of the period, which are somewhat stylised artistically, but which had to be accurate enough to satisfy the critical eye of actual participants in the actions represented. Examples: Paintings by Heaphy, Geo Jones, Atkinson Critical concerns: Time lapse between the incidents depicted and the execution of the work gives rise to anachronisms (e.g Dighton's painting of the Guards, wearing belgic caps at Corunna in 1809, Thevenin's painting of Ulm at Versailles depicting figures from the guard dragoons and polish lancers, neither of which units existed in 1805, but did exist when the picture was painted. With apologies to Guy Dempsay who I have heavily paraphrased here. I have a strong bias towards the French artists of the occupation because they were attemting to portray the troops of the occupying armies who were relatively new subjects. A French artist painting British troops for a uniform series provides a snapshot of an unfamiliar (to him) unit in an exact moment. An English artist portraying, say, a rifleman of the 95th had more baggage. For instance, George Jones, a militia Officer and professional artist was likely to have sketches of riflemen from the period 1800-15, plus observation of auxiliary rifle units (militia, volunteers etc) to draw upon. He had a preconception of a British rifleman, whereas a French artist had never heard of these units until they appeared on his doorstep and hence was more likely to draw from life. There are multiple instances of riflemen in belgics in 1815 to support this. Moving back to regulation information, lets stress that there is NO extant regulation, circular letter, or general order, exempting lights or rifle units from adopting the belgic. There are, however, examples of units postponing the adoption of the belgic cap. There is a paper trail illustrating how that works: In order to flout regulations one has to have permission from the Commander in chief. This involves providing a good reason for a delay in conforming to regulation. For instance, having caps of an earlier pattern in store when a new regulation is issued is sufficient reason to delay implementing the new regulation for no more than a year. I can provide examples of this. The 28th losing their new caps in transit is another documented example. I'm not sure how preferring a non-regulation cap fits into this system, I haven't found any instances of this in the WO papers. @ Fred Bloggs, what is your source for the 3/95th adopting the belgic? Mine is a letter from Lt Col Barnard in 1813 stating that the 2/95th and 3/95th adopted the new cap then, following the example of the 52nd (lights) who were the first in the Light Division to adopt the new cap. |
Enry MItchell | 17 Dec 2011 5:56 p.m. PST |
I would be wary of basing assertions of what troops wore on written orders from the War Office, especially if this is accompanied by rejecting eye witness sketches etc which do not fit such a theory. Take the hussars in 1815 for example, are there specific orders stating that the 18th should wear a fur colpack but the 10th should wear a red peaked shako? I doubt it. No amount of written orders drafted in Whitehall would convince me to reject the contrary evidence of contemporary sketches by eye-witnesses. But that's just me! :) |
Ben Townsend | 17 Dec 2011 7:30 p.m. PST |
Enry, agree that regulations weren't always slavishly applied, but would argue that where a deviation occured it ought to be proved from multiple sources. The red shako of the 10th is a good example, being recorded in contemporary images, eye witness accounts and inspection returns. I started to re-assess the light/rifle cap conundrum after reading a letter from Barnard, an Officer of the 95th which reads, "The letter in the Rifle Brigade Chronicle is from Barnard at St. Simon, April 1, 1813, to Alexander Cameron, and says, " I have had caps enough in store to help the appearance of the 1st Batt. as it used to be but the 2nd and 3rd sport bang ups as the soldiers of the 52nd who were the first in the Division that put them on have christened them.." This picqued my interest, and after finding no regulation exempting the lights/rifles from adopting the new regulation cap, I found there was no shortage of images from c.1815 showing them in the belgic. Hang on, I'll attempt to upload some. |
Ben Townsend | 17 Dec 2011 7:33 p.m. PST |
|
spontoon | 18 Dec 2011 7:56 a.m. PST |
As all three of these plates are by foreigners, I propose that they might be of troops uniformed by Britain, but not British? Hanoverian perhaps? I am not reassured by the 'Rifles" officer wearing his sash across his shoulders Highland regiment style. Not even a Rifles style sash! |
Enry MItchell | 18 Dec 2011 11:21 a.m. PST |
Ben I agree that is a very interesting reference by Bernard and the pictures certainly back it up. It just seems very odd that so many other sources show the stovepipe. Alternatively can we be sure "bang up" necessarily refers to a new design of cap? (I agree it sounds likely!) I guess if I'm honest I just don't want to believe that I've painted hundreds of figures incorrectly! What's your opinion on the 28th? Lady Butler depicted them in square in the Belgic cap. |
Ben Townsend | 20 Dec 2011 7:04 a.m. PST |
Enry, these are just a few of the occupation images showing Rifles in belgics.. Bang up, check it in Georgian slang dictionary, seems to fit, and there is corroboration from the RA who referred to their new caps as the bang up. The 28th are among those who requested permission to weear their old caps past Dec 25th 1811, owing to losing their supply of new caps. Interestingly they obviously expected them to be there on time. In fact the much vaunted supply problems for new uniforms in the Peninsula don't seem to hold up, with those units requesting permission to wear the old cap past the introduction of the new cap doing so because they had plenty of the old caps in store in Lisbon. Their requests were acceded to, for the period of a year.. |
Ben Townsend | 22 Dec 2011 4:40 p.m. PST |
Enry, I'm expecting some resistance to this view from wargamers, but hope to announce the recruitment of some 'big gun' authors to the converted viewpoint soon, that might add some weight to my lone voice crying in the wilderness. |
Enry MItchell | 23 Dec 2011 6:43 a.m. PST |
Good luck Ben, I'd sleep with a loaded service revolver under my pillow if I were you, just think of the expense of all those thousands of moulds for rifles and light infantry in all scales which would have to be scrapped! You may be the man who knows too much. |
Camcleod | 24 Dec 2011 11:18 p.m. PST |
I was looking thru a few magazines I have and found the following in 'Regiment' #21: Existing 95th Officer's shako, dated 1815.
Painting by P W Reynolds of a 95th Officer, dated 1815.
Note the caption of the last says that the 95th continued to wear the old pattern shako until 1816. I wonder if due to the ragged state of their uniforms during the occupation a number of regts were issued with new uniforms and shakos (ie. Belgics). I also found a note in the book "British Napoleonic Uniforms" by Franklin that the Light Regts. 'adopted the Stovepipe shako as a distinction of their roll'. Cliff |
Ben Townsend | 25 Dec 2011 3:35 a.m. PST |
Hi Cliff, Thanks for contributing to the discussion. The Officer's Cap pictured is in the RGJ museum at Winchester. The museum are unable to provide a provenance. The museum date is probably no more accurate then their dating of an extant colour sjt badge to 1809! The second image is Reynold's rendering of the Kent portrait, and thus a C20th copy of the 1809 original. It does show of course the considerable latitude allowed in Officer's dress, but the original is clearly dated. Franklin doesn't provide any sourcing for his assertion, which leads me to suspect that he is merely going with the flow. All the sources he does provide in his book are familiar to me, and I have found nothing therin to support the lights= stovepipe equation. |
Brummie Lad | 25 Dec 2011 6:01 a.m. PST |
I make no claim to be well versed in relation to this discussion. However, with regards to the "occupation" images above, is it possible that they received a supply of Belgic shakos after fighting had concluded? They could have still been wearing the Stovepipe at Waterloo, and when they "stopped" for occupation duty, they received their Belgics, and were thus drawn in those hats. Just a thought that probably has no basis in anything! lol |