"Painting 16th British Dragoons for AWI" Topic
32 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
|
Basilhare | 14 Jul 2004 4:46 p.m. PST |
Guys, I just acquired some fine looking Perry 28mm 16th Dragoons in Tarelton headgear....I do not have a good picture of this unit....any ideas on what color the Tarelton headgear was? Looks like they had a redcoat....how about the facing colors? Thanks as always, Faron. |
John the OFM | 14 Jul 2004 5:13 p.m. PST |
If you are going to be painting AWI armies, I suggest that you buy a book. You know, one of them rectangular things with paper pages and colored pictures. Go to Amazon.com and search "John Mollo", and look for uniforms of the American Revolution. All of the people who you wish to answer your question have done so. |
MacSparty | 14 Jul 2004 5:29 p.m. PST |
John Mollo's "Uniforms of the American Revolution" is indespensible. As I am painting up some chaps from the 17th, I happen to have mine within arms reach right now. It shows the 16th with blue facings and white lace, white turnbacks. The helmet is black with a red plume, with the emblem in front appearing to be white. Mollo's writeup says the trumpeters wore red coats faced blue with yellow lace and a red stripe. (And if it matters, the figure in the book appears to have buff pants and a white shirt.) |
Basilhare | 14 Jul 2004 6:42 p.m. PST |
Gee John, I kinda thought this forum was designed to talk about uniforms, painting troops, rules, etc....you know one of these discussiony forumy type things....sorry I offended you....actually I already have a number of those rectangular things w/ paper pages...8 AWI osprey books and a poster book of the AWI that has 50 or so color plates....unfortunately, none show a 16th Dragoon trooper in Tarleton headgear...... I would have thought that you would like to encourage beginners to the AWI genre rather than look down your nose at them...you know, kinda build up the gaming/miniature hobby.....obviously, I have upset you in some way....my apologies....I shant bother you and your fellow forum mates with further questions, I must have misunderstood what this forum was designed for.... My sincere thanks, Faron. |
Basilhare | 14 Jul 2004 6:58 p.m. PST |
Oh and by the way, thanks MacSparty for your help....! faron. |
Psycho Rabbit | 14 Jul 2004 7:26 p.m. PST |
John, You should change your name to Dick! |
Psycho Rabbit | 14 Jul 2004 7:31 p.m. PST |
Faron, Don't let the lame discourage you from posting as many questions as needed. Rabbit! |
SashandSaber | 14 Jul 2004 8:11 p.m. PST |
Basilhare, Don Troiani's book "Soldiers in America" contains the plate upon which the Perrys based their 16th Dragoons. Evidently, evidence indicates that they switched in 1776 to the new fangled "Tarleton" helmet from the regulation headgear portrayed in Mollo (which should not be accepted without question -- it's ok, but badly out of date). According to Troiani, the helmet turban (cloth) was painted to resemble leopard skin, while the crest is black bearskin. The rest of the uniform is as MacSparty has already posted. Chris |
WinterSoldier | 14 Jul 2004 9:57 p.m. PST |
Many prints in the Mollo book have been discredited within my reenactment group and by research from gaming buddies. Don't always trust one source. |
AndyBrace | 15 Jul 2004 12:14 a.m. PST |
Hi Actually the Perry's 16th Dragoons should be painted with white jackets as they are designed for the Southern Campaign. Cheers Andy |
Basilhare | 15 Jul 2004 2:19 a.m. PST |
I found this site which has a good pic of a 16th Dragoon Dismounted trooper: link Thanks, Faron. |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Jul 2004 2:44 a.m. PST |
SashandSaber is correct - Mollo is almost certainly wrong in depicting the 16th in the same helmets as the 17th. Don Troiani's painting is of the dismounted element of the 16th, which was raised specifically for service in North America. Although there is no documentary evidence for the 16th's mounted troops wearing Tarleton helmets at this time (Tarleton was actually a subaltern in the regiment in 1776) it seems unlikely the foot bods would have been given a different helmet from the mounted guys, especially as it does not conform to any other known light infantry cap of the period. I think AndyBrace has confused the 16th and 17th - it was the latter that served in the South (the 16th went home in 1778, 2-3 years earlier). However, he is right in saying that LDs serving in the South had white smock-type jackets rather than the regimental coats, which had become so old and tattered they could no longer be patched, according to some accounts. |
AndyBrace | 15 Jul 2004 4:10 a.m. PST |
Hi OK I got my regiments mixed up. But to say that the 16th would not have worn the standard light dragoon helmet seems to be wrong. As all light dragoons in the British army wore the same helmet. Cheers |
John the OFM | 15 Jul 2004 5:22 a.m. PST |
Faron, please drop the "wounded doe" response. My reply was predicated on the assumption that you had bought a box of Perry figures and had not bothered to do any research yourself. I get annoyed at people who cannot be bothered to even do a simple Google search, check the TMP 17th Century archives, or read a book, and then act as if the people who HAVE done the research owe it to those who have not. My bad for coming across like the grumpy old fart that I am. However... your post did come across like you wanted someone else to do the research that you could not be bothered with. The fact that I have never seen a one volume AWI uniform book WITHOUT showing British cavalry is one reason. I am glad to see that you have made some initial uniform purchases. You will find as you get into it more that they will contradict each other, particularly as regards AWI cavalry headgear. For the record, since the 16th by the Perrys are wearing regimentals, I would give them the red coat, with blue facings. The 17th would be red and white. I do not believe that when the 17th served in the South that the white coats they wore were regimentals, but hunting shirts, which would be entirely different figures. |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Jul 2004 6:04 a.m. PST |
John, You are quite right. Perrys make a separate set of 17th LD, wearing smocks, for the Southern Campaign. AndyBrace, "But to say that the 16th would not have worn the standard light dragoon helmet seems to be wrong. As all light dragoons in the British army wore the same helmet." No, they didn't, I'm afraid, any more than all light infantry companies wore the standard "Keppel pattern" cap. It was up to the regiment's colonel to purchase uniforms, which were based on patterns supplied by the War Office. If they didn't like the pattern, they altered it and let officialdom do its worst. There are numerous returns where inspecting generals remark on an item of kit or uniform differing from the official pattern. There are images of the 12th and 15th wearing similar helmets to the 17th, but there are also images of the 22nd and 23rd wearing very different styles (and also short green jackets). There is no written evidence as to what the 16th DID wear, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that makes the Tarleton the more likely bet. (1) The dismounted division wore it from the moment they were raised. Why else would they wear such a distinctive - and unique - style, if not because it was already worn by the mounted division? (2) The della Gatta painting of the Paoli action shows the 16th in non-standard helmets - it's difficult to make out exactly what they are, but there is a crest and a peak (both absent from the 17th LD style). (3) The fact that Tarleton adopts a similar helmet for his British Legion cavalry when he transfers from the 16th. Cheers
|
MacSparty | 15 Jul 2004 6:26 a.m. PST |
Wow, the things you learn on this board. I must admit when I first answered the question I did consult just one source - Mollo. A cardinal sin, I know! (I do have other books - Osprey, Troiani, etc., I just didn't feel like digging them up at the time. ;) ) It's great to see the variety of responses given here. I am in the very initial stages of painting up a British AWI army too (I already have a sizable American collection) and it seems the old adage "the more you learn the less you know" is particularly appropriate! This board has been extremely helpful in getting this project started. |
avidgamer | 15 Jul 2004 8:40 a.m. PST |
OFM, I'm painting a WWII German army. I have those paper and cardboard thingies. Right now I'm too lazy to get off my ass and look it up. Could you please send me color swatches of the uniforms but Fedex them to my house ASAP. Thanks. Is your head exploding yet? :) |
AndyBrace | 15 Jul 2004 8:49 a.m. PST |
Hi This is from the original Osprey No39 The British Army in North America, 1775-1783. Plate F No 2 "The black helmet had a blue turban, and a red plume rising from a crest with brass trim. The frontal device was white". The helmet looks similar to the 17th's but has a Royal Cypher on the front instead of the skull and crossbones. It seem that the 16th went home in 1778. Cheers
|
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Jul 2004 9:33 a.m. PST |
"This is from the original Osprey No39 The British Army in North America, 1775-1783. Plate F No 2" The new edition of that Osprey has a different plate with the 16th in it, but also with the 17th style of helmet. Granted, that is what the regiment SHOULD be wearing according to teh 178 warrant. However, there are NO contemporary portraits of the 16th other than the della Gatta painting (which was done from eyewitness accounts, by the way), so the artist has assumed the style of headress from looking at other units. Also, new helmets were issued every 2-3 years, so different styles could have been worn durign the war years (eg an inspection report shows the 17th had BRASS helmets in 1772 - and the trumpeters had helmets instead of the regulation tricorne hats). To illustrate how accurate rest of the caption to the plate is, it also states that: (1) "the 16th transferred its effective horses and men to the 17th [light dragoons]" - in fact, they went to several units, including the Volunteers of Ireland, the 17th Foot light company, the 1st Light Infantry battalion, and Cathcart's Legion (later the British Legion); (2) "a light infantry, or dismounted troop, was added to the regiment for service in America" - in fact there were six such troops; (3) "they wore leather helmets like the light infantry" - in fact, they wore what we now call Tarleton helmets, which were not like any other light infantry caps of that time. I'm not saying the 16th COULDN'T have worn the regulation helmet; I'm just saying there is no evidence they did (an important point in an era when standardisation was pants) and quite a lot of circumstantial evidence they did not more of which occurs in Strachan's "British Military Uniforms 1768-1796" under the 23rd Light Dragoons. In a letter of October 17, 1781, from the Adjutant General to Thomas Fauquier (presumably either an agent or a supplier) it states: "Helmets the same as worn by the 16th Light Dragoons." Why specify them if they wore the standard helmet? Cheers |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Jul 2004 9:35 a.m. PST |
Sorry, that should have read "the 1768 warrant" |
Basilhare | 15 Jul 2004 9:52 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the follow up post, John. I certainly agree that anyone getting into miniature gaming should make an attempt to research their projects and attempt to aquire at least a rudimentary library. I do think that we as historical gamers need to do a better job at welcoming newcomers into the hobby. We often complain that Gamesworkshop and the like has taken over the field of miniatures gaming and that fewer and fewer folks are interested in historical gaming. Yet I often hear complaints similar to what has occured here - "You historical gamers are a self righteous and arrogant lot." I guess my point is this; even if I was a lazy gamer and had no intention of doing any research of my own, would it be a bad thing to humor a newbie and let those who felt led, help a newcomer out? John, if a newbie such as this annoys you, then simply dont answer his post...you dont have to publically chastise him....if he becomes a bother then folks on the forum will simply ignore him and not answer his questions.....we dont have to add to the perception that we are a snobbish and stuck up lot that cares more about history than people, do we? I am a 43 year old gray haired gaming grogard......I have gamed Empire II, III, IV, Stars n Bars, Battlefront, Napoleon's Battles, AH, SPI and countless other systems and games....I just happen to be new to the AWI genre....I have spent over $500 on miniatures, books and rules to get into this period...I still dont have color plates of every uniform, therefore I do have some questions....this forum is invaluable to a newcomer like myself......but while Im an old grognard (granted, an ignorant one)- what if I was the 17 year old kid that thought AWI British troops were cool but didnt have the resources to buy all the books, etc....John, do you think your comments would have helped snag him into historical miniature gaming or drive him away to the GW folks? Just my .02.....thanks....Faron. |
WinterSoldier | 15 Jul 2004 12:23 p.m. PST |
No offense to John, but well said Faron. We need all the new historical gamers we can get. |
John the OFM | 15 Jul 2004 2:48 p.m. PST |
The power I must have, that I can drive 17 year olds from historicals into GW. I have a 15 year old son, and I WISH I had that kind of power to influence his choices! :^) OK, first of all, I have never gone along with that stuff about how we old timers must fear "the graying of the Hobby". The Hobby is what it is, and it is not my responsibility, or desire to either advance it or hinder it. Those who have an interest will participate. Those who do not ... will not. If a kid can be turned away because some doddering old fart got liverish with him, then his interest could not have been all that deep to begin with. Most 17-year olds that I know would say "What a jerk! What does he know? I'll find out myself." The Hobby will grow, or not grow, solely on the interest people have in it, and on the interest potential customers have in the product. I have never tried to recruit kids away from Warhammer (for one thing, no one at the store plays it!), clickie things, Magic, RPGs, DDR or computer games. All these other things go on at the store we play in. We try to put on attractive fun games. If kids want to play, fine. There is always room for someone to command a few regiments. If they do not, that's fine too. A hobby that has been on the skids, in my opinion, is stamp collecting. I was an enthusiastic stamp collector in the 60's because then the Post Office produced beautiful stamps. Can anyone say that the USPS has produced ANY designs in the last 20 years that did not suck? When historical gaming companies cease to produce good product, then the Hobby will decline. The actions of grumpy old man will not be a factor. |
Thomas Mante | 18 Jul 2004 9:39 a.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus, Salve! I found your reply to AndyBrace very interesting, mainly because yours is the first item that I have read which attempts to provide some rationale using evidence (albeit circumstantial) for the 16th LD’s ‘Tarletons’ beyond mere assertion. A friend of mine tried tackling Don Troiani on the subject a couple of years back and received a brush-off. The recreated 16th were more helpful but admitted they made a compromise and were perhaps influenced (in part) by the Troiani picture. You state that the ‘The dismounted division wore it from the moment they were raised.’ Could you please be more specific in terms of the evidence for that? I am not being sceptical but I do have an interest as this would be one of the first units to wear the ‘Tarleton’ in the British Army, especially with the widespread adoption of the ‘Tarleton’ for light dragoons from 1784.
|
Supercilius Maximus | 18 Jul 2004 12:08 p.m. PST |
Thomas, The adoption of the Tarleton by all British light cavalry after the war is another interesting bit of circumstantial evidence FOR its use by at least one Regular regiment prior to 1783. Harcourt, who led the 16th in America, was a very influential courtier (he collects George III's wife from Germany and escorts her to England for the wedding), so may have had something to do with it - but that's just a guess on my part. I had a feeling Troiani quotes something about the uniform in the caption to his painting of a 16LD dismounted trooper (unfortunately I've lent my copy to someone) - a painted leopardskin turban isn't exactly somethign you make up! I think that the American re-enactment group pre-dated the painting - funnily enough, I've tried to contact them twice about the mounted troops' headgear and never got a reply. I do know a guy in the UK who does a dismounted trooper impression and I'll ask him - give me a few days and I will come back on this. Your question is interesting, because I've never heard the use of the Tarleton by the dismounted troop questioned before. Are you on to something.....? Ave! |
Thomas Mante | 18 Jul 2004 5:30 p.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus Merely after the truth (whatever it might be!). The 16th Light Dragoon chap was at an event at NAM in London last year. I queried him about the 'Tarleton', he 'admitted' that 'we' do not really know but mentioned the bits in Hinde about helmets etc. for light dragoons and for the dismounted service in particular. This is all very well but it is not evidence for anything specific. I first came across Troiani's representation as a plate in Maguire's 'Battle of Paoli' which does not have captions and alas I do not have a copy the Troiani book that it comes from. At one stage I was actually wondering if the 'Tarleton' (I suppose it gets the name because of the THAT Reynolds portrait) orginated in America (mainly based on its association with Loyalist dragoons). But with the indications pointing to an origin in the 16th, and Banastre Tarleton's service therein, I think that there is a case building for an English/British origin (this in part on the suggestions you made earlier). I am assuming that the post-war adoption of similar head gear by the French Army is, in part or the main, in imitation of British/Loyalist units. To summarise there is enough information to suggest that the 16th LD deviated from regulation head wear and it is inferred (not sure from where other than the Troiani picture) that this was what became known as the 'Tarleton'. In design terms 'Tarleton', superfically at least, strikes me as being like a jockey cap in boiled or 'japaned' leather with a bearskin crest. Are there any suggestions that Harcourt was a follower of the 'Sport of Kings'? Curious bit of information about Harcourt's court conections. Such social cache would give him the leeway to do what he liked within reason with the 16th. On another tack entierly do you know the portrait of Quartermaster Leishmann of the 15th LD. Resplendent in 1784 regulation blue, but 'crowned' with an 'Emsdorf' helmet. Looks like Harcourt was not the only one to flout regulations! I look forward to anything that you are able to turn up. Fascinating topic. |
Thomas Mante | 10 Aug 2004 3:36 p.m. PST |
Supercilius maximus I finally stumped up for a copy of Troiani's book 'Soldiers in America'. The plate (p.37) depicting the dismounted dragoon from the 16th has the following: 'Leather caps of "and entirely new construction," were purchased in 1776, trimmed with cloth turbans painted to resemble leopard skin, "three rows of iron chains around the crown," and surmounted with bearskin "roaches," or crests.' Unfortunately the source for the quotes is not given. Nothing comparable appears in Stachan's book summarising the clothing warrants etc. Although it appears from Strachan (p.102) that there was NO approved pattern for light dragoon helmets (i.e. approved by the King) so design was more or less up to the colonel. This is from an extract from Hinde 1777 edition but presumably refers back to the 1768 warrant. Carman's Headresses of the British Army-Cavalry - states (pp.42-44, Carman illustrates an 1800-12 version) that there are written descriptions and illustrations of such helmets and apparently a Sandby drawing of c.1780 illustrating a 'tarleton' like helmet. Alas no documentary references to support Carman's assertions but a circumstantial case seems to be building in favour of the Troiani depiction, I just wish that the evidence was properly referenced. It is not that I am suspicious but... The leopardskin pattern turban for the 16th LD helmet is the same as specified in the 1768 warrant (Strachan p.41)for the Queens Light Dragoons. As to the 23rd Light Dragoons it is hardly surpring that there is refernece to having helmets like the 16th ecause the Johnny Burgoyne was colonel of the 23rd and ex-colonel of the 16th! Worryingly Strachan has a b&w reproduction of Burgoyne in the 23rd's uniform in a green coat and with what resembles a cut down hat. This is contrary to regulations which calls for red coats faced green! |
Supercilius Maximus | 11 Aug 2004 2:26 a.m. PST |
TM, First, an abject apology for not coming back to you as I had promised. My contact has been uncontactable (probably on holiday) and this particular issue just slipped my mind - in fact, I realised that he's the same guy you asked at NAM, so I doubt we'd have got any further forward! Yes, Troiani is VERY vague; the Carman reference I had not seen before, but is very interesting. Yes, Burgoyne was colonel of both, which was another reason why I thought it might support the tarleton theory. As to the green coats, I think the 22nd also had green, and both regiments were raised late in the war, when the British Legion and Queen's Rangers had become famous, so possibly an attempt to emulate them (or maybe the 22nd and/or 23rd were earmarked for America and wanted to dress the part, but never went?). I guess we'll never know for sure. OK, enough of that; now for the latest Lord Lucan sightings..... SM ps: I know the NAM painting you refer to in the LI helmets thread - the foreground is almost life-size, IIRC. The men are also wearing AWI uniforms as the collars lie absolutely flat, whereas the "rise and fall" had been adopted by the late 1780s. You can also see how the flank company men plaited their hair. They are even wearing moustaches, which is most unusual for 18th century British troops. (I think it may be the 45th, as they have green facings.) |
Thomas Mante | 12 Aug 2004 9:14 a.m. PST |
SM I think 22nd/23rd might have been in the frame for India but not sure. Trouble with both Troiani and Carman we know they have access to research but alas neither gives a specific reference from where the information comes. RE: ps The painting it is a fine piece. The regiment is the 36th not the 35th, sumthing ov a tiping eror on mi part! The depiction is interesting in view of the memorandum for equipping a regiment in Inia from April 1789. The upright collar was only 'legalised' by the warrant of 28 Jan 1796 which also changed the cut of the coat. But we know from various pictures how widespread it was before then (e.g. inspection return of 46th in June 1784). The whole ensemble is interesting for the variations from the 'norm' which only rarely get documented rather than depicted. |
Supercilius Maximus | 13 Aug 2004 2:07 p.m. PST |
TM, I guessed it was a typo, but because I remembered they had green facings, I went for 45. The artist is Robert Home and the painting includes the death of someone - is it Meadows, who led the 1st Grenadiers in the AWI? The 36th is featured in the Blandford book on the Uniforms of the French Revolutionary Wars in this dress style. Carman is very well known - I wonder if he was Troiani's source? SM |
Thomas Mante | 13 Aug 2004 5:52 p.m. PST |
SM 'Carman is very well known - I wonder if he was Troiani's source?' I do not think so. The Carman headdress book was published in '57 and he mentioned (but did not reference) evidence (pictorial/written) from c1780. The Troiani text specifically mentions 1776 (when the 16th were being augmented and mobilised for America). The quotes I posted are taken verbatim from Troiani's text. My guess is that it may be information from James L Kochan but cannot be sure? The frustrating thing is that without the source I have a nagging doubt at the back of my mind (probably unjustified). OK I am probably being a suspicious SOB! There was a thread about the 'tarleton' on Revlist some months ago which never really got going (at least as far as hard evidence!). Apart from the obvious AWI significance the 16th LD's 'tarletons' mark the first use of that particular headdress in the British Army. Not an earth shattering event admittedly but interesting for its own sake (well at least I am not into button collecting (yet?)). The painting is called I think the death of Colonel Moorhouse at the Pettah Gate, Bangalore 1791 (NOT as I thought Seringapatam, right continent, wrong town, mind the torpedoes!) . Joseph Moorhouse was a Madras gunner (commissioned 1768) so any AWI involvement would undoubtedly be in the HEIC game of ‘grab the French factories’ again. Looked up my copy of Uniforms of the French Revolutionary Wars, I though I had seen that grenadier somewhere else before. Tend to avoid things even vaguely Napoleonic due to the unfortunate tendency to end up on St Helena. On a pleasanter note did you mark the 300th anniversary of Blenheim on the 13th? TM
|
Supercilius Maximus | 14 Aug 2004 12:25 p.m. PST |
TM, Tarletons - yes, I recall the Revlist thread; it died a very quick death, despite one or two UK posters being very interested in it. No input from the recreated (US) 16LD rather interestingly. As you say, annoying not to know for sure. Blenheim - yes, I did indeed, in my own quiet way. Regards SM |
|