"AWI British "Flank" Companies" Topic

With the release of Perry's nice British AWI plastics, I am left again wondering what the differance was between the grenadier and light companies of the battalion, in terms of dress. I was under the impression the light companies tend to wear more "roudabouts" than the centre, and the grenadier's more like the centre, perhaps even a longer coat. I suppose I just do not know what the main differances between the dress of the three battalion parts were. Did they all eventually wear the wide brim hat, and if so, was the distinction based on colour of feather, wearing the of brim hat with the fold on the left, right or front, or even if musicians still wore bearskins, or if musicians continued to tag along in the battalion?

I know this is a rather broad question, and does depend on the time, theatre, and regiment. If it helps, I want my centre companies to all be dressed in shorter coats, and brimmed hat, so what should the grenadiers and light companies look like?

Thanks to all who understand what seems to me to be a confusing subject, with no one right answer.

ilodic.

Centre company uniform :

The grenadiers:

The light infantry:

More light infantry figures. They are the only troops that wore the roundabouts. Grenadiers and centre companies wore the same coat, cut down a bit, but grenadiers have shoulder wings and centre companies do not.

Fife and Drum Miniatures shown above.

The idea of light infantry companies being in "roundabouts" (i.e. sleeved waistcoats) comes I think from the Germantown drawings, although it is now a common way of modelling all light infantry from 1777 onwards. The trouble with using standard centre company figures for the lightbobs is that they lack shoulder wings, which the lights would have had on uniform coats. (Have a look, for example, at the light infantry figures in the Foundry AWI range). Alan Perry has said that he's sculping more British light infantry, so it will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

I've never seen anything about the grenadiers having longer coats, but I suppose they could simply have not shortened their coats in the way that other troops did. The grenadier and light companies operated away from their parent battalions in composite "combined" units, so you do't really need to worry about the grenadiers and lights looking the same as the centre companies anyway. The grenadiers also had shoulder wings, so even if you decide to dispense with their bearskins (as may well have happened as the war went on), the centre company coats would still not quite work.

"The idea of light infantry companies being in "roundabouts" (i.e. sleeved waistcoats)"

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I've been wondering about this for a while now. I know it was common in the 18th Century to attach sleeves to the waistcoat and use it as an outer garment. However, by the time of the AWI the British were wearing white small cloths as a general rule. Since roundabouts are shown as red normally, wouldn't this mean they had to be cut down or specially made garments?

Light companies wore red waistcoats, so it still works for them. But, as you say, it makes you wonder about centre companies, such as the 40th Foot which is shown (IIRC) in the della Gatta paintings as being in what looks like roundabouts (unless of course it's just the light company being shown).

Thanks to all. And to Der Alte Fritz, as photos speak a great deal. So I was kind of on the right track, but the main differance between centre and grenadier companies seem to be the shoulder wings. Was there any differance between the two with regards to which side of the hat was "folded"? Or colours of the feather on top of the hat? Would grenadiers drummers still be wearing their bearskin's when the rest abandoned them? And it is also my understanding musicians wore reversed colours on their coats. I am assuming the light's did not have musicians(?), but if they did, they would essentially be wearing a solid coloured coat (assuming they wore the roundabouts, thus no lapels.

Again, more answers bring more questions.

Just to confuse the issue a little more…"The unit (British Guards)was divided into two battalions of 500 men each and unlike the other British regiments, retained its own flank companies (grenadier and light infantry) while on campaign. All of the Guards, officers and men alike, were dressed in uniforms modified for campaign service:Their coats were shortened into jackets, without lace or decoration; their hair was cropped; and their hats were cut down into 'round hats' for the regular companies and light infantry style caps for the flank companies" Thomas McGuire, Philadelphia Campaign….I assume he also means the grenadiers were in light infantry style caps?

db

My assumption was that at some point grenadiers did adopt round hats, but I cannot seem to find any figures which depict infantry with round hats, but also with "wings" as well, unless of course the "wings" were dismissed with the bearskin hat as well.

ilodic.

1) Roundabouts are indeed the red waistcoat (unique to the light company of each battalion) with the sleeves of the regimental coat sewn on – hence you would often get cuffs in the regimental facing colours across a "light battalion".

2) The 40th Foot are not in roundabouts; they are in a type of single-brested frock coats that were made by removing the lapels from old regimental coats. Look carefully at the della Gatta paintings and you will see the coats have collars and turnbacks, which the "proper" roundabouts don't.

3) The "wings" on the coats of the flank companies were not like the Napoleonic ones – they did not "stand proud" of the coat, but lay flat on the shoulder and upper arm, so could very easily be painted on.

4) There is a report of the Grenadier Battalions putting on their bearskin caps prior to their advance against the Birmingham Meetinghouse at Brandywine. After that, we just don't know if they were still worn in battle or not; all flank company men were issued a normal hat in addition to their bearskin/leather caps (which were very expensive and were still owned by the regiment, not the individual), and these tended to be worn for everyday use. By 1780, if not earlier, many grenadiers had put their bearskins into storage, as an artillery officer detached to the Grenadier Battalion wintering on Long Island reported obtaining a white feather to go in his hat, like those worn by the grenadiers. The lights probably stopped wearing their leather caps after the 1776 campaign (the "official" version – sometimes known as the Keppel – was not popular anyway, as it lacked a peak).

The other distinctions of the grenadier, the match case on the cartridge box belt, and the short sword worn alongside the bayonet, were also apparently put into storage as the war went on, as they were officially abolished in 1784, based on their lack of use during the AWI.

5) Both the grenadiers and light bobs of the Foot Guards are thought to have worn the same type of cap – essentially the basic light infantry style cap with a peak and a false front (but not the three chains around the crown). It is thought that the grenadiers' front plate had a grenade and the light company a stylised "L".

6) Musicians (ie drummers) wore reversed coats and bearskin caps for at least the first half of the war. At some point, they were considered surplus to requirements in the field and were mostly sent home to aid recruitment, or were given a musket and sent to join the ranks (presumably wearing a normal coat). One drummer (usually the drum major) seems to have been retained as the unit's orderly drummer; if the unit was the senior battalion in a brigade, two were retained, the older one usually serving the brigade commander and the younger one the battalion CO. Drums were not used to transmit commands in battle much after 1775, and officially not at all after 1778.

7) Light and Centre companies had two musicians each; in the former, at least one seems to have been trained to use the hunting horn (they were still referred to on the Muster Rolls as drummers though). Light infantry musicians generally wore roundabouts and were armed only with a short sword; I think one can be seen in the della Gatta painting of Germantown. Whether they wore wings or not may have varied from company to company.

Grenadier companies had two drummers and two fifers, but a few centre company drummers probably learned to play the fife as well, for light relief on the march and in camp.

Which colour feathers were worn in the hats of British troops during the AWI is a whole other kettle of ball games.

We know that the Grenadier and Light Battalions wore white and green feathers respectively in 1780, and possibly before that; the 1st and 2nd Light Infantry wore either black or very dark green in 1777.

It is very likely the 2nd Light Infantry (or at least several companies who had been engaged at Paoli) wore red feathers as a mark of defiance, at Germantown and thereafter until the end of the 1777 campaign.

The Foot Guards' battalion companies and those artillery companies drawn from 4th Battalion RA, wore black feathers in their hats.

The three white feathers often shown in the hats of the 23rd are actually a 1970s artisitc (mis?)interpretation of the 1784 inspection report after the regiment returned to England, when its bearskin caps were still in storage. Whether these feathers were worn during the AWI is highly debatable.

The 42nd Foot appear to have worn black feathers (if any) during the AWI, not red – these came after an action in The Netherlands in 1795. The 71st may also have worn black; not sure about the other Highland units.

At some point, the 5th Foot acquired white feathers, but this was probably during their late-AWI service in the Caribbean and there is no record of them being worn in America.

Supercilius Maximus

Thank you very much for taking the time to give a detailed reply. I believed you have answered all my questions, particuarly the issue with painting the "wings" of the grenadiers.

And just as I suspected, there were general differances, but again this depends on time, theatre, and regiment.

ilodic.

I know that this is over a year out of date now and member-ilodic has gone off content but given the perennial nature of the whole 'feather kettle of ball games' in relation to the local difficulty in America 1775-83, I thought I would outline what I believe is the current state of knowledge re. the WFKoBG.

There is still no evidence from before the turn of the 19th century re. the defiant feathers supposedly adopted after the night action at Paoli Tavern in Sept 1777, and nothing specific from before 1851. Circumstances make it very unlikely the 2nd LI battalion could have adopted such a measure before the beginning of 1778, more realistically not until spring, by which time the vengeful Pennsylvanian Line had already exacted revenge on the 'Bloodhounds' at Germantown on October 4th 1777.

The one piece of visual evidence, a watercolour by Lieut St George of the 52nd Light coy depicting his 'Triumphal Entry into Philadelphia' having being wounded at Germantown, shows both 2nd LI and 1st Grenadiers wearing black feathers in slouched hats. The della Gatta paintings of the 2nd LI atPaoli Tavern and Germantown executed post-war show either black or natural colour ostrich feathers being worn, except in the case of some 40th battalion company men.

We have a clear contemporary statement that in the winter of 1778 the remaining flank companies attached to composite 'Flank Battalions' wore white feathers for the Grenadiers and green for Light Infantry respectively.

We also have an equally clear statement, albeit from fifty years later in 1822, that circa 1776 all the grenadier battalions were already wearing white feathers- presumably in hats- while the 1st Light Infantry Bn wore green and the 2nd Light Infantry Bn wore red- i.e. well before the Philadelpia campaign. The source, who was a Black Watch quartermaster at the time, indicates that this was some sort of formation recognition system (although it's not clear how) and that "to make the whole uniform" the 42nd Highlanders were ordered "to get red feathers" as well when they were assigned to the same formation. These would have been added to the spray of black feathers they were already wearing on their blue bonnets.

The same would have been true of the 71st Highlanders who we know, from Clothing Returns at the end of the war, wore five black feathers with an additional white for the Grenadier coy and red for the Light coy. This latter may have some bearing on the 'defiant red feather' legend attached to the 2nd Light Infantry, to whom the 71st LI coy were attached 1776-1778. The popular story, which takes a number of forms, is more likely to have been attached retrospectively to red feathers with an entirely mundane explanation.

The story of the 42nd red hackle feather awarded after the action at Geldermalsen in 1795 is now generally discredited. There may have been a red feather distributed, or re-newed, later that summer but it would have been as a simple ornament provided in a regimental basis, not as an award for meritorious conduct.

There is more likelihood of the white feather of the 5th Regiment, supposedly adopted in commemoration of the action on St Lucia in December 1778, having some basis in fact. It is first found in illustrations by Dayes circa 1791 and the earliest version of the anecdote is found in December 1800. However a number of regiments had adopted non-regulation white hat feathers by 1791, including the Guards. It was for that reason that the 'Regulation feather' was ordered 1797-1800.

On refection, I may as well post this as a stand-alone thread as well, in case members find it useful.

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting. The whole idea of adding red feather begs the questions, if they that, where did they get them from? Seems a bit far fetched for an army that was short of everything for a good while.

SM: In a recent conversation with the commander of the recreated 40th Lights here, I believe he told me the coats they wore were purpose made and shipped, and not converted regimentals/waistcoats. I'll follow up on that when I see him again in a few weeks. If that is true, I wonder if that was just for the 40th or all Lights serving in N America? Again, I'll double check.

All: I am finishing up the Harris book on Brandywine. Interesting that he places the 42nd Lights out in front of one of the LI battalions acting as skirmishers (some of the Jaegers were also out there with Ewald), and the Guards used their Lights the same – with their grens off protecting the right flank.

I guess the poor converged gren battalions had no skirmishers – at least none are referenced in the book. The take away on the German grens is that they were slow and plodding and did nothing to support the attacking Brits.

I believe one of the reasons for the cut-down or adapted coats in evidence in autumn 1777 was the failure of supply from Britain, which forced regimants to adapt the clothing from the year before. That would argue against the 40th light coy in Pennsylvania wearing special coats shipped out. They may have had them adapted en masse in America, although if Peebles is anything to go by, that kind of tailoring was usually carried out within the battalion, or company if detached.

How reliable is Harris? I see he incorrectly assigns the 42nd to the 2nd LI battalion in 1777, which I have already had quoted at me on line by someone proposing that this would explain the Black Watch red hackle!

I am not sure how reliable Harris is. He seems like he is trying to dispell many of the Brandywine myths.

I know his section on the Britsh army is kind of a mess, but without looking at the documents he is supposedly quoting from it is hard to say if the rest is right or wrong.

Could it be possible the 42nd LI was just thrown out as skirmishers in front of the Lights in general, and he misinterprets that as assignment to a specific battalion? For some reason the Brits seemed to favor using the Highlanders in that capacity, at least from my take on Ewald and Highlanders working with him.

42F / HG,

Thanks for adding to my knowledge with these posts – always useful to read stuff from folk with more recent research than mine under their belts.

IIRC, the Highland regiments were – at least during the SYW – used similarly to Grenzers/Pandours in the Austrian army, hence their use as skirmishers or quasi-lights may well have continued over into at least the early years of the AWI.

Did the 40th's light company actually wear "roundabout" style coatees, or did they wear the single-breasted coat (with facings and turnbacks) like the rest of the regiment, as seen in the della Gatta Germantown painting (and which so many writers have confused with the more diminutive clothes of the light battalions?

Further to the employment of the 42nd's light bobs, there was an instance in the battle of Brandywine when an officer in charge of a number of companies from one Light Battalion tried to get support from companies belonging to another unit (can't recall if it was other lights, or some grenadiers – IIRC it's in the account from an officer of the 17th).

That was Captain Charles Stuart of the 43rd, who had attached himself as a supernumary to the Light Infantry (complicated story). When the light bobs found themsleves under pressure on the forward slope of Birmingham Hill, Captain Scott of the 17th's light coy noticed that the grenadier coy of the 43rd, of which Stuart had been OC, was on the left of the grenadier battalion formed up to their right rear. Stuart agreed to try and bring them over, having one ball graze his cheek and another go through the crown of his hat in the process.

The Black Watch were regarded somewhat in the same light as pandours, being seen as something rather exotic. In their first engagement overseas at Fontenoy, they were allowed to employ their own tactics; throwing themselves down as the enemy presented to fire then rushing in. The battle ended in defeat but Sempell's Highlanders suffered fewer casualties than other regiments. After being sent to North America in 1756 the 42nd were trained in bush fighting tactics in New York before being deployed to the frontier and again, after arriving in Staten island in 1776, their CO, Lieut. Col. Stirling once again ensured that the 42nd were well drilled in bush fighting techniques. One consequence of this was that the broadsword was dispensed with as being inconvenient in close country.

As far as the battle of Brandywine is concerned, the 42nd light coy were detached from the 1st LI battalion, and accompanied the jagers as part of Howe's advance guard, simple as that. Meanwhile the main body of the regiment was assigned to Howe's HQ guard. My guess is that Harris' inclusion of the 42nd in the list of companies atttached to 2nd LI is simply an error borne of the five regiments that bore the number Forty-something whose LI coys _were_ attached to Maitland's battalion (Althought I think his commentary on the British army's lack of adaptability in America are way off).

All light companies wearing the blue facings of 'Royal' regiments- only three, IIRC- were assigned to the 1st LI. Presumably that was a stab at uniformity that wasn't borne out by the facts, although other Royal regiments joining Howe's army would have added their light coys to the mix.

With regard to the coats of the 40th battalion coys at Germantown as their waistcoats were white -?buff-, as opposed to the red waistocats of the light coys, presumably they are more likely to have been wearing cut down uniform coats.

Sorry, misread your remark re. 40th LI coy. I would have thought that it might be more likely that the 40th LI coy were wearing adapted red waistcoats- given that all the other detached LI coys seem to have been doing so (in 2 LI Bn at any rate) but these matters were sometimes arranged by parent regiments and sometimes by the COs of the flank battalions, depending on scruples and drive of the latter. Parent regiments were ultimately responsible for the clothing of their detached flank coys.

Yes, that was at the back of my mind when I posted earlier.

Have you ever come across a reference to a regiment going foraging in their white waistcoats whilst in garrison in Philadelphia? I may be confusing different things, but I'm sure I've seen a (secondary source) comment about the 49th doing this, in what were effectively white roundabouts. I think I'm right in saying such garments were often issued to recruits in England/Ireland for wear until they were properly kitted out by the receiving unit (which might not always be the one that had originally recruited them). Quite possibly a bunch of recruits were being "acclimatised" via a foraging expedition perhaps?

It rings a faint bell- but only as a query on a forum!

It would have to have been quite late in the occupation.

You might have a snoop round the archives at RevList
link

The former Wiltshire Regiment/Duke of Edinburgh's Regiment Museum can be very helpfull if it is important thewardrobe.org.uk although their records are not so strong on the AWI

Jumping in late here, but regarding the Lights wearing sleeved waistcoats, I've always been skeptical of that idea. My assumption is that the front of the waistcoats were red wool, but the backs most likely linen or some other cheaper material – which was a common fashion of the period.

Do either of you have anything specifically stating they sewed the sleeves (which would also have to be modified then) onto their waistcoats?

During the F&I period Amherst ordered the regimentals stored and the men simply wore their waistcoats during the summer of 1759. Curious this idea was never followed in this period.

A late response to your point, history gamer, but the topic keeps popping up. The very thought has occurred to me regarding the construction of LI jackets from their red waistcoats, both re. the backs and whether we have evidence for the convertion.

There may be mention in the various orders books that have survived. It's not a question I have focussed on myself. Once again, I imagine somebody on the Revlist forum will have the chapter and verse if it exists.

My recollection from reading on adjustments to light infantry clothing for fighting in the backwoods during the F&I war is specific mention that sleeves were removed from infantry coats and attached to red waistcoats (common to all infantry at that time), with capacious wings attached to the upper sleeves, acting almost like a cape, and leather pockets, set low down on breast. Mollo/ Mcregor, Embleton and Scollins have painted a number of atmospheric artists' impressions depicting how that may have looked.

Presumably, having taken the sleeves off the regimental coats, the remained was used for patching, fatigue dress, etc (or would it have been kept to re-attach the sleeves later for parades etc)? Could "backs" have been made for the waistcoats from these remnants, or would that have been too time-consuming for so many men?

My understanding from the commander of the 40th Lights re-enactment unit is that their coats were purpose built and shipped over.

If you look at this painting, which supposedly shows a 60th Light – you can see he is not wearing a modified waistcoat but instead, a modified regimental.

link

I also believe one of the Morier paintings of grenadiers shows a hatman in a sleeveless waistcoat with a linen back, not red, but I might be mis-remembering. :-)

I also believe Amherst ordered his regiments in the sumnmer campaign of 1759 to simply leave their regimentals in storage, but they did not evidently modify their waistcoats when doing so.

Further, if you look at this famous period painting of Lights, that does not appear to be a normal looking waistcoat front of the period:

link

It appears to be a jacket purpose built with no inverted "V" shaped opening at the bottom below the last button.

And of course these coats:

link

If modified, they were rather heavily modified, which makes me think…. they weren't modified. Just my opinion. :-)

Well, we have to be careful about what source material we are discussing here. The reference to the adapted field clothing during the F&IW most often quoted is from the Quebec campaign in spring 1759-
"..order for the dress of the Light Infantry as approved by his excellency General Amherst; Major General Wolfe desires the same may be conformed to by the light troops under his command: the sleeves of the coat are to be put on the waistcoat and instead of coat sleeves, he has two wings like the grenadiers, but fuller; and a round slope reaching about half way down his arm, which makes his coat no encumbrance to him, but can be slipt off with pleasure; he has no lace, but the lapels remain: besides the usual pockets, he has two, not quite as high as his breast, made of leather for balls and flints,; and a flap on the inside, which secures the ball from rolling out;"

A year before, in 1758 en route to 'Bloody Ticonderoga' it was noted: "Regulars as well as provincials have cut their coats so as scarcely to reach their waists…."

The Benjamin West painting of Johnson saving Dieskau was painted in London between 1764 and 1768, depicting an event that took place in 1755, I believe- but the enlisting of the 62nd Royal Americans didn't start till the following year, so the value of those intriguing, very specifically rendered figures in the background of West's painting as source evidence is questionable.

We don't know what information West was working with although the images of the soldiers, from two different units it would seem, are not mere sterotypes. We do know there weren't any men of the 60th in West's studio. It doesn't, of course, mean that at some point in the F&IW campaigns men of the Royal Americans weren't wearing cut down coats. On the contrary, the circumstantial evidence points to that being likely.

Regarding della Gatta's pictures of Paoli Tavern and Germantown, we don't know whether the officer who commissioned the paintings, assumed to be either Hunter or St George of the 52nd, was actually looking over the artist's shoulder as he painted but we do see differentiation between jackets of light coys and line infantry at Germantown, with the indication of shoulder wings and facing colours of different regments on cuffs of LI jackets in the firelight at Paoli Tavern (of the 40th, 45th and 52nd, it has been suggested).

I imagine if a Light coy red waistcoat _was_ cut down to make a jacket then the V shape opening at the bottom, being below the waist, might not feature in a waist-length 'postilion' jacket. It would be interesting to know what the precise data is regarding cut-down coats in the AWI, other than for the Guards, that is.

With all these pictures, though, none of the artists was expecting enthusiasts to be examining their work with such interest 250 years later, scrutinising the minutest details for historic date- although detail there is a-plenty.

I think this came up somewhere before, but it seems less likely that the 40th had wore field service jackets ordered from Britain because, as far as I am aware, one of the reasons that the distinctive, 'deviant' clothing evident (from a pretty narrow cross-section of troops) in Howe's army during the 1777 campaigning season was that, in many cases, the clothing for the year had not arrived from Britain in the spring- specifically coats, and the regiments had to make the best of what clothing they had (Evidently, though, here was enough material available in New York for making up woolen breeches and linen trousers for the Grenadiers in winter 76-spring 77).

I am, however, curious about references to red hat feathers worn by the 40th Battalion men in 1777. From della Gatta's Germantown painting we can't say more confidently than that the hat feathers of the 40th are of a rusty colour which is, arguably, as likely to be natural ostrich pewter grey or a faded dyed black. Red seems a very definite conclusion to make from such faded glory.

A few years back, Will Tatum mentioned that there is a Court Martial document c.1770 for a member of the RA that discusses (in some detail as its existence was related to the charges) a style of single-breasted frock coat made from the previous year's regimental coat. According to Will, this sounded very similar in appearance to the altered coats of the 40th in the della Gatta paintings (it is notable, I think, that the dress of the 40th and the 2nd LI is markedly different).

Is it not also significant, in terms of how accurate we regard della Gatta's work, that his depiction of the 2nd LI is virtually identical to that in St George's watercolour of his "triumphant" entry into Germantown after the battle?

The painting of Johnson is mis-named, or perhaps a bit of a mix of his triumphs. The fort in the background is more rightly Niagara, which he took in 1759 where 60 LI were present. This painting is more about Niagara with poor old Dieskau thrown in for flavor.

I am not aware of any major modifications to British uniforms under Wolfe, other than perhaps the regiments wearing wool leggings instead of gaiters (as noted in Knox's journal, IIRC), and of course the LI, which were perhaps the best troops on the field. Amherst simply ordered coats to be put in storage (for his army only) during his campaign against Fort Ti in '59.

I think you bring up good points about any artist, but unfortunately, it is often the best we have to work with.

It may be that in some regiments the previous year's coats were turned into a form of slop jacket. There is also a hint or two that officers had an undress frock for certain orders of dress and we know that in America they had field jackets either specially made up or adapted from old uniform coats. What bearing that might have on the jackets of the 40th circa 1777, I couldn't say.

As far as the della Gatta/St George paintings are concerned, I sense that they are authentic impressions but the problem arises when the details of the clothing etc start being discussed as if they were tailor's drawings. In the end, it is possible to be _too_ fastidious. These may be approximations, but they are CONTEMPORARY approximations as well as vivid images and, as you suggest, historygamer, they are all we have got.

Interesting point about the West painting.I didn't know that

Look in the background of the West painting. There is a rather hot fight with redcoats (who weren't there in 1755 at Lake George) going on, with a sizable looking fortification beyond that (which looks suspiciously like Fort Niagara – having accepted its surrender three times, I am familiar with it). Further, that fellow at Johnson's feet looks more like a Colonial Marine that a French General (who should be in a blue coat, right?). The LI in blue facings is widely accepted as representing a Royal American Light infantryman – adding to the few paintings of 60th of the period (one of St. Clair and one of Sir Jeffery, who was the Col. Commandant of all four battalions in 1759). Further, British Light Infantry didn't exist in 1755, right? So who is that guy then if that is 1755?

It is easy for us today to rely on period paintings and drawings – as we are visual society. Often the shreds of info we glean from manuscripts, etc are hard to interpret. For instance, the Marines in 1775 were told to fashion their new issue hats after the pattern of the 4th Regt. And, for their new coats they were told to remove the lace from their old epaulets and sew it onto the new ones. Leaves a lot to the imagination.

Good discussion though. :-)

"Further, British Light Infantry didn't exist in 1755, right? So who is that guy then if that is 1755?"

Well that's exactly the point, isn't it?. Pictures such as this, while professing to portray 'a veracity' -whatever the truth of that, were not painted for our benefit 250-odd years later!

Nonetheless, somebody must have given West notes on the non-uniforn clothing worn by troops on the frontier circa 1760 (let us say, for the sake of argument).

Well, I'm not sure the painting is as faulty as its name. :-)

It's not the painting's fault.

Not sure if the artist named the painting or not. But if you think about it Johnson's greatest military victory was taking Fort Niagara, not the battle of Lake George.

The painting was entitled "General Johnson Saving a Frenc Officer from the Tomahawk of a North American"

There is what appears to be an informed and well-considered article on the subject here:
link

Although Dieskau is not mentioned in the title, it seems clear that the incident depicted was generally understood to be the aftermath of the fight at Lake George in June 1755 when Johnson intervened to prevent his Mohawk allies dispatching the enemy commander left wounded on the field. Johnson an energetic, intuitive manipulator of public opinion ensured that news of this incident would feature prominently in news of his victory that reached 'civilization'- masking the shambles made of other prisoners and dead of both sides that the Mohawks left behind them in the woods when they departed for home.

Given that, and bearing in mind that West inserted a fictional Johnson into his 1771 painting- 'The Death of Wolfe', it seems reasonable to assume that any details, anachronisitic or otherwise, in this painting that do not match the Fort George scenario must be taken as generic frontier material, rather than indicators of an alternative subject for the painting.

Fintan O'Toole's 'White Savage' is quite interesting on Johnson's sense of PR ( for which read 'self preservation')

Hmmm. I was looking for more detail in the artilce – who commissioned the work? I would assume Johnson did, but it doesn't say. It also doesn't say when that name for the painting was given, or by whom. It is rather generic, but bears no resemblance to the battle at Lake George.

As I said before, the fellow on the ground appears to be Colonial Marine, based on his uniform. Certainly not a French General of the period (wrong coat – though right for Marine). After the victory at Le Belle Famille (which Johnson had absolutely nothing to do with), many Frenchmen wounded or running away fell under the Indian's blows. Of course the Indians had all stood to the side (for the most part) while the whitemen went at it – waiting to see who the victor was. Massey of the 46th was the real victor of that battle.

FYI, other than the wig (unlikely to be worn on the frontier by Marine officers), that soldier bears no marks of being an officer – no lace, no gorget, etc. Might be some gold lace on his hat. He is older too. No doubt a mixing of frontier battles.

But as stated, Johnson was very good at self promotion.

Still, the painting was done by someone who was from N. America and saw and met many of the people/soldiers there. I believe the uniforms/clothing, as pictured are accurate to the period. Opinions may vary. :-)

I think we are asking questions that are outside the intentions of the painter, or at the very least risk leading us into a trap that he has set for us. That means that, for example, the very specific image- as we understand it- of the British soldiers in adapted campaign uniforms need not contradict the unauthentic depiction- by your informed estimation- of Dieskau, nor the depiction of a fort that looks more like Fort Niagara than any near the site of the Fort George battle.

If West's purpose in painting 'General Johnson. etc" was not documentary but moral and propagandist- then we are likely to be confused if we look for consistently authentic representation (from a C21st perspective) of the protagonists.

This effect is doubled when we consider that "not only did West not witness Johnson's encounter with his French coounterpart at [Lake George], the event never transpired. West's use of authenticating detail serves to persuade the viewer that West's picture can function as what C20th viewers would characterize as an eye-witness account."

Consequently, from our perspective, nothing adds up and we go round in circles, trying to square another circle.

An Heroics of Empire: Benjamin West and Anglophone History Painting 1764--1774
By Stephen Mark Caffey.

It's worth a dip into the first chapter here to read the rest of Caffey's analysis:
link

I would absolutely agree about the goings on the painting not being a snapshot in time. I do, however, but a lot of stock in the clothing portrayed, more so the English. Of course if I were researching say the 60th kit, I would also research other documents as well, but this painting would be a good starting point (in my opinion) of what these fellows probably looked like during the period.

But I don't disagree with your statements either.

It is interesting that in modern illustraions we tend to see the 60th of the period generally depicted in cocked hats and uniform coats, sometimes with blue mitasses but otherwise with regulation gaiters, while we are familiar with images of Gage's 80th, Howe's 55th and other more generic light infantry (Mollo/ McGregor; Embleton; Scollins, etc) in the cropped hat and coats/adapted waistcoats.

That is despite the fact that in West's painting we have some of the only near-contemporary images apparently depicting troops in campaign clothing, showing what is assumed to be a man of the 60th in exactly the same profile gear. I'm not sure why that should be.

1758 vs 1759 differences, as noted in the Bouquet Papers.

Same in Knox's Journal (43rd)

TYhe 60th was just a normal line infantry regiment, nothing particularly special about them other than their size (four battalions) and areas they served in (everywhere) – though they have grown in myth about all beling light infantry, or having special kits, etc. Just not true or supportable.

Solid unit by 1758/59, but nothing out of the ordinary other than lack of lace on coats.

My point was that, if the man of the 60th is based on an authentic source available to West when he executed the Johnson painting, why had it not been anthologised more as a source for illustrators.

I can't explain other's research habits, but I know that figure was regarded as such by the former director of Fort Ligonier and I believe the former director of Old Fort Niagara.

It could be the cost of using that painting in books, which is often a deterent to authors. I'll give you an example. A friend wrote a very good book on part of the 60th, but for his portrait of Amherst he used the usual one of him posing in armor. A few years back I ran across the rather stunning portrait of Amherst in his 60th coat – one I have never seen before in all my years of research. I asked him why he didn't use that one and he told me because of the license cost to use it.

Here is the portrait.

Perhaps you have seen it, but I never had in all my years researching 60th, looking in books, etc. So there is no doubt what a 60th officer looked like during this period – yet plenty of researchers still get their uniform wrong.

I'd also point out the uniform variations even with the same battalion – as noted in the Bouquet papers for the 1st Battalion. The division under Bouquet had different waistcoats than the division under Stanwix. In all the modern drawings of the regiment I have never seen the waistcoats shown as they were with Stanwix. Yet the Osprey many years ago shows the 60th grens in bearskin caps – which is flat out wrong.

But back to the portrait of Johnson. I think this portrait is often misinterpreted, as detailed in this discussion, so not surprising about the 60th Light being overlooked there. The fellow next to him is interesting as well. Johnson appears in a read suit, strikingly similar to that worn by Wolfe in the same year. In some circles of F&I Brit re-enactors, it has been commonly held this red suit was an unofficial British fatigue outfit.

I expressed myself badly. What I meant was why have we not seen more illustrations based directly on those background figures. It be that indirectly we have- for instance Mollo/McGregors' illustrations of Light Infantry in 'Uniforms of the Seven Year's War.'

Regarding the fine Amherst portrait by Reynolds from c. 1768, is it certain that it shows him in the uniform of the 60th? He had been prmoted major general in 1760. Might that not be an general's undress coat?

There is always a difficulty extracting a generality from a single piece of evidence but I would think that if F&I enthusiasts wanted a model for an officer's undress coat worn in America, the portrait of James Wolfe, would be more reliable.
link

I cannot explain what other researchers do or don't do. I am not aware of any in the period that are dismissive of that portrait and what it shows though.

Amherst is not wearing a Major General's coat, nor even the undress frock. Both of those had certain lace patterns that were accepted as such, we we also see during the Rev War. He certainly isn't wearing civilian clothes either, which would not be uncommon to portraits of the period.

He is pictured there in a 60th coat, which as Colonel Commandant of the regiment he was certainly entitled to wear. The coat is an exact product of what the 60th wore at the time – blue facings, no lace – which was very uncommon for this period. It also matches the little used St. Clair cameo, where he is also pictured in his 60th coat.

Wolfe's painting you forwarded shows what is often taken as an undress frock coat for officers of the period, though Embleton has documented Guards officers sometimes wore blue coats while serving in Europe. In the Bouquet papers Forbes scolds the officers to wear their red coats while on duty, especially for courts martial duty (which makes you wonder what they were wearing on a daily basis).

The most commonly held accurate portrait of the period for Wolfe is the Edward Penny painting, which now resides in Fort Ligonier's collection. It shows Wolfe wearing a private's grenadier coat – a coat he was often documented wearing while scouting the French lines.

link

Of interest to note in that painting (well, there is so much!) is that the infantry is shown fighting in ranks of three, which appears correct for that army – though Amherst's army was documented as using only two ranks.