"SYW British Cavalry Wearing A Cuirass" Topic

Interesting, shocking and/or illuminating research about some British SYW era heavy cavalry and cuirasses for them appear here:

link
**********
Respectfully,
Bill P.

PS Have fun and find some first person quotes to support or deny same.

He mentions them wearing them during the WSS as well. No doubt like their brothers in arms of the Dutch cavalry: even when the regulations said they should wear them, and even though they're on record as having them, they wouldn't actually be used: they'd habitually 'get lost', or 'left behind with the baggage' once the campaign started.

I'd either ignore the cuirass for these all together, or after deployment roll the dice to randomly select one regiment that decided to wear its armour for this battle.

Cheers.

:-)))

Indeed, also the 1900 published German General-Staff History on the Wars of Frederick the Great mention the British horse may have worn breast plate armour. Though, I cannot say what source they are drawing from.
It is quite certain, that this item of constricting body armour sheet was more widely seen in the field during the SYW as the classic uniformology literature says. Especially among staff and general officers – not just the cavalry. With my latest paint job, the full cuirasse (front & back plate) has become very much the IT-STYLE for my French Generals. I'm painting two lieutenant-generals at the moment along with Mr. de Meyronnet, commander of the regiment of le Roi (IR12). All 3 come with the full cuirasse. From a letter of a battalion commander involved in the fighting around Bergen, Easter Friday 1759, I know that also he did wear armour at the day of the battle. I don't remember who he was. I would have to turn to my book to find out.
Also Austrian generals as well as the cuirassiers are seen with double sided armour on several contemporary paintings. There is also written evidence strongly implying that at least a good number of Austrian cuirassier units did wear the full cuirasse, despite most of the formally accepted idea it was worn only when fighting against the Osman hordes.

I would assume those "skulls" mentioned in your quotations, refer to the iron sheets supporting the cavalry troopers tricorne hat, rather then the iron helmet seen during the 17th Century – in German known as "Zischägge". Zischagge in English Wiki.

Cheers,
Christian
crogges7ywarmies.blogspot.com

The Royal Horse Guards wore them in Flanders in 1793-1794. Must have been in storage somewhere.

Dunno about the English, but on the French side, repeated ordinances about the wearing of the cuirass seem to indicate that the rule was most often honoured in the breach.

Still, there must have been some advantage to wearing armour: When the Saxons rebuilt a cavalry regiment in French service in 1761, at great pains and scrounging for every man and horse, they were adamant on getting breastplates for them, thus making them proper cuirassiers.

All very interesting but the Morier paintings in the Royal Collection (tentatively 1751) universally show British cavalry without any kind of cuirass. The same is true of the illustrations in the 1742 Clothing Book. Both of course predate the 1758 order for the Horse Guards quoted on Bill P's blog but post-date the WSS.

One problem with Lawson is that he does not reference his material, in such a compendious account it is difficult to check. Thus Lawson reports the order to issue but is there any information to suggest they were actually issued?

That said the Duke of Cumberland in a Morier portrait supposedly c.1745-1750 from the Royal Collection very definitely sports one:

link

General portraits often showed them in armor of some sort, some in the older Renaissance style that would never be worn in a SYW battle.

Joe

I am quite persuaded by the evidence in Lawson, that these items were at least issued.

The cuirasses issued in 1707 were given up by the regiments on the return of the army from Flanders in 1712 and returned to HM stores. A couple of the regimental histories mention this IIRC. I don't know this but I think there's a good chance the cuirasses issued in 1758-60 were actually the same items taken out of storage grease.

Its pretty clear from various memoirs and contemp accounts that the regiments of horse which went to Flanders in the WAS were not given breastplates. True also that the Morier paintings and clothing book don't show cuirasses- but then there's no reason why they would do, as Thomas rightly points out that the dates of these illustrations don't correspond with the records of when the cuirasses were issued.

Sir William Barrington- who signed the order quoted by Lawson in the OP link- was the secretary at war- basically the UK's most senior defence official, and the document is a pretty clear and immediate basic stored supplies requisition, which could be straightforwardly actioned. There's no primary evidence I'm aware of to suggest non-compliance at least with the issue of the kit.

So not absolutely conclusive- I don't have any memoirs of officers of the three regiments in this period which might confirm/deny for eg. But the balance of available evidence to my mind points to the issue of cuirasses in 1758-60.

@ Thomas Mante;

Are you sure that garment the Duke of Cumberland is wearing is not an industrial strength girdle?

You can not use Portrait painting as historical president,
most of the paintings of generales in the 17th and early 18th century shows them in 3/4 armour, most of them probable did not even own their own suit of armour.

In the SYW other than the household cavalry regiments am I correct in assuming there are only 3 regiments of horse?

It is my understanding that when the British Cavalry of the 18th Century did wear cuirasses, they did so below their coats (as in the Morier portrait of the Duke of Cumberland). This makes it very difficult to determine whether they were wearing them or not.

The only real evidence would be documents showing them as issued, but this does not prove they were worn, as opposed to left in store. Better evidence would be a memoir recording their actual use.

I am only just getting into the 18th Century, as opposed to my previous obsession with Napoleonics, and it seems there is much like this which is speculative.

Rod

There were originally 8 Regiments of Horse up to the War of Austrian Succession. Afterwords, 4 of them were converted to Dragoon Guards as an economy measure.

The Blues are considered to be a Regiment of Horse plus the other three = 4 Horse at the start of the SYW.

Actually, that's not quite correct- only three Horse regiments were initially converted to DGs (in 1746). The 2nd, 3rd and 4th horse became the 1st-3rd DGs respectively.

The four junior regiments of Horse (5th-8th in the 1742 numbering) then became the new 1st-4th Horse- sometimes called 'Irish Horse' until they too were converted to the 4th-7th DGs in 1788.

The Royal Horseguards (Blues) had officially been ranked as the 1st Horse in 1742- though were rarely referred to as such. When the changes of 1746 came along, the Blues were taken out of the line and given a special semi-Guard status without a number, but generally understood to be senior to all line regiments. They finally became proper Household cavalry in 1820.

Knotel writes that the in 1821 the household cavalry redopted cuirasses. So they must have worn them earlier. He doesn't mention the cuirasses earlier in his writing but does say that british cavalry was heavily armed and mounted.