"1st (Royal) Dragoons 1815" Topic

I have posted new pictures of the 1st (Royal) Dragoons on my Blog. These Perry 28m figures were painted for me by Carl Robson.

link

All three of the Union Brigade regiments have now been updated.

Nice work. Just seems odd to have virtually all the horses the exact same color except for manes and tails.

I used to try for variety of poses, horse colours, falling figures etc to add variety……but it gradually dawned on me that I am trying to suggest a cavalry regiment (indeed a brigade)based on a very small number of figures.

My "Union Brigade" has more officers and NCOs than troopers and one man in seven has captured an eagle!

Uniformity does increase the impression of a larger unit in 28mm and, in reality, the more fortunate units (eg British Heavy Cavalry by 1815) could afford to insist on darker horses, even blacks….if not greys for trumpeters of course

As a Royal regiment, would the 1st not have had black horses and undocked tails?

I hope not for the sake of the paint job :-) – which is lovely…!

According to General Orders issued in August 1799, all heavy cavalry except the 1st & 2nd Life Guards, and the Royal Horse Guards, were to have "nag-tailed" (ie docked) horses.

The three Household regiments named above, the 1st Dragoon Guards, and the 1st and 3rd Dragoons, were the only heavy cavalry regiments to be mounted entirely on black horses. The 2nd Dragoon Guards were to be mounted on bay and brown horses, the 2nd Dragoons on grey horses. All other heavy cavalry regiments were to be mounted on a mix of bays, chestnuts and browns. Trumpeters were to cease being mounted on greys and to ride horses of the same colour as the troopers.

@ SM

thanks, very helpful.

You cannot criticise this quality of painting. The helmet work is superb for example.

Wrgmr1 does make a valid point though, easily corrected. Not one horse has a white face marking, a blaze or lower legs in white/black, which transforms them. Few minutes work.

But look at the skill of the lacework.

Docked tails, yes. This is a "Royal" Regt, but not a Guards regt……and my impression would have been black horses. But they are wonderful!

There's another couple of threads related to this subject, one of which I've just "bumped up" by answering a long-standing question.

TMP link

TMP link

The first link includes the exact wording of the 1799 order from Horse Guards; the second contains an earlier order from 1796.

I agree with Deadhead excellent paintwork. In particular the helmets.

Supercilius, thanks for reposting these details on the mounts for the various heavy cavalry regiments. I would just recommend anyone currently painting these regiments to pay attention to the colour of the leather equipment as well as the horses, including the officer's and trumpeter's.

It is very good to have the actual Regulations quoted. Artists through the ages have taken many liberties with these details. I would expect the cavalry regiments, fresh from the depots and barracks, to be more likely to follow regulations than say the French of the same period, for obvious reasons.

Not one horse has a white face marking, a blaze or lower legs in white/black, which transforms them.

It is my understanding that those were avoided because they made the unit look untidy.

If you look at the Household Cavalry today, they are all on black horses with not very many such white markings in evidence. They are there, but the exception rather than the rule:

200 years ago I'd think the British army would have had a better choice of horseflesh than today and therefore that they might well have managed to observe such a preference, especially in a short campaign.

Cracking looking unit though!

You make an extremely interesting point here.

(Notice trumpeters are back on Greys, but at least no docked tails now?)

I'd still say, even on the lower picture you have offered, (and is it not impressive, as you said?) some white socks. Must admit I thought there would have been far more face markings/blazes .

Recent research has suggested that even the Greys were not mounted uniformly and that they used a miscellaneous combination of horses.

(Notice trumpeters are back on Greys, but at least no docked tails now?)

I don't think the Household Cavalry ever had docked tails – I'll check that, but every print I can recall seeing of them, from James II onwards, shows a full tail, IIRC.

All black and not many white markings definitely makes the unit look sharper, does it not.

I wonder if in 1815 there'd have been fewer white markings than now? Back then horses were everywhere, today not so much. Finding 18-hand all-black horses may actually be harder now than it was then.

Household definitely full tails. I wonder about Copehangen?

Interesting point that far more horses to choose from, so more fussy (except post 1812 France of course).

That H Cavalry picture above is terrific

Yes- 1st Royals were definitely a black horse regiment in 1815. They had acquired some of other colours during their long campaigning in the peninsula but swapped or sold these out on return to the UK and by Waterloo were I think all on blacks again.

Couple of points- although the 1812 circular about trumpeters being mounted on troop coloured horses was quite widely ignored apparently. All of the contemp 1812-20 illustrations I have of Brit cavalry trumpeters are still mounted on greys. I fairness there aren't many that many such illustrations- but I don't recall seeing any actually shown as mounted on troop horses.

Also, nag tailed is not the same as docked. The former is just cut short down to one third or one half of natural length. Docked tails are cut right back to the tailbone, like the Morier pictures of mid c18th British cavalry in the Royal collection.

Absolutely beautiful figs.

nag tailed and docked……….I had never appreciated the distinction and suspect frequently misapplied. Thanks for that.