"British Light Infantry- Black belt?" Topic

I've seen a number of people who've painted their Light Infantry battalion with black cartridge box belts. Did the light infantry not whiten them? Any information appreciated. Thanks.

Black leather was the standard color for Light gear, per the Royal Warrant.

Some of the line regiments with Burgoyne also adopted black belts for the centre companies – 20th and 24th Foot for sure, possibly others left in Canada.

The black belts and red waistcoats were an attempt at "dulling down" the appearance of men in the field, and in wooded areas with lots of shade, would camouflage them quite well. The white crossbelt tends to stand out and was often an aiming point for enemy troops.

It may be that some Grenadier battalions also wore black belts -namely the 1st Grenadier Bn at Germantown in 1777, although the evidence is slight- namely a
humorous watercolour by Mansergh St George, a light infantry officer who had recently been shot in the head and may, understandably, have been confused.

"Black leather was the standard color for Light gear, per the Royal Warrant."

I thought the actual Light Infantry Regulations issued in 1771 stated tanned leather for the cartridge belt.

I know that black belts for LI has been generally accepted for ages, but I am not sure what the original source for them is, (maybe I am just mis-reading the 1771 regs).

Obviously there is nothing in the 1768 Warrant as it was not until 1771 that Light Companies were officially sanctioned…

Ooops, good point. I stand corrected. But most evidence is of black leather gear. Too tired to look into that now. Maybe tomorrow. :-)

On looking at the actual regulation, it is clear that the official accoutrements were a waist belt for the cartridge box (also to carry the Bayonet/Tomohawk frog).

There is no mention of shoulder belts at all, nor an additional cartridge box to be worn. It is all a bit vague though.

Just to complicate the matter, I also looked at those terrific pictures of Warley posted by HistoryGamer in another recent thread. Belts look to be shoulder belts, although the colour is difficult to make out, with the exception of the officer – and his are clearly tanned leather not black!

So I think it fair to question not only the colour of the belts, but also whether they wore shoulder or waist belts, or both.

I wonder if the actual belts for the light company, plus colour (black/tanned or maybe then even white) came down to the preferences of the Colonel rather than anything that the Regulations said.

If the studies that Loutherbourg did for his Warley Camp paintings are anything to go by ( with belly boxes, powder horns and pouch belts slung under the left arm* ) and if one considers the freedom of choice seen with regards, say, to caps, then I think it seems fair to conclude there was considerable regimental variation at the Colonel's discretion.

link >TYPE IN "WARLEY"]

An Inspection Return for the 4th Foot, prior to the AWI, specifically mentioned that the Light COmpany still had white belts. I've always taken this as evidence that black was the proper colour for the cross-belts of that company. The time of the introduction of the Light Company coincided with the conversion of the waistbelt to a second crossbelt, not least because the sword (hanger) was withdrawn from all but the grenadiers.

But it could be evidence that the proper colour was tan as well?

I am not sure I understand your point about the bayonet/sword belt, as we are dealing here with the cartridge belt – seems like LI were intended to combine the two, which is not the case for other companies?

The Marines were the first to official go into a cross belt, I believe in 1772. I'd have to look to see if there is any info on their Lights and their leather color then, though there is a stunning painting – formerly owned by Elton John – of a Marine Light officer with a black shoulder carriage.

The shoulder carriages worn by the army were simply their waistbelts worn over their shoulder. I believe this was done at times in the F&I period as well, but I'd have to dig for that too.

The pre-'68 leather color was natural. Many units simply dyed this white. The militia may have been given old gear. Maybe.

One rule about this period – there are no rules.

Likely that all leather gear for Lights was black. Another oddity about lights is that their waistcoat buttons were also the same size as their regimental – both small. Usually.

I believe (true) buff leather was only worn by buff faced regiments.

Well I believe the "one Rule" you mention above just about nails it.

Uniforms and accoutrements were clearly in transition throughout this period – add to that the adjustments made (by general orders or otherwise) to equipment in the field, and you have a pretty general potpourri!

Lights generally wore black equipment – most probable (albeit that is contrary to the Regulation). That Lights sometimes wore older white or tanned leather – also probable (there is a 1771 portrait of a soldier of the 46th in chain cap and very clearly tan belts).

I think we can be certain of one thing though – Redcoats generally wore red coats – usually…

I seem to recall some of the Lights during the Brandywine campaign complaining about the poor quality American cartridage boxes they were carrying that allowed the rounds to get soaked. Just to add another twist.

Just a note: " Tanned Leather' refers to the finish of the belt, not the colour. So, rather than having the rough finish of buff leather it would be smooth. Therefore the colour would be applied afterwards, black, brown white. With period polishes, black works best.

Good point Spontoon.

The 46th picture and the Warley paintings show brown then.

All leather would have been tanned would it not- including buff leather- otherwise wouldn't it be rawhide (or similar)? Tanning is the process of curing leather, originally with tannins from oak and other vegetable compounds, in order to stop animal skin from decomposing.

The colour 'tan,' I presume, comes from the red-brown staining effect of the tannins on leather, while 'buff' derives from the natural coloured leather of clothing and accoutrements made from ox or buffalo hide (French-'boeuf').

Whether in the mid C18th there was an essential distinction made between the two colour terms or a degree of overlap, I am not sure but, clearly, from the colour of undyed leather derived the 'buff' facings of the 3rd 'Old Buffs', 31st 'Young Buffs' et al.

There was a difference in texture between a 'buff coat' and a 'buff' cartridge belt strap which, I suspect, arose from their different functions. I am fairly sure a buff cartridge belt have had a burnished finish like any other and merely required pipeclay or heel black to colour it.

Some of the line regiments with Burgoyne also adopted black belts for the centre companies – 20th and 24th Foot for sure, possibly others left in Canada.

I am curious what your reference for this is?

I'm not sure what the process for manufacturing buff leather is. I do know that when you punch stitching holes in it they heal up, I swear!

My take on this is that if you want to get things as close to accurate as possible you have to look at individual regiments at any given point in time.

That said, my generic look for British lights is black cross belts.

That, indeed, is about the length and breadth of it.

Of course, if they are Highland light companies, their belts were all still black!