"Uniforms: were they issued in specific sizes?" Topic

This occurred to me the other day when shopping for new pants: How were Napoleonic era uniforms issued? Was it a one-size fits all approach with soldiers having to make their own alterations? Or were there a few base sizes ie small, medium, large? Or was it more exacting than this and similar to the wide variety of sizes offered today?

I believe they came in two sizes.
Too big.
Too small.

The soldier would have to make his own alterations. Or I suspect one soldiers wife would be making alterations for him and his buddies.

Edwulf +1 for the too big/too small answer!!

Jim

In the case of the rank and file clothing, and certainly in the French Army, bolts of pre-dyed cloth were provided to the regiments, who then, using patterns, had their own regimental tailors make up the necessary uniform components. The cloth supplied to the regiments was supposed to be closely scrutinized to ensure conformance to standards in color and quality.

I'd always assumed that private contractors made the uniforms, but apparently this was not the case.

Not sure about a variety of sizes, they probably came in a one-size fits all, but presumably there would have been an opportunity to alter the cut and fit later to suit the individual.

British uniforms were supplied in bundles. Each bundle was supposed to contain a percentage of small/medium/large in each, but rarely did. They were also bundled in cut section, so you had arm sections, front backs, collars etc. They were then sewn together by the regimental tailors and altered to a soldiers size then. However as always the suppliers were prone to send to many small sizes as it saved them a few shillings. These then had to be cut up by the tailors to make what they could out of them. There are records complaining bitterly about this and records showing bundles returned. The reenactment group 2/95th have extensive research on the subject on their forum.

In the Russian Army cloth was, as I recall, provided by the company to the nimble company tailor which could result in different shades of green within the same regiment

This is a good question! I've also wondered about shoe sizes. Properly fitted shoes would be important with all that marching.

I know that early in the War Between the States the Federal government bought 10,000 uniforms from France. These were sized, I believe, in 4 sizes. Only the largest size could be used. Seems the average American was quite a bit bigger than the typical Frenchman!

I remember one quote, Small, and Much Too Small!

I'm sure I have read that shoes in this era were not left and right. They were just shoes, so you could swap them from foot to foot.

Which actually sounds like quite a good idea.

Until you put them on and try to walk in them!

When I was in the Army, too big and too small were still the only sizes made.

I've been wearing straight lasted shoes 40 hrs. a week for 35 years. It is not a big deal. Shoe sizes predate the 1600s. The US Army in the early 1800s into the War of Southern Aggression issued size 6-12 in full sizes. In the Smithsonian Museum there are a pair of C.W. US Army bootees that are size 18.

Just glad we have some companies that can make uniforms for those of us who are a bit "Bigger than life". ;^)

The Grande Armee was supplied by contractors for their uniforms and equipment.

The regiment was the responsible institution for keeping the troops supplied with uniforms. The man responsible in each regiment was the capitaine d'habillement, or, in English, the regimental supply officer.

His place of duty was usually with the regimental depot with most of the regimental articificers. He ran the regimental workshops and dealt with the contractors. He was responsible to inspect newly supplied uniforms and equipment for serviceability and workmanship, and the regimental workshops could and did do alterations or make up new items of uniforms when needed, especially on campaign.

The uniform accessories, such as plumes, epaulettes, etc., were also purchased by the capitaine d'habillement and forwarded to the regiment in the field.

Some regiments did make up their own clothing, especially on campaign from captured enemy stocks of cloth. The French made large captures of Austrian and Prussian magazines in 1805, 1806, and 1809 and the regiments were issued both completed items, such as overcoats, and made their own replacement uniforms from captured cloth.

The capitaine d'habillement would be called forward and set up workshops during lulls or breaks in campaigns to get the needed work done.

Officers were responsible for procuring their own uniforms.

I was just thinking of this the other day as the thought of local civilians stripping the bodies after a battle and leaving them more or less naked came to mind. I was wondering about the resale value of "used" uniforms or cloth to either army. Imagine getting the stains out! At least the plumes and epaulettes were probably still worth something on the open market.

I can only imagine the reputation this guy might have if his job was to follow the army around and wait for "the opportunity to resupply" the soldiers.

Third time at this is the charm.
Regiments I often read had their own cobblers maybe just as a sample of the population drafted. So why wouldn't they have taylor's the same way?.

The left/right thing was a little earlier I think – it was on QI.

What always gets me is the sheer "over the top how much lace and detail can we get on" from clothes that had to all be hand sewed, especially with the various regiment changes – cuffs, button holes etc.

Old Wolfram – your just a new 28mm in a world of 25s!

The soldier would have to make his own alterations. Or I suspect one soldiers wife would be making alterations for him and his buddies.

Neither the soldier, nor his wife, would do this. Each unit would have its own tailors; women were not allowed to alter the actual uniform – they might sew the odd button back on, but that would be it (in fact, British Army women were precluded from doing much more than the laundry or basic nursing – cooking, sewing, cleaning and hairdressing were the men's tasks, and in some cases earned additional pay and were thus jealously guarded).

British uniforms were supplied in bundles. Each bundle was supposed to contain a percentage of small/medium/large in each, but rarely did. They were also bundled in cut section, so you had arm sections, front backs, collars etc. They were then sewn together by the regimental tailors and altered to a soldiers size then.

I suspect this followed the expansions in the Army before and after the Peace of Amiens. Certainly in the last 1/4 of the 18th Century it was the norm for the uniforms to be supplied fully made up; each man would then be issued a coat, which he would then take to the regimental tailor, who would completely "dismantle" it and re-assemble it to fit the wearer's measurements (there were set rules for how far down the back of the leg the coat-tails had to go, for example).

When I was in the Army, too big and too small were still the only sizes made.

I was in the US Navy after the turn of the millennium, and that was still the case! Though I tended towards the "too small or much too small" end of the spectrum…

You learn something new.

I know their were strict rules about tampering with their weapons but I didn't know it applied to uniforms too.