"AWI Uniform Book" Topic

I received this book today:
link
I read here on TMP that there were some errors in the book.
Has anyone compiled an official errata or list of things that are incorrect? Thanks. BTW, this book is a wonderful addition to my small but growing AWI library.

I don't know as anyone has compiled a list of errata. All of the AWI uniform books have some errors in them – and there are disagreements between historians over some uniforms, equipage of units, etc. To add to it, the authors of this book are not particularly known as experts in the field of AWI so why they were chosen to write this book is anyone's guess.

Yep.

I happen to like the book. Is it full of errors? Well, that's a matter of speculation. The plain truth is that almost all
"sources" for AWI uniforms are based on educated guesses.

Many of the American Units wore two, three or even four different uniforms throughout the War.
Without a surviving example, everything else is just a good guess.

I only looked through the book at a show and decided to pass, for a variety of reasons, but I believe it did have some errors in it, as I recall.

I have it, be careful some of thee pictures are mid captioned.

There are over 100 errors in the British/Loyalist section alone; I catalogued these and passed them on to the authors (at their request).

Is it full of errors? Well, that's a matter of speculation.

No it isn't, unfortunately. Plates are mis-captioned, units are confused with other units (one table of Loyalist units lists the British Legion under three (IIRC) different titles), and items of clothing – such as epaulettes – have clearly been copied from Napoleonic uniforms, as they are of a much later style.

In addition, many of the errors in this book are copies of errors in Lefferts, Mollo/McGregor, Kemp, and CCP Lawson. All of the latter have the excuse of being overtaken by subsequent research since their publication, but their errors are well known to students of AWI uniforms and really should not have been repeated. Examples include the confusion between the converted uniforms of the 40th Foot and those of the 2nd Light Infantry from the della Gatta painting of Germantown – a mistake initially made by Lawson in the 1950s, and repeated by Mollo/McGregor in the 1970s.

The plain truth is that almost all "sources" for AWI uniforms are based on educated guesses.

Again, no they aren't I'm afraid. Whilst it is true that there are gaps in records, all British/French/German/Spanish uniforms are well recorded, so too the majority of Loyalist uniforms. And – whilst, as you rightly say, it might often only be for a specific year – quite a lot of the Continental uniforms are also documented by the providers and the wearers (even in some of the cases where a unit wore multiple "official" uniforms simultaneously).

IMO, the book is poorly written (there are factual errors not relating to uniforms), poorly edited (not entirely the fault of the authors, but a lot should have been caught), and poorly laid out; the illustrations are, as a whole, a dog's dinner and many of them are just straight copies of Mollo/McGregor plates. The authors were writing a series of uniform books covering several periods of history, and this particular effort took them too far out of their comfort zones.

Great info SM, thanks.

Lovely book. It does mix up soms text blocks now and then. I wouldn't recognize historical errors if I fell over them.

Thanks SM. I probably wouldn't recognize the errors either, because I'm not much of a stickler for accurate uniforms. I usually paint fairly generic units for the rank & file types such as British line and Continental line.

Very good assessment SM. For me it is all about the historical accuracy for my miniatures before I paint.

For the "casual" AWI painter/gamer looking for generic uniform combinations, then if you have nothing else on your bookshelf on AWI uniforms, it will fill that gap to an extent. However, if you are keen on the finer details and you already have Lefferts, Mollo/McGregor, etc it won't really add much to the mix.

It's a shame, because (a) there was a real need for something to bring everyone up-to-date on all the knowledge that has been acquired since the publication of Mollo/McGregor in the mid-1970s; and (b) these are two authors with good reputations in other fields of uniformology.

Sorry, SM. You and I will have to just disagree.
In my real life, I dealt in facts and what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That's my standard.

Without a surviving uniform all you have is a bunch of "records".
Let's ask anyone in the Military if the "records" accurately reflect what really happened or if the "official records" are at all accurate.

For example let's just take Bloody Bans after action reports on Cowpens for instance. Accurate? Or tailored to fit the narrative?

Having spent 22 years in a para military organization, I can tell you, quite frankly, that the "records" are full of crap. Mainly written to place the blame elsewhere.
As an Officer, I conducted hundreds of Roll Calls. If you read the official record of those roll calls, every single person was in a perfect uniform of the day.
In reality, perhaps three or four were complying with regulations. The rest wore what was comfortable and practical.
So, just because some clerk wrote down what he was told to write, doesn't make it true. And there are gaps in the records, as you state. So, how do we fill in the gaps? By guessing?

Again, lets ask our combat veterans here if they wore the uniform of the day on the front lines.

I'll agree with you that the book has editing errors and has some plates mislabeled. No defense to that. But most books have errors and that's on the editor not the author.

There are no pictures, videos or surviving eyewitnesses.
Almost every painting is wrong or painted years after the fact, allowing for error or faded memory.

In short, you can take all the existing material that you can accumulate and piece together what you believe the uniforms to be.
But that doesn't prove it. It's still just a guess, educated or not.

I think the point is that SM is talking about KNOWN errors, not speculation.

We know a lot more than we did and there's no really good excuse for not reflecting things that have been confirmed via research, artifacts, etc.

Otherwise we end up sounding like that director in the film "Sweet Liberty" who dismisses the historian with "well, who really knows what people actually said." Or wore, in this case.

"Or wore, in this case."

Exactly the point. We don't know for sure, do we?

Yes, we can make an educated attempt. Uniforms in the AWI appear to have been so haphazard that it's impossible to
assign one particular uniform to a unit for the entire War.

I've been studying the Maryland/Delwaware Continentals for quite a bit of time now and I'll be damned if anyone knows for sure, what they wore, when. They are all over the map with plenty of variation, throw in.

That book does has some errors in it. No book is perfect but there are enough facts known to spot obvious errors. These books are better.

link

link

I find the Osprey books to be helpful but they have a few errors too.

link

It's a shame, because (a) there was a real need for something to bring everyone up-to-date on all the knowledge that has been acquired since the publication of Mollo/McGregor in the mid-1970s; and (b) these are two authors with good reputations in other fields of uniformology.

Sounds like you are contemplating writing such a book.

Yes?

Thanks for the recommendations. I already have the Mollo book. I just bought the Stuart Reid Osprey compilation book. It sounds like the book that I started this thread about is not all that great after all, so I shall use it with a great deal of caution.

So what is the error in the Della Gatta painting? I am no familiar but have Mollo.

Any opinions on Tim Reese's Art of Wars CD's on the AWI?

coopman,

My $.02 USD on this issue---It is a nice book. Is it 100% accurate, no. I don't believe than any book is going to be that!

Use it, but don't think that it or any other book is going to be the gospel on A.W.I. uniforms (especially Continental). Use more than one source to gather your information and then paint up the unit as you think it would look. That is how I do it.
Tom Semian
Avalon, Pa. 15202

Odd. I see one with facts and another with opinions. I'll go with the former if you don't mind. :-)

Rallynow, I've been hassling SM for years to do this….

[sigh] :-(

"Escapists may put what they will between the covers of a book; unfortunately the historian must be a realist."

James G. Randall (1881-1953)
American Historian

And yes, SM should write something new. :-)

So SM as the old adage goes put your money where your mouth is and create a correct version of a book on the subject. I know I would buy it.

So what is the error in the Della Gatta painting? I am no familiar but have Mollo.

In essence, the Light Infantry (on the road) have converted waistcoats, whilst the 40th (by the house) have converted regimental coats. The former (pace <historygamer>!!!) is believed to be the red light infantry waistcoat with the sleeves of the regimental coat attached (hence the cuffs have the facing colour); the latter is the normal coat with the tails shortened and converted to a single-breasted frock coat (hence it has collar, cuffs and turnbacks).

Lawson (who begat Mollo/McGregor, who begat Kiley/Smith, etc etc), "saw" these uniforms as identical and created a sort of hybrid view of them with the illustrations in his own book (History of the Uniforms of the British Army vol III), but they are two quite distinct garments. The three plates in M/M (95, 96 & 97) all show the same garment – only 97 (40th Foot) is correct, and even that is arguably missing the collar. The coatees of the bugler and officer are too long: they should only come down to waist level (about the top of the bayonet scabbard on the officer) and be cut level all the way around – hence "roundabout"; and they should not have turnbacks, because the "light bobs" waistcoats did not have them. The officer could well have had his servant add a collar, and we know some companies added facing-colour "wings" to the shoulders of their roundabouts.

A further complication is that, whilst the "roundabout" style was previously thought unique to the Light Infantry, a recently uncovered watercolour by a British light company officer showing him returning to Philadelphia in a makeshift ambulance, has him being met by a fellow-officer, whom he names. Problem is, while the friend is wearing exactly the same uniform (bar facing colours), he is known to have been a GRENADIER officer. So, was he (a) temporarily detached to the other Light Battalion; or (b) wearing an "undress" outfit made specifically for him that happened to copy the Light uniform; or (c) did the Grenadier Battalions adopt a similar uniform (and if so, how because they had white waistcoats, not red)? New info is not always helpful!

Evaluate the book for what it is. There are some out there who don't enjoy doing research. They want a comprehensive source that they can turn to. They are less interested in whether that source is 100% accurate than they are in whether they can open it up and find the uniform for the 3rd Whosywhats. If it has large amounts of big color illustrations and can be purchased through Amazon or Barnes & Noble, even better.

I don't own the book, but I have seen it. Given what those who are purchasing the book are probably looking for, I don't know of anything else on the market which is better.

A further complication is that, whilst the "roundabout" style was previously thought unique to the Light Infantry, a recently uncovered watercolour by a British light company officer showing him returning to Philadelphia in a makeshift ambulance, has him being met by a fellow-officer, whom he names. Problem is, while the friend is wearing exactly the same uniform (bar facing colours), he is known to have been a GRENADIER officer. So, was he (a) temporarily detached to the other Light Battalion; or (b) wearing an "undress" outfit made specifically for him that happened to copy the Light uniform; or (c) did the Grenadier Battalions adopt a similar uniform (and if so, how because they had white waistcoats, not red)? New info is not always helpful!'

I rest my case.

Well I have this book and I find the few editorial blunders irritating but hardly likely to lead me to paint the wrong unit.

I rather like the book although it is a bit light on the British infantry details for my liking and I can't fathom why there is a separate section on Irish regiments of the British army.

Looking at the Mollo book plates 95-97 and referring to my painting of 15mm sized models than any problems are hardly going to be noticeable on the table. Maybe I am not that fussy to be very bothered.There again, I have Highland regiments with white belts and I'm ed if I am going to repaint them.

SM

Officers were required to have one or more plain scarlet frock coats so it is not impossible that grenadier or line officers could have had cutdown versions for field wear. That does not necessarily apply to rank and file though. So it may not be as much a complicating factor as you think. It has long been known that officers are a lore unto themselves – for example there are several portraits from the late 1750s and early 1760s which show officers wearing white small clothes with normal regimental coat.

nevinsrip
I think you maybe tending to disregard evidence in favour of opinion and infer that it is fact. Your experience of colleagues at roll call being differently clad (and equipped?) and not according to regulation is all very well but I bet that they were all instantly identifiable as members of a major police department to any casual observer? Likewise one can look at any number of photos from C19th on to find variations from regulation but also demonstrate uniformity.

One only has to look at how Don Troiani works in terms of research and acquiring original artefacts before moving on to using accurate reproductions and live models with inference constrained within limits of what is known to see what can be achieved.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there were uniform variations, but what is at question here is the value of this particular book.

SM- I have come to modify my view of the lights and their coats. Upon further study, I agree that the light waistcoat was indeed a very specially made pattern, unique in how it was cut along the bottom at the waist.

I have Mollo.
I have Lefferts.
I have the Company of Military Historians.
And I have Osprey books.
From what I have read, this duplicates what I have and has it's own errors. I never thought I needed it.

SM

Thanks for the summary.

Thomas, You missed my point entirely, which was not about appearance. It was to illustrate that what gets written in the "Official Record" is not necessarily the truth.

And while it is true that they would all be recognizable as officers, they were not all wearing the same uniforms.
Just as two Continentals in the same Unit, wearing totally different clothing, would still be recognized as
Continentals.

There really are no absolutes where AWI uniforms are concerned.

There may not be- are not- absolutes but there can be egregious errors in terms of evidence that we trust. And that evidence need not be the Official Record- although I am not quite sure what that means exactly, unless you mean the 1768 Warrant.

If, for instance, orderly books and officer's journal makes reference over an 18-month period to a company of grenadiers successively wearing brown or blue donation cloth trousers in winter followed by white linen pantaloons in summer- I am hypothesising here- with clear reference to their bearskin caps being in storage, then it would be going in face of the evidence to depict that particular flank battalion in white breeches, long gaiters and bearskins. Whether recklessly or because an author hadn't done the research, to choose that second figure as representative of how grenadiers 'probably' looked between 177X and 177Y would not only be marching in the face of best evidence but also unhelpful. And for why?

One might hypothesise that at least the CO's orderly drummer could have retained the bearskin cap, 1768 coat, breeches and gaiters. He might but wouldn't it be reasonable for someone to ask "On what basis do you propose that?" (Still hypothesising here) "Well, he could have," wouldn't, to my mind, be a sufficient answer.

Lieutenant St George's fascinating caricature of his 'Triumphant Entry into Philadelphia' mentioned by SM, isn't perhaps as tergiversatory as it might appear. Given that Della Gatta's Germantown painting shows the men of the 40th dressed pretty much like the men of the 2nd Light Infantry battalion (the details of the coats being, arguably, about means rather than ends)- to see an officer of the 1st Grenadier battalion on the same day wearing what appears to be a round hat with feather, plus cut-down 'frock' and white trousers, was not so much a surprise as a very satisfying filling-in of a gap, given what we are told the Grenadiers were wearing two years later.

The knee'd-out, loose trousers tucked into short gaiters that St George in various sketches showed himself and others wearing in Pennsylvania, including his Grenadier pal, now, that was interesting.

Neither Official Record nor universal but something unexpected but logical and providing a snapshot in time. That's all we can hope for really.

Of course, at the time St George was recuperating from a shot in the head and being trepanned…

Oh, and as re: Osprey- although I can't provide a direct link- this page uses the same illustration of the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment at Harlem Heights as used in their battle volume 'New York 1776'

link

"An error is half way round the world before historical accuracy has had time to put on his trousers" (Thomas Carlyle)

I still nominate Super Max to lead a book on the subject…

Eric

My problem with the book is there is nothing new that is not covered by Mollo or Lefferts. In fact the authors copied their errors (in addition to creating more of their own). There was a lot of first class research done out there that they ignored.

One example is the Brigade of the Guards on American service. Burke and Bass have published outstanding research on them. There is also a period painting of a guards office in his modified American uniform. One officer's journal quotes the uniform modification done to the clothing and equipment before landing at new york. There are also brigade orderly books with this information.

Better money can be spent on Ketcher's uniforms of the continental army. First class research there in a very underappreciated book.