"AWI hunting shirts query" Topic

I'm currently painting up both sides to use with Musket and Tomahawk so units are roughly 6 to 8 figures. I like the look of the units wearing hunting shirts, some of the dyes used look quite garish. My question is, should I paint all figures the same colours or can I mix a variety of hues into a unit? Thanks in advance.

Many of the hunting shirts were not dyed so you would have a variety of linen hues in a unit.

I'd mix the colors, from undyed to dyed blue to give a bit of difference in your unit.

Imrie/Risley came out with troops in hunting shirts in the 70s with a coloring guide in full color. You might try either calling or emailing them and they might send you the color card.

imrierisleyminiatures.com

I believe it depends on what kind of unit you are portraying.

If militia, then likely they brought their own clothes and it might be mixed, but if a state or continental unit, then the hunting shirts would be issued and all the same.

I'm not sure what you mean by garish colors? Most hunting shirts were likely natural linen, blue, some black, I think one unit (MD or VA troops?) were issued purple. But again, it depends on the unit.

Maybe he is referring to the purple hunting shirt in Mollo.

Exactly!

Early on in the war, when Rebel units were amalgams of pre-war militia units, hunting shirts tended to be dyed by company in order to preserve the pre-war unit thing. However, by mid-1776, more and more units were dyeing at a regimental level, typically blue, black, or plain linen. For your purposes, I would go with a plain linen which can then be tinted to give a bit of variety within the group of 6-8 figures.

Purple hunting shirts were either misdescriptions, or faded versions, of blue.

Hunting shirts were State or Continental issue, and so tended not to be worn by militia until later on in the war (there were a few exceptions), when there might be a few ex-Continentals in the ranks, or after the militia had supplied drafts to the State Lines.

Bearing in mind that sun, rain and dust would reduce the hues of original colours to a less garish, more uniform range of colour.

Yeah, you'd think by the very nature of the tasks for which they were intended that hunting shirts would quickly fade, become soiled, become wet and dry repeatedly, and in general have a wide variety of tones and stains after a short while (to say nothing of variable dyes).

Hunting shirts seem to have started out being used by militia on a regional basis, were adopted by the Continental army at Washington's urging, and through the army spread to the rest of the colonies. Even before fighting started the Virginia convention was urging that the hunting shirt be adopted as the uniform of the Virginia militia. It had been used by some militia during the F&IW, it was probably used during Virginia's war with the Shawnee in 1774 and was described as used by militia shortly after the fighting started. You also have descriptions of members of Thompson's rifles wearing them in 1775, before Washington made his recommendation that they be used by the Continental Army.

I would not recommend using different colored hunting shirts in a skirmish wargame unless you had a specific reason to do so. The tendency was to either leave them natural, or for the entire company or regiment to dye them the same color. You could vary the hue slightly, indicating that one man's shirt was left in longer than another or had weathered more. You could have some in hunting shirts with fringe and some without. You could have your officer and NCO figures perhaps have colored collars and cuffs as badges of rank. You could also mix a few figures in "natural" in with the figures in dyed shirts. Natural could range from off-white and light gray to tan and light brown depending on how the shirts were made and used, which could be another way of providing some variation.

Bill, can you validate your statement re: hunting shirts during F&IW? I raised this question and most responses stated it likely did't appear, the hunting shirt, until later. Personally, I lean towards its existence at the time of the F&IW and would love some historical validation for that thought. But right or wrong I'm still painting my one unit of provincials in hunting shirts for the F&IW (figures are Peter Pig AWI but it's my toys boys!).

Provincials in the F&I War? Yeah, I'd like to see that reference too. What do you mean by Provincials? Regiments raised by a colony? I believe they were all uniformed (with perhaps early exceptions in 1754, when most likely started out looking like militia in the civilian clothes they enlisted in).

I'm more knowledgeable about the Western PA frontier campaigns, and I can't point to a "unit" being equipped in Hunting frocks/shirts, etc.

VA likely clothed their 1754 regiment in red coats, then supplied short tailed blue faced red in 1755 and beyond. PA, I believe, supplied green coats (faced red?) for the 1758 campaign. Maryland (Forces) soldiers were issued red with black cuffs and collar, though I recently saw a portrait of an officer of Maryland Militia wearing a very fancy blue faced red, trimmed in silver lace (hanging in the Maryland Historical Society Museum).

I can't say for scouts and guides of the period – maybe, whatever was worn on the frontier at the time – but an entire unit? Sure, your toys, paint them as you like, but just saying…. :-)

When I referred to "militia" in the F&IW I was not referring specifically to Provincial Regiments such as Washington commanded in 1754 and on Forbes expedition, but rather the broader meaning including ranger companies and local militias serving on the frontier. FWIW there were discussions between officers in Forbes' expedition about Virginia provincials adopting "indian dress" and Lewis's command apparently wore it, but they do not refer specifically to the hunting shirt. The following is a short list of some sources for early use of hunting shirts:

For a study of hunting shirts generally, which I believe references early hunting shirt use, see link

On the discussion of adopting Indian dress for Virginia Provicials on Forbes expedition see page 229 of link

For prewar adoption of the hunting shirt by the Fairfax militia see link

For the Virginia Convention's direction in March 1775 that militia be uniformed in hunting shirts see link

1775 descriptions of troops in hunting shirts can be found in the deserter descriptions in Lefferts

"I believe they were all uniformed (with perhaps early exceptions in 1754, when most likely started out looking like militia in the civilian clothes they enlisted in)."

There was a comment in one of the GW bios (Lengel?) that mentioned initial drafts of the 1st VA being in "civilian clothes," but they were uniformed later.

Interesting links – thanks for providing. Some thoughts:

1. Hunting shirts of the AWI period are rather well known, not so much during the F&I period – as noted by the the one author.

2. Washington's reference to Indian dress is curious – as Indian's generally wore minimal clothing in the summer, likely trade shirts of linen (if they wore a shirt at all), breechclothes of linen or wool, leggins of wool (which the British army adopted in 1759) or deerskin, and moccasins.

I doubt seriously that the hunting shirt of the 1750s looked very much like what we picture riflemen in the 1770s wearing.

My somewhat educated guess would be a very plan long shirt, with a collar, likely not open in the front – more like a smock referred to by the one author and as pictured in many of Bob Griffing's paintings.

link

link

Disclaimer – I know the artist and have posed for him for at least one of his paintings. :-)

What was good enough for Hawkeye, is good enough for me. LOL,

historygamer, so did you pose for the papoose or the kid. (I crack myself up!)

I'm the totem pole. :-)

Actually, he had me pose for this painting:

link

He wanted a series of specific poses for the officers in the painting. I had no idea what it was for, but it happened by the French camp at Fort Ligonier, so they had no end of comments while it was going on.

Then John Buxton told me he used me for his Washington in the painting:

link

He gave me some additional height and a bigger nose, but he said that was me. I often stand that way at events and the "McKay" I was talking to is a friend of mine. I suspect he snapped a photo of us talking at a Fort Niagara event.

Speaking of Hawkeye, that is a good reference to a likely looking F&I Period hunting shirt. It is a true shirt, or smock:

link

Here is a good shot of what period Indians would likely look like:

link

Hey, I have the Charming Field for an Encounter framed and waiting for wire on the back to hang it – and deciding where to hang it on our too crowded walls. Bought the print on the trip when visiting the actual battlefield.

When you get down to the fringe,here's something else to get headaches over : )

TMP link

The interpretation of Washington's comment about "indian dress" to include hunting shirts goes back to at least the first half of the 19th century. That does not mean it is correct, but it is at least longstanding.

I was initially inclined to disbelieve the claim of purple hunting shirts. Supposedly Hessian AGM Baurmeister wrote after Long Island that "They wear black, white or purple linen blouses with fringe on their sleeves and collars". Still could be a poor effort to dye them blue. Silas Deane describes those he saw near Boston as the "shade of a dry or fading leaf" so browns should be OK as well.

Bill N:

My response on Washington was, how does anyone know to link hunting shirts (which likely looked different in the 1750s than the 1770s) to his reference to Indian dress? Personally, I never associated hunting shirts or rifle frocks with Indian dress.

Some contemporary drawings of Indians show them with no shirt at all.

The answer to your question HG is I can only report what they said.

My inquiry was on how common the hunting shirt was at the start of the AWI, not on whether some of Washington's Provincials wore them in 1758. At this point what Washington meant in 1758 by "indian dress", how many of Washington's Provincial Regiment might have worn it and for how long into the campaign are unresolved questions for further inquiry for those who might have an interest in that particular subject. I would not have even mentioned the "indian dress" point if my comment about Virginia militia use of hunting shirts in the F&IW has not been misconstrued to refer to use specifically by Provincials.

link

Provincial regiment, whether period precise or not, is a common way to refer to some colonial units in the French and Indian War – which is not to say they were Provincials in the organized sense of the AWI, though they were pretty well organized at some level. And curious about the 3rd battalion with two companies of dragoons – a legion in the FIW?

Despite those who believe otherwise, mounted forces were clearly used in the FIW, though pretty much restricted to scouting.

Just FYI.

I suspect it was the English who referred to them as Provincials. The colonist likely just referred to them as the Virginia Regiment, or the Maryland Forces, etc. I am led to believe that while we often call AWI period Loyalists, they could also be referred to then as Provincial units as well.

In regards to mounted units in the F&I, they were kind of rare. Braddock has his Light Horse (whose swords were so poorly made as reported to be worthless), and of course the French had a mounted unit at Quebec. Because of the nature of the terrain, transport, and lack of forage, horses were not widely used, at least as a combat arm.