"Regimental caps of the 95th Rifle Regiment 1800-15" Topic

"Especial attention has been paid in this article to the 1812 cap, often termed the ‘belgic' cap, as during the C20th an orthodox view developed that holds that the Rifle and Light Infantry Regiments were not required to comply with this issue, and did not adopt the cap. I have attempted to demonstrate that this was not the case, being unsupported by the evidence, and that the Rifle Regiment sported the 1812 cap for the final years of their existence.

link
caps-of-the-95th-rifle-regiment-of-foot/

A very thorough investigation, it would seem, if wordy, and for some reason WRITTEN IN CAPITALS THROUGHOUT!

Perhaps he feels the need to shout above the hostile gunfire….

Well done for finding this.

Much discussed here not so long ago and reaching the same conclusion………….

TMP link
TMP link

but that is not something I can stomach. 95th and 52nd in an 1812 pattern cap (OK a "Belgic Shako" is wrong, I know) I cannot face, however correct.

Worse yet. What did the 71st Wear? Try fitting their bonnet over the later cap!

The capitals are chosen as being not far off contemporary "typeface" ie printing style I suspect.

The capitalisation makes the text very tiring to read.

but was their underwear white or grey?

and yet all those George Jones sketches on the spot in 1814 and in Paris before and after Waterloo in 1815 clearly showing stovepipe shakos.

Yet another case of people 200 years later *knowing* so much better than people actually there!

My Lord, all the illustrations in the article are contemporary images of men in 1812 caps….

Jim, they didn't have underwear. Pay attention.

I'd just like to add that in researching the uniforms of the British army of the period, I have found no 'contemporary' drawing of the bugle cap-badge being worn in the field by the 95th. Even the famous picture by Denis Dighton of the 60th and 95th riflemen firing, shows the 95th rifleman without a cap badge and the 60th rifleman with a badge but it looks like his badge has been 'dulled'.

Even militia rifle regiments show an absence of a badge when illustrated in the field.

Paul :)

According to the article, George Jones only arrived in Paris in 1816 after the British uniform had changed. If this is the case, he was not a first-hand eye witness.

I'd never seen those green fellers in false-fronted hats before. I am struggling to imagine they are 1816 paintings not least because by then they'd surely all gone over to the bell-topped variety – so a "Belgic" on a rifleman wouldn't be right for 1816 anyway but could be OK for 1815.

What figures are there in 28mm for riflemen in Belgics??

Well Perry plastics would be no problem, simple head swap.

But no-one would create such a monstrosity. I cannot ever recall seeing such, modelled.

If I can just recap (see what I did there?) what I have understood of this:

- The idea of light infantry and rifles hanging onto stovepipe caps is not found in any extant order;
- It must therefore rest on the assumption that (unlike all but one line unit) they somehow accumulated and were authorised to use up large stocks of stovepipes that lasted them another three years;
- This seems unlikely given that a cap was expected to last two years; to have a three-year supply you would be ordering new ones after the pattern had been revoked;
- Paintings portraying riflemen in 1815 in both stovepipes and Belgics exist;
- Pictures of them in Belgics could be post-Waterloo, or then again not, because by post-Waterloo, a new post-Belgic hat altogether was being issued.

This latter starts to get silly because it suggests that riflemen unaccountably insisted on being one hat behind the times at all times – still in stovepipes when others went to Belgics and grudgingly donning Belgics only as they were discontinued and everyone else went into shakoes.

If so, it seems to me that anyone who has 1815 riflemen in stovepipes should have all other British troops in them too, since if they could still have had them, so could everyone else.

So the white greatcoats (Haythornthwaite) have been debunked, so have the stovepipes and apparently the green trousers were usually replaced by overalls. There's not a lot left of the look I have had of them in my mind's eye these 40 years….

"So the white greatcoats (Haythornthwaite) have been debunked, so have the stovepipes and apparently the green trousers were usually replaced by overalls. There's not a lot left of the look I have had of them in my mind's eye these 40 years…."

Could not have expressed it better. Tragic……….

Worse still though is the thought of the 71st without the diced band and blue bonnet……….surely not

Turns everything on its head, don't it? (OK, not as good as your 'recap'…)

4th Cuirassier…that seems to be a fair summary of the article. As I understood it, the 'painted sometime post-Waterloo' illustrations were intended to portray the men as they looked at the time of the battle, not as they looked at the time the picture was made.

This introduces problems of hearsay and muddled memories from the 'eye-witnesses' the artist spoke to about the battle!

Either way, my riflemen will be wearing stovepipes at every battle…

I'm reminded of a very interesting bit of primary research that Rod MacArthur has shared – namely that rifle and light regiments were established to include grenadier and light companies.

link

Yes – the 95th Rifles had grenadier companies.

As Rod says, probably this was because the flank companies had extra lieutenants in lieu of ensigns, so they may have had light and grenadier companies on paper at least to ensure they were allocated the correct money to pay these officers. It does not follow that these companies operated as light and grenadier companies.

But they existed, and so the question must now arise whether some 95th riflemen should be depicted with white plumes on their Belgic caps….

Rod also reveals that the guards regiments all had two or three extra companies beyond the usual establishment that were probably used as lights. When they generated a battalion to go on service it would still have the usual eight centre companies, but it might have five rather than two flank companies.

by post-Waterloo, a new post-Belgic hat altogether was being issued.

I think that would depend on what you consider as 'by post-Waterloo.' I believe the so-called 'Regency' or Prussian shako was not introduced until 1816.

Right, but AIUI the suggestion is that some pictures supposedly of 1815 troops were painted only in 1816. Hence the reasoning goes that by 1816 Belgic caps finally reached these troops some have drawn the inference but up until then they may have been in stovepipes.

There seems little reason, however, why new headgear arriving in 1816 would have been the already or soon-to-be-obsolete Belgic caps when a newer design still was imminent. If they were getting a new issue having finally used up the stovepipes in 1816, they would surely have skipped the Belgic altogether, and gone straight to the bell-topped.

Here is a short discussion of those 1815 Paris drawings on the
'2/95th Rifles Forum':

link

Post #4 shows a 52nd Lt.Inf. Officer in stovepipe shako. Note the background figures are in Belgics. Same Regt.??

I also have a hard copy of another plate in the series of the 95th also in stovepipe. Does anyone have this plate? I can't find it on-line.

My 95ths are in stovepipes and are sticking with them, as are the rest of my British Peninsular army.
Now, what about trouser colour? white? Grey? Brown?

I wonder what would happen if you added a false-front to one of those stove-pipes, and, furthermore, tapered the sides of the false-front to conform with the slope of the sides of the stove-pipe?

Red trousers, surely, like the line.

deadhead

I shouldn't worry about the grey 'overalls'. The 95th wore dark green overalls/trousers as standard upto the adoption of khaki.

The great coat was grey but was stowed under the backpack flap, not above it. It was also carried rolled up across the back when the back-pack wasn't used. The greatcoat was worn over the equipmet when on guard duty, underneath when in the field.

Paul :)

I am afraid you are all wrong. The 95th seldom wore caps at all. My authority for this is the Richard Sharpe televison miniseries, where the boys went swanning about bare-headed or wearing bandanas most of the time (presumably to establish their "punk cool" status). After all, if it was on television it must be so.

Sir Henry Clinton at inspection report of 5th of April 1815

This body of men being the selection of 5 companies from the whole battalion, was ordered suddenly to embark at Dover where it had been stationed, it came out in a state of totally unprovided for the field, not a camp kettle or billhook & from the appearance of the battalion it is to be suppposed no pains have been taken with its discipline. Lt Colonel Wade, the commanding officer seems as ignorant of all that an officer should know & inactive as any volunteer officer. The packs were ill put together & ill put on & even at this time some of the packs are filled out with frames. The caps are too small & the shade hangs over the eyes so that to see, the men must bring their heads back. General Adams in whose brigade this battalion is placed may make something out of them.

p. 230
The Correspondance of Sir Henry Clinton in the Waterloo Campaign, edited by Gareth Glover, volume 1

This is the 95th's 2nd Bn, I take it? I suppose this report must have been the reason for Colonel Wade's return to England a fortnight later.

@ Deadhead;

There are some Dighton paintings, can't remember whether it's father or son; that show the 71st. at Waterloo. They show the 71'st. wearing bonnets with peaks rather in the fashion of Prussian feldmutzen. Dighton was in France shortly after Waterloo.

"Sir Henry Clinton at inspection report of 5th of April 1815"

Ouch.

Concerning the artist George Jones: His depiction of the Guards preparation to repel the final attack (No.28), are in a mixture Belgic Caps and stovepipes (militia? or even the light companies perhaps?).

The Defence of Hougoumont shows the defenders in the same mixture.(No.12)

Guards Tribute "The last tribute to the brave" (No.?)

The 28th stovepipe is very particular in its detail (No.5)

He illustrates the 52nd/95th in stovepipe caps in the final advance.(No.14)

The Royal artillery is depicted in Belgic caps whilst the infantry around, are depicted again, in stovepipe hats (No.13)

As an aside:

George Jones wasn't only a painter, but a captain in the Militia so he must have had a good knowledge of British uniforms.

He also depicts a Scottish officer in tartan trews (No16), and what looks like a pioneer of Kempt's brigade, attacking a Frenchman with a spontoon (No.4). A piper of the 71st (No.?) Note also there are a total lack of water canteens worn at the hip in any of the illustrations.

And of course

From Wikipedia:

"Jones bore a strong resemblance to his hero, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, and was sometimes mistaken for him. Jones was said to be very proud of his resemblance to the Duke.[4] When Wellington was told about this he remarked, "Mistaken for me, is he? That's strange, for no one ever mistakes me for Mr. Jones".[5] In fact, there is evidence that Wellington was once mistaken for Jones. When approached by a man who said "Mr Jones, I believe", Wellington replied, "if you will believe that you will believe anything."

Paul :)

My idea of what happened and the reason for the confusion.

The Belgic, or 'false fronted' caps would have 'started' to be issued on December 25th 1812 but not all regiments would have acquired them. I can't see regiments discarding stocks of perfectly good stovepipes if they had them so carried on issuing them for the next issue.

Perhaps it would also be the new recruits at regimental depots that got issued with them first.

Because of the transition between the Stovepipe, Belgic, and Regency cap. Wouldn't it have been a huge waste of money to have issued all regiments with the Belgic cap? Was the Regency design decided upon when the Belgic type had only just been put into production then issued to some regiments at this point, thus making it pointless to issue it to all when the Regency type would be issued thereafter?

PS.

There were 6 years between a new headdress. 1800-1806, 1806-1812 and 1816-1822. the only time this is different is from 1812-1816….

Paul :)

@Fatuus natural

Yes indeed, those two volumes are a must read – for anyone interested in the British Army of 1815 (and some other units – like Hannoverian units as well.

2nd bat / 69th

"to mark Colonel Morice, who commands it and has done so for many months, as a man totally unfit for his situation."
p. 230

There is some anecdotal evidence that, contrary to the impression given by engravings, the 1812 pattern cap did not stand up to wear and tear as well as the 1800 and 1806 pattern and in 1815 showed up poorly, it would seem, in relation to other allied armies in France.

"Our infantry indeed, our whole army appeared at the review in the same clothes in which they had marched, slept, and fought for months. The colour had faded to a dusky _brick-dust_ hue; their coats, originally not very smartly made,
had acquired by constant wearing that loose easy
set so characteristic of old clothes, comfortable to
the wearer, but not calculated to add grace to his
appearance. Pour surcroit de laideur, their cap is
perhaps the meanest, ugliest thing ever invented.
From all these causes it arose that our infantry ap-
peared to the utmost disadvantage dirty, shabby,
mean, and very small."

Cavalie Mercer

I have commented at length before and have been attacked personally on this forum by the author and his friends.

The soldiers incorrectly identified as 95th in Belgic Shakos.
1. Either KGL Light or Hanoverian Light Infantry.
2. Also there were wood cut prints of generic British Solidiers.
3. Henry Clinton was very specific.
4. The 2/95th and 3/95th did not receive new uniforms until July 1815. They were still wearing uniforms issued before they went to Holland in November 1813.
5. The 95th was the most junior regiment. The Colonel spent very little on their uniforms.
6. No illustrations from US show the 95th in Belgic shako despite being present at New Orleans etc…

It is a theory that has not been proven.
Stephen

Lawson Vol 5 comments on the 71st: "… The 71st were to be transformed into light infantry, but on protesting they were permitted to retain the Highland title and as a headdress "the bonnet cocked", in their case to resemble the cap of the light infantry, and they could have pipers in highland garb. The bonnet therefore was made of knitted material with a diced border. It is stated to have a green tuft but Norblin in his sketch of 1815, the only contemporary drawing, shows a green pom-pom or possibly a green touri. The officers, on the contrary, wore the usual light infantry cap without the diced border but with a green hackle and cap lines. Previously on the 71st's return from Buenos Aires they were wearing Spanish hats, cloaks and clothes, but on arriving in Ireland in 1807 were issued with tartan trews and feathered bonnets, and in this uniform served in Portugal until 1809.".

You have all raised my hopes again that my Light Infantry regiments at Waterloo, whether Rifles or Redcoats, can stick with the caps I gave them……..

Though you have to admit…..there is evidence either way

Dear Deadhead
There is no evidence that I have seen or has been presented that supports the wearing of the 1812 "Belgic" shako that has born proper scrutiny. Hence, the theory is not proven. It is one author and no others over the last 200 years have even suggested other than the Stovepipe Shako being worn at Waterloo by the Light Infantry Battalions or the 95th Rifles.

Shakos was NOT government issue but issued by the Colonel of the regiment as with the rest of the uniform. The contract is with the manaufacturer for a unit. There were not government patterns but a description. The 95th Colonels were very stingy in their purchasing of uniforms. The Stovepipe Shako was still in production in 1814 at least for
the Spanish, Portuguese and Prussians. Britain was still supplying finished uniforms to these countries. There was no large central store. All work was just in time.

Note "Bang Ups" is a slang term for new. As in Bang up to date.

The 71st wore their bonnet in such a way as it resembled a shako.
Stephen
link

Good point! The caps in "stovepipe" style were of course indeed being mass-produced for many a foreign unit, sponsored by GB up to the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

I do want to be convinced and am increasingly reassured that it is justified!

Bang up to date! Never thought of that……of course.

71st I am happy with, read much on them before painting. A bonnet with a frame to look like a "shako"/cap and peak tied on with a strap around the head, as for highlanders in kilts. the only doubt ever, for me, was the tourie on top vs the green plume in front.

The headgear situation is described by Barnard in a letter to Alexander Cameron of 1st April 1813 and included in the Rifle Brigade Chronicle, 1931. "I have had caps enough in store to help the appearance of the 1st Batt. as it used to be but the 2nd and 3rd sport bang ups as the soldiers of the 52nd who were the first in the Division that put them on have christened them." Barnard at St. Simon, April 1, 1813, to Alexander Cameron.

That seems an unambiguous statement to me

Dear 42 Flanker
I was referring to a central arsenal store as used by all other countries. I was not referring to a store that was in country which this refers to. Not bang-ups just means new caps and has nothing to do with the style. It is typically ambiguous what is written by British officers. Always lacking precision.

I have written upon the supply of uniforms and equipment. Also see Wade upon this point.

From 1809, the 95th seem to have adopted a square peak of leather rather than the curved peak.

Now if we put scrutiny upon British uniforms then we actually know very little. We have the name of the facing but do not know what colour that refers to. I have pictures of samples and the shade of green and yellow in particular are different. Characterised as a light yellow, medium yellow and orange. This is for the same facing.
Stephen

Stephen.

I don't know if you have seen this? It's my interpretation on the British army Schematics. I also highlighted the mistakes in the de Bosset and Hamilton-Smith charts.

TMP link

Paul :)

"I have had caps enough in store to help the appearance of the 1st Batt. as it used to be but the 2nd and 3rd sport bang ups as the soldiers of the 52nd who were the first in the Division that put them on have christened them."

Dear Summerfield: I have to say can see no ambiguity in Barnard's letter. It is saying clearly that 1 Bn 95th will continue to wear the same cap as before – ie the stovepipe shako – but 2 and 3 Bns, by contrast, will wear bang-ups which, from the reference to the 52nd christening them as such, clearly means not mean just new stovepipes but something different.

The entry for 'bang-up' in OED shows equally clearly that at the beginning of the 19th century the term meant someone or something very much in fashion, very stylish.

Fatuus Natural, I concur.

Dear Sir
It is good practice in history to verify facts. All the evidence as I have explained shows the 52nd and the 95th wearing Stovepipe Shakos. On one writer has proposed that based upon a reading of a letter.

I dispute the etymology of the word Bang up. There are other contemporary interpretations. The earliest reference I have is 1820 to its use and 1886 in US. The suggestion is Bang Up is a contraction of Bang up to the Mark.
Stephen

Summerfield, you find that letter ambiguous; Fatuus and I, and indeed the author of the OP article do not. However, it seem to me that our interpretations of the term 'bang up' are not at odds, suggesting something both smart, stylish and indeed a fashionable novelty, as your gloss 'bang up to the mark' would suggest.

Hi Stephen

3. Henry Clinton was very specific.

Could you just confirm what you mean by him being specific as the quote given in this thread makes no distinction between cap type?

Regards,

Dear Janner
That is the point. The state of the uniform and that they did not have issue for over two years. Also there are other information in the two volumes of Clinton Papers published by Ken Trotman edited by Gareth Glover.
Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Many thanks for clearing that up so promptly.

I would just offer that the 'bang-ups' the 2nd 95th received in 1813 would, as you write, have been over two years old by the time of Clinton's inspection, i.e. at the end of their expected lifespan.

This means that we are back to the ol' conundrum of what 'bang-up' described and might need more caution in presenting this as evidence that they were still in stovepipes.

Kind regards,

Stephen

Dear Stephen
Most of the 2/95th and all the 3/95th at Waterloo were not in the Peninsular but came from Shorncliffe Garrison depot as they were convellescents and new recruits. New uniforms was supposed to be issued on Christmas Day 1812 but were not. They shipped out in November 1813 to Holland and did not return to Britain until at least August 1815. No issue of uniforms were made for the 2/95th and 3/95th until July 1815. The uniforms as recounted by Clinton were in. Most without caps at all.

The 2/95th went straight to America from France and some returned in time to participate at Waterloo. There is no record of use of the Belgic Shako in US. No illustration or mention for any of the Green Coated Light Infantry serving there. Actually most contemporary illustrations show them in what would be terms a Glengarry hat and no shako.

As I have said before this is one letter transcribed with the term bang-up and goes against all the evidence visual and written. No other author in 200 years agrees with him.

I do not know. We were not there. There are NO extent shakos for the 95th.
Stephen

Clinton

The caps are too small & the shade hangs over the eyes so that to see, the men must bring their heads back.

Caps in that context – shakos of whatever design, Clinton usually speaks of caps when he means shakos.

The British refered to shakos as caps. In 1809, the 95th were given permission to use leather peaks. The description matches that of a stovepipe shako with the leather square peak rather than Belgic Shako with the curved peak.

Full extract from Gareth Glover (2015) The Correspondence of Sir Henry Clinton in the Waterloo Campaign, Volume 1, p230, Ken Trotman

Wednesday 5th April 1815 Inspections
I sent to ascertain that the beacon in advance of Bury was established & afterwards I inspected the 95th Regiment at St. Amand in front of Ath & the 33rd & 69th in Ath. This day I heard of the Duke of Wellington having arrived in the morning at Brussels.

Second Battalion 95th Regiment in St Amand near Ath
Field Officers 2
Captains 5
Subalterns 13
Sergeants 31
Drummers 14
Rank & File 405

This body of men being the selection of 5 companies from the whole battalion, was ordered suddenly to embark at Dover where it had been stationed, it came out in a state totally unprovided for the field, not a camp kettle or billhook & from the appearance of the battalion it is to be supposed no pains have been taken with its discipline. Lt Colonel Wade, the commanding officer seems as ignorant of all that an officer should know & inactive as any volunteer officer. The packs were ill put together & ill put on & even at this time some of the packs are filled out with frames. The caps are too small & the shade hangs over the eyes so that to see, the men must bring their heads back. General Adam in whose brigade this battalion is placed may make something of them.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Could you confirm 2/95th being in Holland in 1813 given that about half the battalion was in Iberia, I believe. Is this distinct from the composite battalion formed from Glass's company of the 1/95th, Eeles's company 2/95th, and Fullarton's and Kent's companies 3/95th?

Also, I only have 5 coys of 3/95th in the North America that returned in time for Waterloo, i.e. nothing from 2/95th. So I'd be delighted for a reference on this. As an aside, given that we have 7(?) companies of 3/95th at Waterloo, some of them surely must coincide with the 5 companies(?) issued bang-ups in 1813.

Caps could cover a range of head dress, as you know. What would later be refered to as busbies, for example, were referred to as fur caps in British hussar regiments. Having been given a dispensation to have square peaks, why assume that this would then not also apply to the Belgic? Indeed, I would strongly suggest that Clinton's description could cover a number of cap designs, including both the stovepipe and Belgic. I would submit that it is unsafe to treat as conclusive either way.

If, as you say, the 2/95th at Waterloo did not contain any Peninsula veterans, but was drawn from troops in UK, then there is even less reason to assume they would have worn a style of cap replaced in 1812 and only extended by exception. Logically, should not the assumption be that troops on Home Service were dressed as per regulations unless proven otherwise? As you know, two hundred years of historiography only holds if the original source material is safe.

Anyway, sorry if I risk causing dizziness by going around the same bouy!

King regards,

Stephen

Dear Stephen
Alas I was writing this from memory at work and I should have refered to my four books on the 95th and light infantry. It was as you state the 3/95th in US.

As I have stated that there is no evidence of the wearing of new Belgic Shakos at Waterloo. The Belgic 1812 shako never had a square peak.

"Lt Colonel Wade, the commanding officer seems as ignorant of all that an officer should know & inactive as any volunteer officer."

Lt-Col Wade did not spend money on new uniforms or equipment. As I have explained the Colonel purchased these and not the Government.
Stephen