"Side by Side" Topic

As far as officr portraits are concerned, I wouldn't say these are proof of anything other than what the sitters chose to wear the day they were painted. That is before we consider which portraits were even painted in America.

They certainly provide evidence that on occasion British officers wore uniforms that diverged from the 1768 Warrant (I suspect the officer of the 10th Regt Light coy is pretty much wearing Regulation- although his hair is not clubbed). Can we (including nationally known experts) really say other than that?

You are quite right that we appear to lack a letter that says "Here I am snug in my frock made of an enlisted man's coat. I am so pleased that I left my sash and gorget with the baggage as I was advised, along with those ridiculously expensive epaulettes. What luck that consignment of red feathers reached us before we left. They look very well in our bonnets."

The painting of the officer of the 8th in all his Indian finery has always made me wonder. Did he wear all that Indian garb just for his painting back home, or did he wear "normal" British officer wear in the field?
"Look at the exotic clothes I wore when I was with the Indians!"
Waving off what he wore when he sat for a painting cuts both ways.

Note. I'm at work and can't find that picture. I think it's In Mollo.

So the King's 8th was posted to the frontier forts, all the way out to Michillimackinac (sp?). So while he may not have worn that as part of his uniform every day, he obviously acquired said Indian garb while on the frontier, and may have worn in when meeting with the Indians as part of his duties.

I know I am challenging some well and long held assumptions about officers kits in the field. I have no doubt that some modifications/changes were made from their normal dress while on garrison back home.

Some of this turns around the rifleman's mystique, while others seem a more common sense pattern of what they "might" have done.

I respectfully disagree with you regarding portraits and what they can and can't tell us. While not the photographic proof of the American Civil War or later periods (I suppose using your logic, anything posed in a studio could also be challenged, or perhaps even question if field shots were staged), I'll defer to the internationally know experts on the period until further proof is given. By the way I'd rank SM in the group, but even he is struggling to find something on the subject.

While letters are nice, orderly books for regiments, kept by the Adjutants, would be more telling. General Orders too – though again, no one has cited chapter and verse what Howe said.

From portraits we do know what the general look was for Crown officers. We know that they did modify their kits somewhat, and it is reasonable that some/many of the portraits of the period show those modifications. We also know that individual lower ranking officers just did not do what they pleased either. We know that regiments had pattern swords and uniforms – the purchased these things from approved providers. We know that they had to adhere to what was acceptable to the colonel of the regiment too.

Now some here have the position of "I don't think they wore this.." and I can't disprove a negative. What I can provide is how officers pictured themselves in their combat kits (e.g., if they are carrying a fusil) as opposed to literally sitting for a portrait, sans gorget and sash (off duty). Even then, some officers are pictured sitting with gorget and sash.

I'll close by adding this portrait:

link

Here is a portrait of Lord Cornwallis, in his undress Lt. General's frock coat. This is the coat he would wear in the field when commanding troops. Bright scarlet coat, officer's epaulet (Brig through Lt. Genrl's wore only one on the right shoulder), with a sash. Generals did not wear gorgets.

So until someone provides some proof, as they say, opinions are like certain body parts – everyone has one, and most of them stink. LOL I have provided portrait evidence, in return only receives a lot of, "Well I think that…" in return. That said, I hope someone can find something factual to add to the discussion. Until then, I'll go with the guys who have published books on the subject – which is not my opinion, but their research based work.

Page number please for the Spring quote from his book?

Here is the description from one of "the" leading authorities on 18th century British Army uniforms:

Thomas Dowdeswell was born in England. His commission history, as researched by John Houlding, can be related quickly. He purchased an ensigncy in the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards on February 22, 1773. He received a promotion to lieutenant and captain in the same regiment on April 26, 1776. He retired from the British Army on June 17, 1778. Most importantly for our purposes, Dowdeswell was a Foot Guards officer who served (albeit briefly) in the American War of Independence, and he chose to have artist Joseph Blackburn depict him in his campaign uniform.

In February and March 1776, the three regiments of Foot Guards formed a large detachment to help suppress the American rebellion. It originally consisted of 30 officers, 82 NCOs, 14 drummers, 6 fifers, and 960 privates. Captain and Lieutenant Colonel Edward Mathew of the Coldstream Guards received command of this composite unit, which was organized into ten companies. The Foot Guards' eight grenadier companies contributed 120 privates to the detachment's composite grenadier company. The Foot Guards' fifty-six battalion companies contributed the remaining 840 privates. Seven hundred and fort-four of them went into the American detachment's eight battalion companies. The three Foot Guards regiments had no light infantry companies, but ninety-six battalion company privates were assigned to the light infantry company that served with the American detachment.

After the transports bearing the Foot Guards joined the rest of General William Howe's army at Sandy Hook on August 12, 1776, he ordered the detachment organized into a brigade of two five-company battalions. The 1st Battalion consisted of the grenadier company and the 1st through 4th battalion companies. The 2nd Battalion contained the light infantry company and four more battalion companies. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Companies in the 1st Battalion were drawn from the 1st Foot Guards. Thomas Dowdeswell, then a lieutenant and captain, served in the 1st Company, 1st Battalion.

The uniforms worn by the Foot Guards ordered to America received considerable modifications before the American detachment sailed from England. More changes were ordered as the Guards waited aboard ship prior to debarkation at Long Island on August 22, 1776. On August 14, Mathew ordered his battalion companies to "cut their Hats round immediately & sew the Lace on again, one flap to stand up & the other two to be down." Mathew amended that order two days later to specify: "The Hats to be Cut round but not Laced again, if Black Ferrett can be procured the Hats to be bound with it." On August 17, Mathew dictated: "The Lace may be taken off the Officers & Private Mens Coats when it can be conveniently done." The next day, the 1st Battalion was ordered to retain the lace on its shoulder straps to distinguish it from the 2nd Battalion. On August 18, Mathew announced: "The Coats to be Cut after a pattern to be seen on Board the Royal George till 4 o'Clock this Evening." Apparently, that meant shortening the coats of the battalion men to light-infantry length.

In this portrait that was most probably executed after Thomas Dowdeswell returned to England in 1777, he models the uniform worn by Foot Guards officers during the New York Campaign of 1776. He wears a shortened scarlet coat with dark blue facings and a white lining. This garment has been stripped of all its gold lace, although the collar and lapels seem to be piped in white. Dowdeswell's regimental buttons on both his coat and waistcoat are gilt. He wears no epaulette (just a red shoulder strap piped with gold), but he has retained his gilt gorget and crimson sash (the latter knotted on the left hip). He is armed with a fusil, bayonet, and most probably a sword. His cartridge box belt and sword belt are both white, and the latter (worn under the cartridge box belt) bears a rectangular gilt plate. He is clearly wearing a cut-down round hat, which is decorated by a black feather.

This portrait provides vivid documentation of the British Army's willingness to adapt itself to North American conditions – the result of its institutional memory going back to the French and Indian War of 1754-63.

Let's put the portrait out in the field for 6 months and see what it looks like then!

The analysis of the content in the Dowdeswell portrait seems very thorough (May we know the name of the leading authority who wrote it; a nationally known expert presumably, or is he one of the internationally known contingent?

While the round hat and the shortened frock are certainly examples of deviation from Regulation dress, the commentator is, as nevinsrip suggests, naturally unable to confirm to what it extent it reflected the officer's actual appearance in the field during his two years campaigning in America. Of course, with his being an officer of the Foot Guards, we might suppose he was more likely to appear on duty with both sash and gorget.

It is interesting that at the time the painting was made, Dowdeswell was no longer in the army. Did that rather unconvincing hat really accompany its wearer back across the Atlantic or was it added to the painting subsequently, worked up from descriptions given by the sitter? The pitch at which it is being worn suggests, beyond a certain Pall Mall dandyism, a sense of drollery at the lengths to which an officer of Foot Guards was forced to go to bring to book the King's enemies.

On a side note, I find the iconography of hats in military portraits of this period rather intriguing; whether the subject is wearing headgear, or holds it in his hand, and if the latter, how he holds it. Is he pointing with it; clutching it at chest height in order to keep it 'in frame'; or is he letting it hang languidly by his side? My ancestor newly returned from America (or possibly sometime before before he left) chose to be painted bareheaded and with no hat in hand- which seems to be less common. What did that mean- if anything? The subjects tend to have a fine forehead and a good head of hair but that doesn't explain why the hat- or cap- has been dispensed with entirely, in an age when the hat was an important component of being properly and respectably attired. Was the sitter trying to say something about himself?

Dr. Gregory Urwin. He runs an email group and has comments on over 2,000 period paintings and drawings dealing with the British Army from the 1750 through the 1790s. Dr. Urwin is a leading expert on the period, and needs no accolades from me.

Rounds hats, as the one featured, were quite common during this period and largely instituted in the Army drilling at Halifax. The round hats are featured in drawings/paintings of both British and Americans from the time period (war).

Many of the figures appearing in the linked artwork are officers. Can you tell which ones and why?

link

Here is a better link. Click on it to magnify. This should prove plenty to discuss. :-)

link

Since we've gone far afield from the title, who is the cavalryman in green in the front of the painting?

"who is the cavalryman in green in the front of the painting?"

Stephen Gilbert, who analysed the painting in a 1995 article for 'Military Collecor and Historian,' labelled him as "Mounted trooper of unidentified regiment" but tentatively conjectures that he might represent Major Turner Straubenzee, 17th Foot, 2 i/c of 2nd LI Bn, basing this on the suggestion of a skull and crossbones on the front plate of his brass helmet, reference to Straubenzee's former regiment, the 17th Light Dragoons- who were not present in N.America – (nor did they wear brass helmets, IIRC). The slung carbine tends to contradict that he represents an officer and the green jacket remains unexplained. According to Stephen Gilbert, Oct 1777 was too early for a Provincial corps to be considered.

Hadn't the embryo "hussar" troop (initially a dozen men) of the Queen's Rangers been formed by then, although I have seen January 1778 as its formation? I seem to recall that they suffered a "friendly fire" incident early on, with some German jaeger because they were wearing captured American helmets. However, there is this quote from Donald J Gara, author of "The Queen's American Rangers":

Horses and equipment for the troop were furnished by Brigadier General Sir William Erskine, commander of the British and Hessian mounted troops, but they were not of the best quality, consisting mostly of hand-me-downs from the regulars."

The 17th LD was very definitely present in N Ameria; they also did wear brass helmets in the 1760s and early 1770s, and von Straubenzee may well have retained his from that period. That said, the simplicity of the uniform and the carbine strongly suggests that this is not an officer. In fact, Troiani has used this illustration to support his depiction of the 17th Light Dragoons in green stable jackets in the North during the AWI, which the re-enactment unit has confirmed was part of its uniform at that time. 17ld.blogspot.co.uk

My apologies. I carelessly misrepresented Stephen Gilbert's reference to the 16th LD being the only Dragoons with Howe's army. As for the brass helmets, my mistake. I thought the copper or brass crowned cap shown in the Morier painting had been superceded by a blacked model similar to the 15th and 16th KLD.

Clearly della Gatta was being guided by the memory of the officer who commissioned his paintings, be it Mansergh St George or A.N. Other, so we can hardly expect photographic accuracy in any of the figures (or buildings), and inevitably there is a substantial degree of artistic licence evident in both his paintings.

I also believe that the 17th was pictured later in the same jackets back home, or perhaps it was another cavalry unit. Either way, there seemed to be a thread there about the stable jacket beyond the particular painting under discussion.

The answer to who is an officer and who is an enlisted man can be told by who is wearing overalls (EM) in the paintings and who is wearing pantaloons tucked into spatter dashes (officers).

I thought the copper or brass crowned cap shown in the Morier painting had been superceded by a blacked model similar to the 15th and 16th KLD.

No, you're right – I'm pretty sure it had by 1775 (and I think that it's confirmed in an Inspection Report for that year). However, it did strike me as feasible that they were handed over to the QR mounted men as part of the "hand-me-downs".

Turner von Straubenzee arrived in America with 17LD in 1775, but had transferred to the 17th Foot by Princeton, as he was serving with them in that engagement, I think.

I also believe that the 17th was pictured later in the same jackets back home, or perhaps it was another cavalry unit.

I think that was about the blue stable jackets of the 16th LD; there is a pen-and-ink work by Paul Sandby of them at one of the camps in London during the Gordon Riots – however, I've never seen a reference to those jackets whilst they were in America (and it seems very unlikely that they would have worn blue, given the nature of much of their work).

That is the one. I suspect the recreated 17th LD and Don Troiani are drawing a line between these things.

"However, it did strike me as feasible that they were handed over to the QR mounted men as part of the "hand-me-downs"."

What was the story about the mounted QRs ('Hussars' then or only later?) suffering from a blue on blue incident and Simcoe providing them with distinctive cylindrical 'shakos,' with the shiny crescent badge prominent, to avoid similar mistakes in the future?

What headgear were they wearing that Crown troops should have mistaken them for rebels?

I thought these interesting snippets from Revlist (Message #130233 Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:15 am) might add grist to the mill, or fuel to the fire:

Lieut William Robertson of the LI coy, 55th, after his regiment moved to the Caribbean:

"St. Kitts, 29th February 1780:
At St Lucia I owed my fever in a great measure to landing without proper Clothing having on only a Waist Coat with sleeves (such as the LI wear) with a pair of Trousers, that was my dress, but now I shall set out with a flannel shirt & trousers with a new Coat, sash, & Gorget a mark of respect to the French for with the Rebels we always fought, dressed, as I have before described.."

1st Foot Guards Orderly Book from 6 April 1782:

"Short Postilion Jacketts without Flaps are not the Uniform of the First Regiment of Guards, and cannot be permitted to be worn on any Duty."

(Perhaps some 'American' subalterns had been taking liberties)

The post from which these excerpts are taken, posted by Niels Hobbs, also refers to blue 'sleeved waistcoats' (his punctuation) worn by 16th LD and other LD regiments, depicted in Hyde Park and 'other settings' circa 1780. Was this actually precursor to the change of LD uniforms from Scarlet/red to blue in 1784, or merely coincidence?

Re. the friendly fire incident, I believe a German jaeger accidentally shot one of the QR hussars; this was right at the start of their existence. As I understood it, they were given captured American helmets, but I'm not sure how this would have provided such a distinctive silhouette (unless the jaeger had spent so much time on outpost duty that they could identify the shape?). However, if you believe the story that they were given hand-me-downs from the Regulars, it would have been either Tarletons (16th) or Emsdorffs (17th) which I would have thought would have been sufficiently "British" to pass muster.

Re. the Guards' orderly book, "postillion jackets" was one of the names given to the waistcoats (with sleeves taken from the regimental coat) worn by the light infantry from 1777 onwards.

Re. the 16th's blue jackets – it's tempting to think that it was. I've never seen anything that explains why the British light cavalry adopted blue jackets in 1784; my only thought is that it was more conducive to concealment.

This is Napoleonics, but bear with me.
Way back in the last century I was shopping in a game store for Minifigs 15mm Nappies.
It struck me that the figures for French, British and Prussian Light Dragoons were identical, except for the flaps on the pistol holsters.

Then I read that Wellington was very annoyed that the British LD switched to French fashion, with blue costs, shakos, etc. the Tarleton helmet was discarded. The shakos at twilight led to more than one case of friendly fire.

So, perhaps the blue coats were to imitate the French Fashion Industry.

Lieut William Robertson of the LI coy, 55th, after his regiment moved to the Caribbean:

"St. Kitts, 29th February 1780:
At St Lucia I owed my fever in a great measure to landing without proper Clothing having on only a Waist Coat with sleeves (such as the LI wear) with a pair of Trousers, that was my dress, but now I shall set out with a flannel shirt & trousers with a new Coat, sash, & Gorget a mark of respect to the French for with the Rebels we always fought, dressed, as I have before described.."

Now that is interesting. I wonder if the, "…as I have before described…" refers to earlier in the sentence or to a previous writing describing something else?

The portion about a waistcoat with sleeves – is that your (42nd) note in in parenthesis, or was that in the original document? I am not aware of hat companies wearing the round about jackets. Roy Najecki, commander of the 40th Lights, told me that purpose build round about jackets were sent over. Not sure when, but that is what he said.

Hat company and grenadier waistcoats would not by simply attaching the coat sleeves, as you'd end with a white body of a jacket with red sleeves.

"Is that your (42nd) note in in parenthesis?"

Yes, that was from the original letter as transcribed in the RevList post.

I don't know what the source of William Robertson's letter might be. There may be earlier letters in the sequence but, yes, my impression was that, as you suggest, "…as I have before described…" refers to the phrase "…without proper Clothing having on only a Waist Coat with sleeves (such as the LI wear) with a pair of Trousers…"

The parenthesis "(such as the LI wear)" is distracting, I think, because it can be taken to suggest the writer is speaking objectively of a corps to which he does not belong. However, in 1780 Robertson was still a light infantryman but was back serving with his regiment.

Perhaps he expressed himself in that way because he was referring generally to the Light Infantry corps to which his company had been attached in the north before it was reduced to one battalion in 1778. In Feb 1780 the LI in New York had been only recently expanded to two battalions again for the Charleston expedition.

Niels also makes reference to the 3rd Buffs in his post (it is all in all a very interesting thread; starting here- link
Thus:
"The 3rd Foot, the Buffs, also talk about sleeved waistcoats for their LI during the southern campaign in their OB – this is the basis for the painting on the cover of Matt Spring's "With Zeal…" book. Note that they have lace on both the button holes and the wings.."

Unfortunately, he does not specify a source.

So, perhaps the blue coats were to imitate the French Fashion Industry.

I was originally going to write "why would they (British light dragoons) adopt the same colour as their principal enemy"? Then I realised that in 1784, the French were predominantly wearing white, not blue!

Why do all Light Dragoons look exactly alike in 1815?
Yeah yeah. That's Napoleonics.

Hey! this was MY THREAD

GET OFFA MY LAWN!!!!

Disperse! Ye damn Hijackers.

"We will soon be landing at Jose Marti Airport. Please fasten your seat belts and secure your trays in the closed position. Thank you for flying TMP."

Now, about those brown trousers…

42nd, looking at your posts again especially the one about the LI officer. Is it possible that the LI officers, because of their more usual proximity to the enemy, did not wear gorgets and sashes (viewed as a set by some military historians) as the hat and gren officers might have? Again, citing some current historians on the period, there is a belief that the LI officers, unlike all the others, did not carry a fusil, but instead only a sword (as was later the adopted rule in the 1790s for all officers). The page you cite from – Niels and 40th – their field officer was wearing neither this past weekend at Monmouth – and give the impression of LI, it kind of made sense.

historygamer, as for your first point, that seems very likely. As to your thoughts about LI officers' swords, swords are something of a blind spot for me, so I would defer to your knowledge of the subject.

Kind of funny, but the one officer you'd think that would carry a fusil would the LI officer. :-)