Help support TMP

"BOKI 1:100 British Infantry 1792" Topic

42 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Napoleonic Product Reviews Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest


1,371 hits since 20 Sep 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Sho Boki20 Sep 2018 1:32 p.m. PST

BOKI Mass Army Project 2018
1792 British infantry

I am not sure, which set will be released first, these British or Les Bleus for the same period.
British need two officers to finish and for French all their plundered prey.

Ironside Inactive Member20 Sep 2018 4:18 p.m. PST

I like these.

von Winterfeldt20 Sep 2018 11:01 p.m. PST

looking very nicely – hopefully you do a colour bearer as well.

Sho Boki21 Sep 2018 2:11 a.m. PST

Of cource, ensign is one of two officers.
In Mass Army Project there are 3 command figures: Officer, Flagbearer and Drummer.

von Winterfeldt21 Sep 2018 4:29 a.m. PST

excellent, but about the NCO – I will get in touch with you by pm

John Tyson22 Sep 2018 3:45 p.m. PST

I like!!

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP23 Sep 2018 10:18 a.m. PST

So now e all want to know what von W said.

It is daft. It is just outside my era of interest. But yet, I now want to know what he said.

Will it be the spontoon/pike idea (except for light company of course)?

Sho Boki26 Sep 2018 10:58 a.m. PST

May be here are answer? ;-)

Sho Boki27 Sep 2018 6:42 a.m. PST

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP27 Sep 2018 11:22 a.m. PST

That is particularly impressive sized spontoon/pike/halberd that poor NCO is carrying.

I suspect he might have carried it nearer the centre, to lessen the massive leverage it would otherwise exert. However, I can understand the problem then is a new arm position for just one figure……

Sho Boki27 Sep 2018 12:05 p.m. PST

Rear view.
Most of troopers have breadbag, but some will be without.
Now I must find out, how British kanteen looks like.
Not wooden one, but earlier, metallic one.

von Winterfeldt27 Sep 2018 1:03 p.m. PST

for metalic one, it should be close to those carried in the AWI – great effort Sho.

For grenadiers and NCO – form the photo – a bit a low neck – compare to the drummer boy.

Sho Boki28 Sep 2018 2:50 a.m. PST

Yes, you tells me about AWI kanteen, but I haved no idea, how these looks like. I founded pictures now and sculpt these.

About neck, you are right, all troopers suffered by this, because the common sculpting mistake – belts and shoulderstraps will rise the shoulders. I now cut off all straps with buttons on right shoulders, so no sculpted straps there and these must be painted without reliefs.

von Winterfeldt28 Sep 2018 10:22 p.m. PST

two options to overcome short neck syndrome, take off material before you sculpt onto, or do neck and face after sculpting equipment, or heads different, only collar on dolly (like Perrys also do for 28 mm

Sho Boki02 Oct 2018 4:13 a.m. PST

This kanteen on central figure have right shape?

von Winterfeldt02 Oct 2018 4:46 a.m. PST

difficult to spot the shape on the photo, I did find two canteens of about 1766 – in Neumann and Kravic, I will do a photo tomorrow and send it to you.

Sho Boki03 Oct 2018 4:33 a.m. PST

Troopers with breadpacks and kanteens.

British will be released before French. Officers are not finished yet but I already started to make mould. There are lot more work to do with French.

Sho Boki03 Oct 2018 6:45 a.m. PST

Officers progressed..

Sho Boki06 Oct 2018 2:10 a.m. PST

von Winterfeldt06 Oct 2018 3:05 a.m. PST

please check shape of gorget, it is different to French one. great looking colour bearer

seneffe06 Oct 2018 10:40 a.m. PST

These look beautiful- well done.
One point- I think I see moustaches on the Grenadier figures. British Grenadiers did not wear moustaches as a general rule. There were VERY occasional exceptions to this- eg the 36th Regt in India- but almost all Grenadiers were clean shaven like the ordinary companies.

Moustaches are correct though for Hanoverian Grenadiers who wore very similar uniform to the British in other respects- so you could create both British and Hanoverian options for your range.

Sho Boki06 Oct 2018 11:10 a.m. PST

Damn! You are right! No moustaches on pictures too!
And these grenadiers already are in moulding cocoons.
I look what I may do..

seneffe06 Oct 2018 2:53 p.m. PST

No problem- just keep the moustache guys as a Hanoverian variation.

The Hanoverian infantry followed the British 1768 uniform pattern, and all its later amendments quite closely. The Hanoverian light infantry and cavalry uniforms had more differences from the British model. However, as far as the line infantry is concerned- one of the main visible differences would only have been the Grenadiers' moustaches.

The Hanoverians saw a lot of combat in Flanders 1793-95 alongside the British, so anyone making an allied army would need them too. You could get two armies from this situation!

von Winterfeldt06 Oct 2018 11:19 p.m. PST

yes indeed, in case one could shave of the mousetache on the miniature with a scalpel.

Sho Boki10 Oct 2018 3:21 p.m. PST

von Winterfeldt11 Oct 2018 2:50 a.m. PST

well done

von Winterfeldt11 Oct 2018 9:18 a.m. PST

order placed

Sho Boki11 Oct 2018 12:49 p.m. PST
Sho Boki27 Dec 2018 6:55 a.m. PST

Incredibly well painted by von Winterfeldt.

Sho Boki03 Jan 2019 10:24 a.m. PST

I rewrited my homepage.
Now available here..

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP03 Jan 2019 1:57 p.m. PST

Very nice. And for the Foot Guards, you have the option of removing the officers' plumes, as for all three regiments Dayes (1791) shows officers only wearing a black cockade in their hats- while other ranks are shown with a variety of white'feathers' or 'tufts' either tipped in black or red, or plain white, depending on the regiment, and whether battalion coy or grenadiers (Light coys weren't added till 1793).

Most line regiments who adopted a regimental hat feather favoured plain white, it seems, until regulation feathers were first ordered in 1797. Of the three regiments that formed the 'fighting Brigade' sent out to Flanders in 1793, the 14th, 37th and 53rd, history does not appear to have recorded their preferences in this department.

von Winterfeldt03 Jan 2019 2:12 p.m. PST


thank you very much for the information, yes I should have clipped the plume off, I just realize now – looking at my sources.

In case of Light companies – when they were added, did they then adopt green plumes and wings, as for the grenadiers?

My choice of regiments will lead towards the available AWI colours – so I won't necessarily do a 100 % historical approach.

My main source was


in case of any other information you can provide – I will try to incorporate in my next unit to paint

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP03 Jan 2019 4:24 p.m. PST

Von W., your link isnt working for me.

My sources are principally Hewgill's prints of Dayes' watercolours done for the Duke of York, and Strachan's compilations in 'British Military Uniforms 1768-96' – together with bits and bobs picked up along the way. If you PM me I can send you a file or two.

Frustratingly, not much of the data relates specifically to regiments that were took the field in Europe during 1793-1799.

Foot Guards regiments were authorised to form Light companies in 1793. In the Low Countries, together with the grenadier companies, they were detached to form two small 'Flank battalions' as part of the Guards Brigade.

Officially, they were to wear a stiffened 'round hat' with turned-up brim (not unlike the later Marines hat) and a fore-and-aft fur crest like that on the'Tarleton' helmet-cap. In addition, on the left-hand side they wore a green upright cap distinction in the years following the AWI.

How much of that translated into field conditions on campaign, I couldn't say.

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP03 Jan 2019 5:45 p.m. PST

That final sentence on the second-last paragraph should read:
'In addition, on the left-hand side they wore a green upright feather that became the unoffical cap distinction for light infantry in the years following the AWI.'

von Winterfeldt04 Jan 2019 2:14 a.m. PST


Thanks again for your response, the link,strange works fine for me, mozilla firefox, but in case the website of Markus Stein

scroll down the opening window and in quite small blue print you will see

Uniformenportal, click this and the rest is self explenatory.

There you will find the Hewgill prints as well as some of H. Bunbury (b&w)

I do have the book by Strachan as well.

In case, if you let me know your e mail address I will drop you a line

For the rest of the infantry – did the grenadiers continue to wear bearskin caps and what was the headdress of the light companies of the line?

so best to base the grenadier companies separate

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP04 Jan 2019 12:51 p.m. PST

For the rest of the infantry – did the grenadiers continue to wear bearskin caps and what was the headdress of the light companies of the line?

It is difficult to find clear first-hand reference but the general impression is that from the American war onwards bearskin caps tended to be reserved for formal parades.

However, the records of the 42nd RH, for example, show:-
'4 Grenad'r Serjeants and 61 Grenad'r Privates Caps' and a similar quantity of light infantry caps lost when the British depot at Helvoetsluys was abandoned in January 1795. This suggests that, before the days of permanent depots, although we have little reason to doubt they favoured plain headgear in the field, infantry regiments might bring such regulation headgear on campaign with them.

As for Light Infantry headdress in the 1790s, this remains a difficult subject. There are only a few diverse images of varying reliablity and a few surviving examples.

As far as I know the best survey remains the late Michael Barthorp's article in 'Military Illustrated' from October 1990. He notes that a new leather cap was authorised for Light Infantry in 1784 to replace the Keppel model or 'chain cap,' (described as 'very inconvenient, burthensome, fatiguing to the soldier and found to be totally useless on service') but no description of its appearance has survived.

However, following this decision, the regimental L.I. coys evidently continued to wear caps in a variety of designs as before, mostly constructed of leather and with a growing tendency to favour Light Dragoon styles resembling the 'Tarleton,' i.e. a peaked cap with a fore-and-after crest of fur or feathers. Barthorp speculates whether a form of Tarleton cap might have been the style officially authorised in 1784. Whether any of these caps were any less inconvenient, 'burthensome' or fatiguing, we can only guess. Very similar things were being said of the first model of 'shako' in 1810!

The 90th Perthshire Volunteers, formed by Graham in 1793 and equipped as Light Infantry, although not classified as such, were equipped with Tarleton caps in the early years of their service and in the early days, rifle officers also favoured a Tarleton style of cap, after their men adopted the new regulation peaked cap (aka 'shako'). The Tarleton was popular with the Volunteer corps as well.

By contrast, at least three regiments favoured a peaked frontlet cap with a transverse crest of white fur or feathers running between the front and rear flap: the 7th Fusiliers, illustrated by Peachey c. 1795, and the 31st and 34th* as illustrated by Loftie in the late 1790s (*also illustrated in Haythornthwaite's 'French Revolutionary Wars'):


or here!:


7th Royal Fusiliers, based on Peachey (note officer in Tarleton to right):


This may have been based on a softer, folding forage cap worn in America. As befitted Fusiliers, at this time they wear white distinctions as opposed to green that was becoming standard for L.I.

Finally, Barthorp notes the tall 'round hat' worn by the Foot Guards light infantry companies formed in 1793, (which also found favour with some Volunteer Corps in London). These also represented an evolution of the Tarlteon Style with a thick fur crest running fore and aft.

Which of these options might have been favoured by the 30 or so infantry regiments that saw service on the continent 1793-95, or later, is really anyone's guess.

However this image, possibly by Pyne, shows some Light coy men of the 1790s wearing a less ornate, peakless version of the cap with a transverse white crest described above. it resembles more closely the softer folding model from which it appears to have evolved- although not a folding item itself. L.I. caps fairly similar to these were worn by some regiments in India. As with the examples described earlier they wear white cap distinctions rather than the green that were becoming standard for L.I. However, with yellow facings they aren't Fusiliers.


It looks smart, seems reasonably practical and soldierly, combined with the trousers or 'pantaloons' that British soldiers were beginning to wear in the field by the mid-1790s, (particularly for winter service- if they could get them). These were also the netherwear worn by the Foot Guards Light coys when formed in 1793.

P.S. Without redrafting- I have assumed these represent L.I. on the basis of the caps and pantaloons and what seemed to be wings on their shoulders. Given that this is a fairly generic scene, albeit with unusual features, that conclusion may or not have been a reasonable assumption!

von Winterfeldt04 Jan 2019 2:26 p.m. PST

thanks again, there is a series painted in 1793, Lawson copies some of it

ERROR - no url for link

It gives a fair idea of a light infantryman of the Guard

von Winterfeldt04 Jan 2019 2:31 p.m. PST

though not contemporary

ERROR - no url for link

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP04 Jan 2019 3:08 p.m. PST

Yes, that first figure from Gregorius's set might give a more realistic impression than Wymer's dandies with Christmas trees on their heads- although increasingly many soldiers would be taking the field with equally cumbersome headgear. The hat with one side turned up looks distinctly 'American.'

I am less sure about the high black gaiters, they look a bit generic but- I wasn't in Bruges and he was….

von Winterfeldt05 Jan 2019 1:05 a.m. PST

Well one has to see Gregorius in context, not all contemporary paintings are without fault, the series contains a lot of different nations, I agree with the black gaiters, they should be short ones.
Interestingly, I checked the originals, not all are with long gaiters, the light infantry man however as some others are.
He shows a grenadier of the guards with bearskin cap as well.

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP05 Jan 2019 3:52 a.m. PST

Well I suppose it is fair enough to say that at that date those long '1768' gaiters would be very unlikely on any British infantry in the field, let alone light infantry.

From the few Gregorius images I have seen, he tends to depict Prussians and Austrians in long gaiters but Hessians, Hanoverians and Emigrés infantry in gaiters reaching to below the knee.

One wonders to what extent these were done from life. The representation is certainly formulaic – and I am curious as to why all of the figures appear to have their shoulders hunched. Was it the cold?

As for the Foot Guards' bearskin caps, I suppose if any regiment was likely on occasion to parade in regulation dress when in Bruges, it would be the Guards. As we know from the QM records of the 42nd RH, regiments did bring their grenadier caps with them when they went abroad.

Sho Boki20 Jan 2019 3:08 a.m. PST

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.