"Green uniform of the French Light Infantry 1814" Topic

Unexpected datas for Paul Lindsay Dawson's forthcoming book about French Army uniforms

the case of the 13e Régiment d'Infanterie Légčre

Very occasionally, research presents us with archive sources that enable us to reconstruct exactly uniforms that have bypassed the mainstream studies on the subject. The 13e Légčre is one such regiment whose appearance at the end of the Empire is not what one would expect. Every item on this uniform from its colour, to leather work, can be supported by archive sources from the 13e Légčre's own paper work dating to 1814. This uniform is one of a swathe of uniforms we are reconstructing on the drawing board for a forthcoming book

Green with white piping, green tricot pantalons, grey gaiters, black cow hide equipment. Green light infantry kit was used by other regiments beyond the 13e. Blackened cow hide cross belts were regulation yet we see re-enactors with buff from April 1813. My work shows black leather work was widely adopted by the army.

the 13e were not unique. The 2e and 11e were also in green. I discuss this in a forthcoming book

Paul Lindsay Dawson

careful at grey gaiters, like grey linen – at those day it meant unbleached natural linen.

Black leather another well known and old story from the days of the French Revolution, even natural leather was worn, a regiment once complained, in case I remember correctly in 1809 that they did have only natural leather for equipment belts, the laconic answer was this is better than nothing.

'Datas' eh?

Green? Not so radical- the Guards 'Flanquers' were after all in green for years?

Black leather? Easily dyed cow skin compared to whitening them, so an economy measure. Packs? Don't know why you'd bother at all. 'Natural skin' after cleansing the insides contained hair, oils and elements of weatherproofing necessary to maintain for several years.

Note: Unusual to see red piping at the top of lapels. If they were piped white otherwise (as shown), that also would be. Plain shoulder straps, no flap on breeches (ouch).

>>Blackened cow hide cross belts were regulation…
First disclosure ever..?

Was the 13e so decimated in 1812 that few extant uniforms were usable, requiring completely new complete uniform manufacture? I guess we'll find out…
cheers d

the green was also for the French Light Infantry not something new and unusual, it was adopted by the foot and horse Chasseurs units under Louis XVI,
it will be also given to the Chasseurs of post-1815 Departemental Legions & Light Legions until 1820 when the Light Infantry returned to the blue

under Louis XVI

thanks, I guess that was implied but unstated, so what English call the 'Restoration monarchy period' reorganisation.
cheers

under Louis XVI – in 1779/1784 – the green was given for Horse and Foot Chasseurs units these last ones becoming the nucleus of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Light Infantry

then the "Restoration" taking place under Louis XVIII concerned the second generalization of the green to the whole light infantry between 1815 and 1820

Yes indeed – Albrecht Adam shows in his scetches about Moreau's army of Hohenlinden, seemingly light infantry in green as well.

The initial illustration also by Fort from Gallica: link

It is apparently taken from the Archives National.

Not exactly the same picture; that in the Link is more fully worked, in ink as well as watercolour, and in any case the cross-belt is very obviously different in finish/colour. Notice also that the issue of piping, whether red or white, is resolved from this later picture.

the original Fort's plate has been probably modified by Paul Lindsay Dawson to comply from what he found in the regimental archives of the SHAT/SHD,

he lost his red collar

bien vu Prince of Essling, not paid attention it was a plate from Fort's artwork

Well, that will be fun to paint up…

Uniform 'reconstructions' can be a problem in that they might not be accurate.

Uniform prints might not be accurate either. Artist make sketches and work them out later. Or they simply copy other work.
Without archival research paintings and prints can only be taken at face value. With it one can determine what pattern the artist actually attempted to depict.
The same goes for surviving examples of clothing. It would not do however to simply ignore these, when they are not in accordance with the results of archival research.

Archive research should be the beginning of uniform reconstruction, but not the end.

It also depends on who is doing the 'reconstructing.'

Meaning?

Exactly what it says.

So: nothing

Nope. Uniform interpretation depends on who is doing the interpreting and how reliable they are as uniformologists and historians.

It's an inexact science at the best of times.

Roger Forthoffer made a very common-sense judgment on the study of uniforms:

'There are three sorts of uniforms for every period of history: those described in the uniform regulations; those shown by the artists of that period; and what the soldiers really wore.'

Yes, uniform regulations and artistic renderings is all what until recently was used to reconstruct uniforms.
The archives, however, hold so much more: tarifs, issue and purchase of cloth and objects, inspection reports, discussions on what was needed to make an existing uniform conform to the new pattern, comparisons between uniforms of merged units, discussions on the merits of certain changes etc. All these together can paint a detailed picture, much more detailed than mere regulations and prints can produce. Much closer also to what was actually worn.

yes absolutely – Dawson is very good at finding this and making it public, I would however wished he did sometimes a better discussion of his findings.

I agree. I was also disappointed that he did not integrate his finds into a more coherent picture. At leest in his book on of the Imperial Guard Infantry. I've not yet read the others.

Indeed, and some hilarious statements like :

Sac a toile

This was the French soldier's bread bag.

It was slung over the shoulder en sautoir.

This is nonsense, the French army did not have bread bags as compared to the Prussian Army for example, it had a sac a distribution / dormir which was used to get rations for several soldiers and carry them away just like a sack of flour over the shoulder when either moving from the distribution point to his ordinaire or from plundering, also as the name points out it could be used as a sleeping bag, Blaze comments about that or also sergent Faucheur, otherwise it was carried folded in the back pack.

The bread ration was carried in the back pack and only one loaf of military bread did fit into it, as for the other one, Bardin in his dictionaire is doing a big discussion on that was carried by a piece of rope around the shoulder or on the out side of the back pack, or on the bayonet or elsewhere.

And there I was thinking baguettes were intended to be stuck down the leg of the pantalons.

My first inclination looking at the picture was that the blue ink color of the print faded and yellowed after 200 years.

The overriding question is, though, why a green uniform was worn by apparently three light infantry regiments in 1814?

It was not regulation, going by the Bardin uniform regulations.

And in 1814 the Grande Armee was 'making arrows out of any sort of wood' because of shortages in many categories incurred because of the losses in 1812-1813.

In 1814 Daru took over the clothing problem as the Service de l'Habillement was failing in its mission. Daru established makeshift workshops that turned out 30,000 'rough uniforms' every ten days. And, it should be noted, that 'the French fought in all sorts of outfits, of every color.' Further, shakos, shoes, and overcoats that were taken from prisoners, if they were serviceable and not lousy, were issued to those who needed them.

Another question might be, was this uniform prescribed by the Bourbons in 1814? They retained 15 light infantry regiments, so those mentioned in the first posting were three that were retained.

It would be nice to see the references and not just a 'hint' without the sourcing to back it up.

One other question regarding the OP:

When were black crossbelts 'regulation' for light infantry regiments?

The Gendarmerie, carabiniers a cheval and the 5th Chasseurs a Cheval kept their belts a natural buff color. Naval units polished theirs black.

Infanatry regiments, line or light, may very well have used black crossbelts in 1814, but as they were made from strong buffalo, bull, or ox hide, none of which was naturally black.

Is Mr. Dawson doing a uniform book on Napoleon's 1814 Army?

@ Murvihill

Great minds…!

not a single book, he wants to publish a whole serie of books about French Army uniforms other than the usual Imperial Guard

@Brechtel198

It makes no difference what the regulations says, you cannot make bricks without clay. Regimental cloth holdings and returns on the condition and stores of existing garments give much better clues. Official inspection reports and returns can also be illuminating. If the regiment never received the cloth or the item was recorded as worn out or withdrawn then the later plate is unlikely to be accurate.

Likewise, archeology can put paid to statements like "all shako plates were of the crescent style" when inconvenient diamond pattern ones were unearthed by Waterloo Uncovered.

Whilst analysis of extant items is useful, it must be remembered that attributions can 'drift' over time, and museum displays are often dressed. Genuine items can be shown attached to later or recut garments. Some of them that find their way into collections are later artist's reconstructions, often on which the erroneous plates had been based on.

So what we need is a multi-disciplinary approach, rather than putting our faith in one expert. No matter what their level of expertise, they can be in error on matters of detail.

To illustrate what I mean. I once entered into a disussuion on a badge collectors forum, when the acknowledged expert assured me that a particular badge was categorically NOT used at a particular period. I begged to differ, but everyone else on this forum seemed to take him as gospel on the subject. I produced a photograph, showing the badge being worn. He countered with "could I be certain it was contemporary and that was the unit concerned?". Yes, I replied. I took the photograph, and I was there. Not only that, I was the officer commanding the unit concerned, on whose authority they were being worn. But, of course, I was not an expert on badges or uniforms.

So what we need is a multi-disciplinary approach, rather than putting our faith in one expert. No matter what their level of expertise, they can be in error on matters of detail.

I agree absolutely.

When I first started buying uniform books 40-odd years ago, they were so expensive – it was a uniform book or another infantry battalion, typically – that I think I was unconsciously reluctant to treat them other than as gospel. If I've spent that much on Haythornthwaite's Uniforms of Waterloo then I don't want to hear that his white greatcoats for the 95th Rifles are wrong.

Nowadays I think Handlebarbleep has it exactly right. There are a range of sources from which we can infer uniformology, they should probably be taken together, and as a result I take the view that as good as any source appears to be it can't often be definitive. Rather than proving that all of a unit wore this, a single source at best proves that at least some of a unit wore this.

I hadn't heard about the diamond badges thing before but it's actually a relief because they're easier to paint…

I have already posted the excellent Forthoffer quotation, and personal experience definitely supports that idea.

'What Napoleon's soldiers really wore is difficult to establish. Regulations can be helpful as a starting point, but the French Army had no complete set of uniform regulations until 1811-1812, and these were never completely effective. Such partial regulations as had existed previously had been widely disregarded….The collecting of information on Napoleonic uniforms continued through the nineteenth century. Some collectors-Borsch, 'baker of Strasbourg'; Ganier Tanconville; Carl; and Boeswilwald are especially noted-worked methodically and conscientiously. Others 'did the Cuvier' (after George Cuvier, early French naturalist, who claimed to be able to reconstruct an extinct animal from a single bone). Given a description of one soldier, they would 'deduce' the uniforms of his entire regiment, from colonel to enfant de troupe! A General Vanson and a naval officer, A de Valmont, made careful collections based on documents and interviews with Napoleonic veterans. By contrast, Dr Hendrick J Vinkhuijzen built a huge pack-rat collection, in part by slashing illustrations in rare book. Fittingly, his collection (its debris is in the New York Public Library) was repeatedly plundered, and he was swindled by the Italian artist Quinto Cenni, who sold him uniforms of imaginary uniforms.'

''…You will find inconsistencies in the best sources. Variations were inevitable, even for the same unit for the same year. An infantry regiment might have one battalion at its depot, handsomely uniformed according to a compromise between regulations and its colonel's whims; another battalion on the Polish frontier would be in patched field uniforms; a third in Spain would be improvising shoes from raw cowhide and cutting up the cloaks of dead Spaniards for trousers. Some of the colors in the original drawings may no longer be accurate: crimson fades to a pink; pigments containing white lead will turn black. Also, officers wore their old uniforms into the field, and the best artists sometimes made mistakes…'-Napoleonic Uniforms by John Elting and Herbert Knotel, 421-422.

There are excellent uniform references, some republished currently and many times what you get is a snapshot for a given year or campaign. Guy Dempsey has done excellent work in two volumes, and Adam's and Faber du Faur's work is currently in print.

Further, the eyewitnesses from the period contained in such source material as the Luneburg Manuscript, the Manuscript of the Bourgeouis of Hamburg by Suhr, the Rovatti Manuscript, the Otto Manuscript, the Freiberg Manuscript, and the Darstellung de KK Franzosischen Armee und Ihrer Allirten by Weiland are excellent source material.

And the outstanding work of both Eugene Leliepvre and Rousselot is more than useful.

The issue of the shako plates is not new and was pointed out by Col Elting in Swords with his errata sheet after publication. Both were in use from 1813-1815.

@ Handlebarbleep
You're so right!

@ Brechtel198
It sounds (reads) as though you're agreeing. Yet you only discuss regulations and pictorial evidence. Uniform books have until now relied on these two almost to the exclusion of all other. However, as I said above, there's so much more in the archives, there's also so much more in the depots of musea. It's by an exhaustive search of the archives and musea that one gets an more or less accurate view of the dress and equipment of the soldier of history.

Having collected and read books on the subject of uniforms doesn't make you an expert, only…., well: well read.

Who has claimed to be an 'expert'?

So then you believe that reading and using uniform books, even those by eyewitness isn't acceptable? I find that interesting to say the least.

My first experience with period uniforms was in a tour of the back rooms of the West Point Museum in my first year there. I remember seeing a blue chasseur a cheval uniform which was puzzling.

Much later I realized that they used two different dyes in order to get the proper shade of green. So, the uniform was dyed twice-once in blue and once in yellow to get the shade desired. And the yellow faded over time and left the coat dark blue.

When my wife and I were at the Invalides in 1994 I wanted to photograph some of the collection but there was just too much in the Revolution and Napoleonic periods. However, when we went through the gift shop on the way out, there were three books produced by the museum of the entire collection. I immediately purchased them. They are, to say the least, invaluable.

Most uniform books are based on post-period series of print and period portrait paintings. Generally they are poorly annotated, if at all.Few authors make the effort to check the archives and if so, do it only haphazardly, increasing the risk of cherry-picking.
You can use them as a starting point: checking the state of general knowledge. Using them as evidence is undesirable as they are at best secondary sources. It's instructive when at all possible to trace where authors and artists got there information. On occasion all can be traced to a single source or print.

Speaking of green, does anyone know the story behind the 31eme Legere in green shako covers, trousers and musicians uniforms in the Peninsular War? Did any other units use that color for campaign dress?

Most uniform books are based on post-period series of print and period portrait paintings.

Define 'most.'

There are uniform books and publications that publish original material, such as Guy Dempsey's excellent work. I have both and have used them often.

Further, Tradition Magazine has published The Weiland Manuscript, Albrecht Adam's work as well as Faber du Faur's, The Bourgeois of Hamburg, as well as the Manuscript's of Berka, Brunswick, and Zimmerman.

In 2005 the excellent Napoleon's Last Grande Armee by Alfred Umhey was published containing material from the Dresden Manuscript and the Freiberg Manuscript.

Original material is available and along with the work of the Knotels, Leliepvre, and Rousselot the uniforms of the period can be found and understood.

What book by Guy Dempsey are you referring to? I checked his book on Foreign Mercenaries. It's full of details from inspection reports, official correspondence etc. Though the introduction is properly annotated, the section describing the various units is not. As far as he mentions the source of quotes it's generally some book. Judging from the part I read through, there does not seem to be any original research. Based on that I'd say: however well composed, he simply rearranges existing information.

The series published by Tradition Magazine are of course excellent material, but the information cannot be taken at face value, still less as gospel. The Zimmermann series is in colour. The "Anne S.K. Brown Military Collection" has a series of ink drawings by Zimmermann. These appear to be the originals. Therefore the coloring of the Series published by Tradition Magazine is at the very least suspect.

Your original material consists apparently only of series of prints. Knötel etc. are at most secondary sources. What they used as their sources is unclear. Richard Knötel for instance worked with correspondents for foreign (non-german) uniforms. Any judgment of the accuracy of his prints would have to include research into his correspondents and review of their sources.

A scientifically meaningful work would have to include original archive research, not just to illustrate some details, but as the basis for any description.

Guy Dempsey wrote two uniform books on the period:

-Napoleon's Soldiers: The Grande Armee of 1807 as depicted in the Paintings of the Otto Manuscript.

-Napoleon's Army 1807-1814 as depicted in the prints of Aaron Martinet.

No one here has stated that anything should be taken as 'gospel.'

Again, define 'most.'

@Brechtel198

As I have both of Guy Dempsey's volumes, your mention prompted me to tip them up. In his work on Martinet he's pretty fair in his assessment "the reliability of the multi-subject prints in the Troupes Francaises is variable" (Page 17). The Paris based nature of Martinet's business is well described, and I think he makes a fair point that the uniform of Paris based units are more likely to be accurate representations.

The extent to his documentary confirmation though is largely restricted to the 1812 Regulations, the individual Decrees (including 1806), the Etat Militaire An X and equipment regulations for that year. His impressive knowledge of the prints is evident in the captions, but there is little evidence of archival research, such as regimental or depot records though.

Likewise, I think his handling of the attribution of the Otto manuscript, including his scepticism of the assertions of Rousselot and Rigo is excellent. He's also very open about the lack of corroboration. He does reference the Brunon collection and the memoir of an officer of the 63rd though. I largely agree with his 10 factors affecting reliability (Pages 20-22), especially as it echoes the multi-discplinary approach I outlined in an earlier post.

On the whole though, both works are more a discussion of the iconography rather than the uniforms themselves. This is no criticism, because that in itself is a service. However, the analogy I'd use is using the work of an art historian of classical scenes as a primer on classical mythology. Without other sources it can be a bit hit and miss.

Good books though, and a fascinating read.

@Brechtel198: "define 'most'": what do you want? A percentage? What would that attribute to the argument?

I have those two books. They're not uniform studies, but iconographical ones. I'll refer to the review by Handlebarbleep above, with whom I fully agree.

@DrsRob & Handlebarbleep

Well written and said, a lot of those original pictorial sources, for example as Zimmermann were copied in the earlier days, not always that faithfully and you have to find the original one – I have three different sets of the manuscript d' Hahlo, and it is interesting to compare the Forthoffer interpretation to the original as published by Thomas Hemmann – who found it in Kassel, he discusses also the problems of their copies and what wrong conclusion were drawn from those.
And yes, I agree – inspection reports, eye witness accounts, existing items, dress reports, original dress, etc., samples have to be included in making an interpretation of contemporary pictorial sources as well.

An example:

In 1823 J.F Teupken published a detailed description of the uniform, dress, equipment of the Dutch army and marines and all regulations pertaining to the manufacture and use of these.
He describes the dress of the East-Indies foot branches on pp. 36-39. On page 37 he states for officers: "coat of cut, color and facings as the branch to which they belong, except…[some details]" which is pretty straightforward.

In 1900 F.J.G. ten Raa published a book on the uniform history of the Dutch Army and Navy, the text only covering the period from 1795 to 1840. As far as I know, this was until recently the only publication of archival research on the subject.
For 1821 (p. 220) he paraphrases Teupken to complete the description of the new simplified uniform of the East-Indies foot branches.

Some years before in 1897 E. Marcella had published a "History of the Engineers of the East-Indies Army". The story is intersected by uniform descriptions and administrative regulations. For 1823 he copied the description in Teupken including the above quoted remarks on the officer's coats (p. 20). At that time the enlisted engineer branch consisted of pioneer companies, that were usually commanded by infantry officers and only sometimes by engineer officers.

For the same year 1823 Ten Raa quoted Marcella for the Pioneers (pp. 220-221), without realizing that it was the text from Teupken that he had used for 1821 as well. He therefore concluded that the officers of Pioneers retained the uniform of their former unit or branch (infantry or pioneers). Once the origin of the description is known, this conclusion has to be fully rejected.

Things like these, lack of precision in what document was quoted and a tendency to expand description from other unnamed sources requires one to check every reference against the sources.

The same would apply to many other uniform books.

Just a question about period portraits. They are first-hand accounts of the uniforms from that period, but should we treat them as 100% accurate? I know some paintings had awards later added on that were awarded later in the officer's career.

portraits are a great source, but I can only again stress the very sound :

So what we need is a multi-disciplinary approach

other examples to stress the importance of multi -disciplinary approach, the Tirailleurs du Po, there exists a post Napoleonic image, which shows them with red lapels, Herbet Knötel, Rigo and others copy this and it becomes entrenched truth – however Guy Dempsey cites the Colonel of this regiment how they did look like at the battle of Hoff in 1807 and he describes them dressed in the usual light infantry uniform, only the drummers being different with red lapels.
Still a lot so called experts will defend the red lapels by claws and teeth because Knötel nor Ribo could be wrong, couldn't they?
The same goes for the brown uniforms of the Tirailleurs Corses in 1807 or the white bearskin caps of the trumpeters of the Grenadiers ŕ Cheval (despite overwhelming evidence – not listed in the uniform depots)

In the Netherlands the great uniform experts were mainly experts on iconography. Moreover one inherited his material from another and it's now owned by the Dutch Military Museum. All material can be traced back to the research by the painter Jan Hoynck van Papendrecht and the officer F.J.G. ten Raa. The first of these did many of the illustrations for the latter's 1900 book I mentioned earlier.
Their work seems to have been corroborated by Knötel. However, from one of the notes by Richard, we can conclude that Hoynck van Papendrecht was his Dutch correspondent. (unfortunately I currently do not have excess to these notes, so I can't tell you were to find this.)