"First army to introduce shakos ?" Topic

Maybe someone has a quick answer at hand: What was the first army which introduced shakos for the infantry ? And which reason was given for the change ?

I think it was an adaption of the hat used by the Austrian grenzers in the late 1700s.
The reason given for the change was that the hat provided some protection to the head and the visor reduced eye strain.

The Imperial Austrian army was the first in Europe to exchange the cocked hat for a universal cap for use by infantry, gunners and dragoons.

Adopted circa 1767, the kaskett as it was known (from the French for 'cap') was quite low in profile, in most cases did not have a peak/visor and instead had a vertical panel turned up in front, prefiguring the Portugese barretina and the British 1812 Infantry cap ('Belgic', 'Waterloo' or what have you). It might also, in part, have inspired the generic Light Infantry cap ordered for British battalions 1770-1771 ('Keppel'; 'Chain cap')

However, rather than being inspired by the tall caps of the 'Croat' pandours and Austrian grenzer troops, the military cap with a false front as a form dated back to the mid- C17th if not earlier. This had found favour as an item of uniform because of the opportunity to display insignia on the upright frontal panel- (a feature also of early grenadier caps)

Even the grenzerbattalions were expected to wear the kaskett, IIRC, but the peakless tall caps (klobuck, hauduckenmutze, schakelhaube etc) remained in use by irregular units, and of course, as the flugelmutze or mirleton, had long been favoured by hussar units.

The tall cap with a peak/visor that came to be known as the 'shako' (chaco, tschako, etc) appeared as an item of military uniform at the turn of the C18th. It can be seen almost simultaneously being worn by jäger troops in British service being formed into 5th & 6th Bns 60th Royal Americans (c.1797) ; by some French light infantry units (c.1799), and then finally in 1800 it was authorised for all British regiments of foot bar the Highland corps, and the Royal Artillery. The British would therefore appear to be the first nation to adopt a tall, peaked cap as universal headgear. The French, German, Austrian and Russin armies would follow suit over the next 12 years.

What prompted this twitch in the zeitgeist is not clear. The practical value of the shako as it evolved over the next fifteen years and on into the mid-19th century was questionable. The protection it afforded against the elements or against hostile acts would appear to marginal at best. (The Austrians had at least coupled adoption of the kaskett with a hooded cloak to meet the challenges of the elements. then they adopted that unfortunate helmet).

Certainly, British sources have little good to say about the models of cap ordered for use between 1800 and 1816.

The value of adding inches to the apparent height of malnourished young men of the rank and file must surely have been marginal on the field of battle.

Sorry, if that wasn't as quick as you had hoped.

IN BRIEF
Austrians- First universal cap (peakless) 1767
British – First universal tall peaked cap 1800

Well, I for one am very glad to get all this information and comparison in the one place. Many thanks.

A useful and comprehensive account. I also thank you.

Thanks 42flaner. I'd always wondered

42flanker, many thanks, your answer came swifter and quicker than I had hoped, and was more extensive than I had dared to hope :-)

The point about the linkage between early Austrian and late British headwear has intrigued ever since I noticed (or someone pointed out) that it doesn't end there.

Both these armies wore a short-tailed single-breasted coat. Both gave their lights a conical cap. Both had infantry regiments in a wide variety of facing colours. Both armies' dragoons were principally light; everyone else's were principally heavy. Both had insignificant numbers of guard troops.

I reckon the British army was based substantially on the Austrian but I've never seen a documented connection.

Thanks for the in-depth info!
SUPERB!!!

"The point about the linkage between early Austrian and late British headwear has intrigued ever since I noticed (or someone pointed out) that it doesn't end there.

Both these armies wore a short-tailed single-breasted coat…"

Yes, the first closed coat authorised for British troops in 1798 appears to have been directly influenced

Overshadowed by the influenc of Prussia perhaps, it seems rarely acknowledged the extent to which, from the mid-C17th onwards, the Hapsburg lands in the form of the Austrian Imperial army and its auxiliaries influenced developments in uniform and to some extent organisation in the rest of Europe: – hussars & grenadiers, irregular light infantry, bearskin caps & kolpaks, the csako of course, the closed coat, the fore-and-aft 'Austrian' forage cap(s), and even the kepi associated so cloesely with France.

Also, I think the first uhlan regiments were formed in Austrian Galicia, although I am capriciously discounting the 'Bosniak' lancers in Prussian service who I believe were of Turkish origin, and the uhlans of de Saxe's Voluntaires, supposedly of Tatar inspiration,

I'll leave others to debate the influence of Austrian gunnery and artillery design.

I reckon the British army was based substantially on the Austrian but I've never seen a documented connection.

Interesting but with no documented connection the connection is merely conjecture with nothing to back it up. In short, it's a stretch.

Both had insignificant numbers of guard troops.

The British Army at least had them. The Austrian Army did not. They had no regiments of Guard units that accompanied the army into the field.

The Austrians had ceremonial guard units such as the Hungarian Noble Guard, the Arcieren Life Guard. the Trabant Life Guard, and the Galician Noble Guard along with one company of regular infantry known as the Hofburg Watch. None of these were actual combat units. The British Army of the time had three infantry regiments and two cavalry units with Guard status, along with the Dragoon Guards regiments, named as such to give them more status. They were combat units.

I'll leave others to debate the influence of Austrian gunnery and artillery design.

Why was this brought up in a discussion about uniforms and headgear?

I'd guess because 42flanker has expertise principally with regard to the similarities of uniform in this specific connection, but in mentioning "organisation" addresses the possibility that there may be some similarities in other ways, too. Thus, Artillery as well as Cavalry would be relevant, at least in a survey by anyone sufficiently familiar with either, and with the equivalent arm in Britain, to spot any possible "linkage". I for one have found this secondary issue an interesting aside in an already valuable thread, but of course recognise that to extend to Artillery is to prolong the digression.
I'll leave it to anyone else to mention "BR-C-L-".

That would be about the length and breadth of it, Robert.

I am gratified the notes were of interest, gentlemen.

Looking at Colonel William Dalrymple's book 'Tacticks' from 1782, I was interested to read these practical observations on more suitable for soldiers, and clothing too, 15 years after the Austrian reforms and 20 years before the British emulation:

'SOME OBSERVATIONS On the APPOINTMENT of LIGHT INFANTRY.

As to dress, if a man can march better, and is more at his ease in a jacket than a coat; why should he be incumbered with the latter? If a cap be more useful than a hat; why mould not every man wear one? The most convenient mode of carrying ammunition, is fully as requisite for one man as another; in short, our whole Infantry, if properly clothed and disciplined, ought to be equally useful in every situation: A foot soldier should be trained for the service of a plain, a wood, or a mountain, either separately or 'conjointly.'

(p.9)

'DRESS.

THE principle of all clothing, is to give the
"most healthful defence against
"the weather, at the same time, to permit a
"free use of the body and limbs."

…All weighty coverings of the head must be oppressive:…

…Habit has rendered it necessary for us, to wear a hat by day, and a cap by night; yet the Peasant and Seaman are frequently without the latter: However, Marshal Saxe's lamb-skin wig, or its substitute, a woollen cap, becomes necessary, especially at the latter end of a campaign. when a Soldier sleeps, or is upon duty in the night. The Hat in its present form, is only calculated for parade; the instant a man is employed on service, it loses its shape; the weight of it is distressing; and, in wet weather, the rain soaks through it, and renders the wearer most un-comfortable:
The Helmet, and Chapeau a quatre corners, successively introduced in France, are strong marks of caprice: The Light Infantry leather cap is too heavy: Grenadier Caps, and such trumpery, are more troublesome than useful: I think, that a light round hat of sufficient texture to prevent the rain from soaking through it, should be given to the Soldiery; in the hotter climes it might be white, in the colder black (*). When I see the peasant in Andalusia, in the mountains of Scotland, and sportsmen in all countries wear a short dress, I must naturally conclude it the most convenient for the field: The skirts of a coat are an incumbrance: A jacket somewhat like those of our Light Infantry might be adopted (+); but as the soldier is subject to be exposed at all seasons, and in all weather, it is cruel not to furnish him with a cloak; the lighter it were made the better, provided it keep out the cold and rain:

• There is a kind of hat lately invented in France, which has an oil-lkin outside worked to it; is light, and appears to be very useful.
+ The Austrian Dress is certainly the most complete in Europe.

Leather Gayters, when wet, are very un-comfortable,. and turn hard by use: Woollen spatterdashes appear to me to be the best: The numberless other articles, with which parade soldiers are equipped, should be reduced the instant they go on service: Thin flannel waistcoats might be given to answer the purpose of shirts; and spatterdashes might be worn universally instead of stockings: The long Trowsers, buttoned at the ankle, used in America, appear to have been well calculated for that service.

(pp.11-13)

link

[Note: "The Helmet, and Chapeau a quatre corners, successively introduced in France"

a) Helmets. c. 1771-76, a number of French infantry regiments trialled helmets of Neo-classical style similar to those worn by Dragoons of the time, with metal combs and hair crests. Discontinued in 1776.

b) Chapeau. A version of the contemporary style of cocked hat with a point at the rear as well as the front was ordered in 1776. It was done away with in the next regulations of 1779.

Again, most interesting; he's obviously considered the various options available/already adopted. Earlier speculation about Austria and possible "linkage" gains more weight. As an aside, there was a discussion not long back about "spatterdashes" in the '45 Jacobite Rising; here, the understood distinction between those and gaiters/"gayters" seems to be their different materials, not anything (specific) about appearance.

Has anyone thought of or discussed the mirliton used by light cavalry at least from the middle of the 18th century. It was for all intents and purposes a shako.

It was sometimes referred to as a 'shako a flamme' because of the strip of cloth attached to it. The cavalry of Lauzan's Legion from the War of the Revolution certainly wore it. The French shakos of various designs evolved from it.

The mirliton was also worn by light infantry, horse artillery, and chasseurs a cheval ca 1800 and a visor and chin strap was sometimes added to it.

Yes, the first posting from 42flanker, very top of this thread, mentions this kind of hat in connection with light cavalry &c. Lots of influences seeming to be exerting some influence on the development of military fashion and/or practicality. The passages from Dalrymple, above, are also interesting with regard to the idea of every infantryman being trained for every situation, but that's a different stream entirely.

'Spatterdashes' Ohh, there be dragons.

'Mirliton' and 'flugelmutze' (etc) touched on above.

I suppose spatterdashes or gaiters (or, indeed, ankle-boots) would be more convenient for dismounted cavalry than jacked boots….

And yet French heavy cavalry wore gaiters and boots…

They wore gaiters and shoes when dismounted. They wore boots mounted.

Dragons

I'd love to say that the pun was intended but it was entirely accidental.

But at least we've covered the subject from head to foot…

The British didn't adopt Cuirasses, mind you.

The British didn't adopt Cuirasses, mind you

Not till after Waterloo, at any rate.

Yes, I'd thought soon after posting that the Household boys got all armoured up at some point, and that someone would ensure absolute comprehensive accuracy (!). So I was preparing the kind of defence typical of philosophers, lawyers, politicians and so on; "I would remind the learned gentleman that the area of consideration was Napoleonic…". However, no need for me to "shift the goalposts", as it were. All right, "As you were!"

With regard to Household Cavalry, I do have a first-hand account of the experience of infantry in square facing cavalry, not related to uniform though. Not really Napoleonic either. Kinda like the bit in Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" where, as at least I've been told, in one of the aerial shots a "British" square of Soviet extras can be seen breaking during Ney's assaults. If any Thread be started concerning Squares in future, I'll remember to introduce it. Good Luck.

The British introduced lancers into their cavalry arm in 1816. I would think that Albuera, Quatre Bras, and Waterloo demonstrated the expert employment of lancers.

And the czapka to go along with it, at some point anyway.
We're almost back to Square One.

The British introduced lancers into their cavalry arm in 1816.

Why was this brought up in a discussion about dragons and cuirasses?

Why are Dragons here instead of the Fantasy Boards?

~[]):-{ >

Why was this brought up in a discussion about dragons and cuirasses?

Why not? Seems to me that it was applicable, along with a possible explanation for the 'innovation.'

Certainly another contribution with a point to it. ~[]):={>

Ah, now. The pickelhaube….

)>

:
)>
:

:
\
(}o:|)>
/
: