"Uniforms and facings of "Local" British Brigadiers" Topic

Would British officers with a local brigadier rank have a unique uniform (like a British major general's uniform) or would they have worn the uniform of their regiments?

For example, Brigadiers Simon Fraser at Saratoga and James Webster at Guilford Courthouse.

Fraser was a lieutenant colonel of the 24th Foot, which had green facings. However, the portraits I have seen of Fraser and the painting of his burial depict a coat with blue facings, sometimes with lace:
link

I can find no depictions of Webster. However, the 33rd Foot (of which Webster was lieutenant colonel) had red facings. Would Webster have worn a red faced coat at Guilford Courthouse?

I realize that generally speaking officers had and have greater latitude in their uniform clothes, and that artistic depictions and portraits are subject to the license of the painter, are highly selective in their subjects (a snapshot of the subject wearing their best clothes and not always what would be worn on a campaign), and that an officer could have multiple uniforms, hats, etc. in his baggage.

But what would be the most likely for a "local" brigadier in action, like Fraser at Bemis Heights or Webster at Guilford Courthouse?

That would probably depend in part on whether there was time and opportunity to have a coat amended or a new coat made up.

Local rank was a staff appointment each of which, as I understand it. officially had specified uniform distinctions- e.g. for Quartermaster General dept; Adjutant General, etc.

That image of Fraser that you posted shows him in re-1768 uniform so I imagine it would have no bearing on his AWI uniform.

Re Webster for instance, the question might turn on when he was appointed brigadier. In the field, officers seem often to have worn simplified frocks minus lace but faced in the colour of the regiment. There are portraits of Cornwallis so dressed. This would have been particularly so in the southern campaigns.

If Webster was still de facto CO of the 33rd while apppointed brigadier for the campaign, given the circumstances it seems unlikely he would have acquired a new coat before heading up country with Cornwallis.

Per the above, I am painting some of my brigadiers in regimental colors, simply because I like variety. Since we really don't know . . . .

Stand by. I'll take this one
:-)

BTW in Mollo/McGregor Uniforms of the American Revolution in color he does touch on staff and general's uniform distinctions.

So the first official commission as a general in the British Army at the time was that of a Major General. Brigadier General was a field command, and in the case of the AWI period, usually consisted of a brigade of three regiments or less. This three regiment brigade system was created by General Howe so as Lt. Col's could command Brigades. Evidently it was viewed (or required) that a four regiment brigade necessitated a Major General in Command. I say Lt. Col as, unlike the previous war fought in North America, few Colonels deployed with their regiments during this war.

Generals' uniforms (Major, Lieutenant, General, and Field Marshal) had very distinct uniforms at this time, both in full dress, and undress. Major and Lieutenant Generals had both an embroidered (dress) and plain (no embroidery) uniform, as likely did more senior officers. Both of these ranks only wore one epaulet on their right shoulder, as did most (not all) infantry officers. Major Generals wore their buttons paired in twos, Lt. Generals in sets of three, all about their coat (facings, sleeves). All generals wore a gold button featuring a crossed sword and baton. The cut of the coat (dress and undress), was different, as the fall of the front was curved and the skirts were not worn pulled back, unlike the infantry.

General officers did not wear gorgets (not did Royal Artillery officers). They did wear a sash. They could wear either a laced (gold) or unlaced (or black ribbon) hat, – likely matching the style of coat (dress or undress).

To brigadier generals – since this was a field rank, their uniform is less certain. There are surviving examples of Brigadier General coats (believe it or not, but Benedict Arnold's dress coat has survived and remains with his descendants in Canada). It has also been documented in paintings, as shown above, and also in the "Death of Wolfe" by Benjamin West. The buttons are single spaced, and an epaulet worn on the right shoulder. Unless the person had time to make such a uniform, and was holding that rank (and temporary pay bump – remember, it's all about the temporary pay bumps then LoL)for a period of time, it is likely the Brigadier General would have just worn his regimental coat. This is likely the case for someone like Lt. Col Webster, or in an earlier period like Brigadier General John Forbes during the 1758 campaign (17th Regt).

I say Brigadier General, as the title of Brigadier is a later rank in the British Army and means something different.

Staff officers are a bit more confusing. There are the regulations, as shown in Mollo (silver lace), but then there are the numerous portraits of staff officers done in NYC during the war, showing all those officers blue faced, with gold lace. No gorget, as they were not commanding infantry. I guess there is regulation, and what they wore in the field. :-)

So to the OPs question – yes, a mix of regimental coats and some red faced blue, with gold lace (nor more likely not in the field) would be appropriate.

The one painting referenced above of Cornwallis has him showing off his new Lt. Generals undress coat (also sometimes called a frock), with unlaced hat, buttons paired in threes.

link

I appreciate the detailed responses, especially regarding the detail and makeup of British general uniforms. I stand corrected on the use of "Brigadier" – I have just finished reading Luzader's Saratoga book and he uses "Brigadier" over Brigadier General to refer to Fraser and St Leger.

I also did not know the distinction that a rank would limit command – e.g. a Major General command four regiments in a brigade, while a Brigadier General would only command three. That's useful information. Though it doesn't seem to be always followed.

So it would be up to discretion and the length of the campaign? So Fraser would presumably have had a brigadier's uniform given his length of service at that rank under Carleton and Burgoyne (though interestingly, Fraser, St. Leger, Powell, and Hamilton would have lost their brigadier general positions upon Burgyone's army joining Howe). Likewise, Webster seems to have served as a brigade commander under Cornwallis for a great period of time (Camden)and so possibly would have time to procure a brigadier general's uniform and likewise for Leslie, etc.

The frustrating thing about this, and other periods, is that for every rule, every regulation, you find exceptions. It was a fact that the British Army was very much understaffed for this war when it came to general officers. That situation only got worse for the Crown as the years went on, and significant elements of the army were shipped out to other parts of the war, taking away many of the general officers originally posted to North America.

The term "Brigadier" is often used by writers about the period, perhaps in part by unintentional mistake, or simply that the newer rank has crept into the lexicon over the years. It's also awkward to keep saying "Brigadier General" too. :-)

In regards to the rank commanding so many regiments, again, you can find exceptions due to the shortage of commissioned general officers. This was an unpopular war at home, and unlike the French and Indian War, most colonel's stayed at home. Even Amherst declined to go back over. To the officers, there was little glory to go fight this war. That changed when the French and Spanish entered the fray, though that did not help the command in the 13 colonies and Canada.

It's almost impossible to say which Brigadier Generals had special coats made, and which did not. Clearly, some did though. But remember, if already deployed here to North America, said officer would have to send back to England to his tailor to order such a coat (or two) and have it shipped back to him here. An expense, to be sure, and lots of time. The materials such as the scarlet red, royal blue wool, and correct buttons were not just laying around in the colonies – although it does beg the question, where did all those NY staff officers get materials to make their special uniforms? :-)

I would say that time spent in New York following these appointments might be the key, given that this was the only reliable source of materials, either locally or from home. he availability of these, say, in Charleston after the siege, say might be questionable.

Staff officers are a bit more confusing.

We have a portrait of my forebear, Lieutenant in the 16th Regt appointed a staff officer in the Quartermaster General's department in New York, and subsq in Charleston, wearing regimentals but with a QMG sash and rosette as described by Mollo.

What year? I believe that the portraits Prof Urwin who identified them as members of Clinton's staff.

What is a QM sash and rosette?

"What year?"

If you mean my forbear's portrait, we can't be sure of the year. Between 1778 and 1783 is the best estimate- the years of his commission as lieutenant in 16th Regt.

QM sash, according to Mollo, has a rosette in front and false bow, fastening with tapes.

I appreciate the answers. As I start collecting, I know I will probably either start with Saratoga or Guilford Courthouse, and wanting to be as authentic as possible, I want to portray my brigadiers as accurately as possible.

Perhaps the officers with staff appointments that came over in 1776 did not look like the staff officers in NYC in 1778 or later too. Hard to say, though the portraits done of them are fairly consistent – gold lace, not silver.

I bet to differ with Mr. Mollo's assessment that the sashes tided in the back and had a permanent rosette in them. I believe, during this period, the sashes were still one long woven sash, and the officer tied it into a knot. Of course, they could have started to switch over to something else later in the period as well. As I said, nothing is written in stone during this period. And what was, was often ignored. :-(

The sash depicted in my forebear's portrait does correspond to the Mollo description.

Yeah, but a sash is just a sash, at least in a painting. I've seen hundreds of them in period portraits and they all look pretty much the same. They were hand woven sprung silk. I'm not aware of any from the period that tied in the back. Are you aware of any surviving examples from this period?

No, not just a sash. In this case, it appears to be a flat piece of cloth that hangs lower on his hips rather than being cinched around his waist. Thus it corresponds to the Mollo description.

As do all sashes in paintings.:-)

Please yourself, podner