"Cuirassier uniform - some reconsiderations" Topic

A quick re-examination of the evidence for cuirassier uniform under the First Empire. I'm posting here because of the sheer quality of some of the discussion I've seen on this site, in the hope that people might be interested, and more importantly, so they can quickly shoot down any errors, and add details that I'm unaware of.

This may, of course, be met with nothing more than the occasional shrug…

1. The classic double-breasted uniform coat remained until at least 1812.

The French heavy cavalry had been wearing those iconic blue tailcoats with double-breasted lapel turnbacks for a whole lot longer than the infantry. They didn't give them up in a hurry.

The idea that a single-breasted tunic was adopted when armour was reintroduced in 1801-1803 appears to be an error. A proposal to re-uniform the cavalerie in an imitation of the single-breasted Austrian kollet and a bronze-sheathed dragoon helmet had been kicking around since the late 1790s, but was dropped when they were all put into armour.

The only official change at this point was a vague authorisation to adjust the cut of the tunic to fit under the cuirass in September 1803. This in turn seems likely to refer back to Ancien Régime regulations, which specified that the uniform coat should be cut loose in order to fit over the top of a breastplate.

A specific new model of uniform coat had been approved by July 1805. This is presumably the uniform which the Manuel d'Habillement of 1812 lists as being in use by 1806 – not as is often said, newly adopted in that year, but approved at some point previously. The design was evidently a version of the classic double-breasted turnback-lapel regimental coat, but with a tighter fit than those of the Horse Grenadiers and Dragoons.

In short, the only official modifications related to the details of cut, rather than the replacement of the basic design. There's a general sense that this involved shorter tails, but the evidence about tail length is so wildly divergent as to require a separate discussion, and the extent to which individual regiments followed the regulations seems to have been fairly inconsistent.

Perhaps the wildest example of irregularity is provided by 7e Cuirassiers, who obtained some uniforms of a non-regulation cut from the Hapsburg arsenal Brno in Moravia around 1806. I suspect these belonged to the old 15e Régiment de Cavalerie, which had defected en masse to the counter-Revolutionary forces in 1792 – a remnant are documented at Brno in 1803, still wearing their pre-revolutionary French regimentals. Supporting visual evidence is linked below.

In theory, the cuirassiers also had an alternative single-breasted uniform called a surtout (more on this below), but not every regiment actually had these – 9e Cuirassiers prefer to use their old double-breasted coats alongside their new regulation ones – and those that did have them seem to have simply left them behind when they went on campaign in 1805, and didn't bother to replace them when they were forward-deployed on garrison duty in Central Europe until 1810. The double-breasted, turnback-lapel coat was what they wore.

In 1809, a new pattern for the cuirassiers' single-breasted surtout was issued, and the 1812 Manuel d'Habillement indicates that this was actually supposed to replace the existing double-breasted coat; but a report from January 1812 indicates that no clear regulation about its purpose was actually issued to the army, and shows that the new uniform was widely ignored – the bulk of the regiments simply stayed in double-breasted coats; only around a third of the regiments had adopted the surtout at all by that date, and at least one of those that had, 4e Cuirassiers, was still using their old double-breasted uniforms alongside them.

Yet another single-breasted pattern was issued in February 1812, this time with clearer instructions to supersede the old regimentals – but this would not have been adopted immediately, and I've seen references to a contemporary print of a trooper of 7e Cuirassiers in the old pattern in late 1812.

Evidence for what was really worn after 1812 seems particularly scanty – but one of the Suhr images from Hamburg shows a trooper of 1e Cuirassiers in a double-breasted, square-lapelled kurtka of the Polish style used by the light cavalry and infantry:

link

Note also the yellow buttons – those were a distinction for the 1er-3e régiments, abolished in 1791!!

So, the cuirassier regiments remained almost entirely in double-breasted coats until 1812, and I'm unsure to what extent they really gave them up before Waterloo – I'd be interested if anyone has any clear information on the period after 1812 in particular!

2. The surtout is confusing.

The Napoleonic surtout is usually described as something like an Austrian cavalry kollet, single-breasted, buttoned down to just above the belt, with a horizontal waistline and relatively compact tails at the back, worn as campaign uniform… but I'm looking for more evidence to confirm that idea.

As envisaged in uniform regulations issued under the Ancien Régime, the surtout was actually a close copy of a contemporary civilian frock coat – free of any facings, cut vertically from throat to tail without a waistline, and worn over a short, horizontal-waisted waistcoat – the sort of thing you'd wear if you were out riding your horse or walking around town, in other words.

But even before the Revolution, some light cavalry regiments were reinterpreting the surtout as what we'd think of as a chasseur habit, with pointed lapels and short turnback tails. So what the sources call a surtout isn't always an actual surtout at all.

Thus, I'm not at all sure what a cuirassier surtout would have really looked like. There are modern references to contemporary images of cuirassiers in something single-breasted (notably some images of troopers from 6e Cuirassiers by Swebach-Desfontaines), but I haven't tracked down the originals.

The only details I can find for sure are in written sources: the official allocation of buttons remained the same as in 1786 – with no provision for cuff-flaps or pockets – and by 1805, the surtout was supposed to be lined in serge in the regimental facing colour – but 5e Cuirassiers didn't bother with the lining, and some regiments didn't bother with the surtout at all, like 9e Cuirassiers, who used their old-pattern double-breasted coats instead.

There's also fairly conclusive evidence that if they ever did obtain surtouts in any systematic way, the Cuirassiers didn't take them with them on campaign in 1805, and thus didn't really have them at all for the next four or five years while garrisoned in Central Europe. In the comprehensive regimental inspections of 1808, only 2e Cuirassiers had them in any numbers, and they had less than two hundred. 8e Cuirassiers were quite explicit that they didn't want any.

In 1809, as noted above, the cuirassiers were assigned a new pattern surtout (though only a few regiments ever bothered to obtain them); going by the quantities of material allocated in the Masse d'Habillement, this was similar in cut to the pointy-lapelled chasseur habit, but with less buttons and presumably a different lapel and cuff pattern – probably something single-breasted, but other options are also possible (there's what I think is an original kurtka worn by the Polish commander-in-chief General Dąbrowski that has just six pairs of big buttons in front, and roll cuffs).

The only clear image of this period that I know of shows a senior officer of 11e Cuirassiers, which is probably dated around 1809, and shows a button-down jacket with a spectacularly high waistline, full regimental facing colours, buttons that don't match either regulation, and no sign of a waistcoat at all. I've not found a brilliant image of this online, but apparently the actual uniform still existed into the twentieth century…

Whether this corresponds in any way to one or other official pattern, I have no idea!

The 1812 uniform was certainly single-breasted, but is always described as a habit or habit-veste rather than a surtout. We're fortunate to have very detailed regulation specifications, and official images by Carle Vernet, so we know exactly what the were supposed to look like:

… but again, how widely this was actually followed in practice seems unclear!

Any guidance on this would be appreciated!!

3. The length of tails is all over the place.

The coat-tails of cuirassier uniform are a topic all on their own. The 1786 regulations specified that they should be half-an-inch shorter than those of the infantry, but the general view is that tails got shorter over time, rising from behind the knee to mid-thigh, then after 1812 to the top of the leg. There's some support for this, with General St-German writing in 1814 about how the uniform has been shortened to become "nothing more than a waistcoat, from which the tails hardly reach below the cuirass, at most perched on the buttocks" – but the process wasn't as linear as this suggests.

In fact, short tails seem to have already been in use before any formal adjustment was made in the uniform – this Swebach-Desfontaines sketch shows I think a trooper of 8e Cuirassiers shortly after they adopted the helmet in place of the hat in 1801, and his turnbacks are already above mid-thigh:

The earliest explicit reference I know of to a habit court appears in the internal (and unofficial) uniform regulations for 3e Cuirassiers, written in April 1804. Regimental inventories confirm that they had adopted a short-tailed pattern by around 1805, as had 7e, 9e and 10e.

These short-tailed coats could already be very short indeed. David's Serment des Aigles, which depicts an event in 1804 and was completed by November 1810, shows a cuirassier (an officer of 10e Cuirassiers, judging by his uniform details), wearing a strikingly short pair of tails:

Nor is this the only example. The contemporary print of a trooper published by Aaron Martinet, dated 1808, shows very short tails:

And his officer, undated, has even shorter ones:

So already in this period, tails could be of the short length that General St-Germain would complain about in 1814. But the fact that he does complain about them, and regards them as an ostentatious departure from the regulation coat defined around 1805, indicates that they were as much to do with officers' opinions as anything official. Their supporters simply thought they looked neater in the saddle. Though there was probably an element of fashion about this too – the Prussian guards cavalry are supposed to have looked similar:

On the other hand, there's also contrasting evidence for much longer tails – even among the four regiments for which short-tailed coats are explicitly documented c. 1805, we know that 9e retained their old longer-tailed uniforms for undress (which did they use on campaign?), and 7e later reverted to longer tails.

In 1810, General Preval, who as Colonel of 3e Cuirassiers had been an early supporter of the short-tailed coat, complained that 4e, 6e, 7e and 8e were all using long tails. In the case of 7e, this represents a reversal of what they'd been wearing five years earlier, and can perhaps be associated with the uniforms they obtained at Brno around 1806 – as I suggested above, they may have come from 15e Cavalerie, which had defected in 1792 and retained their old uniforms in foreign pay.

And, yes, we do have evidence that 7e Cuirassiers were indeed wearing their tails in the style of the Seven Years' War:

link

So, there are cuirassiers wearing the double-breasted turnback-lapel coat with extremely short tails, or with conventional long tails, and even with downright old-fashioned mid-eighteenth-century tails. Do the lapels on that mid-eighteenth-century style fasten across underneath the armour, too?

There's also some evidence for longer tails on other types of uniform, where we'd perhaps expect them even less – the ones on those dismounted patrol from 1e Cuirassiers around 1814 seem to be somewhat longer than the 1812 regulation…

But on the other hand, the ones on the right-hand figure in the top-centre image here are as short as anything:

link

4. The sword is often worn on a diagonal shoulder-belt.

The fact that the cuirassiers didn't really use their cartridge-boxes and the associated shoulder-belts is well-known. Less well-known is the fact that they put their swords on the shoulder-belt instead!

We know that 3e Cuirassiers had converted their shoulder-belts into swordbelts in 1801, and their April 1804 regimental regulations envisaged the troopers' swords being worn diagonally over the shoulder for dismounted parade. Mounted full-dress had them round the waist, but without the cuirass; how they wore them with the cuirass on campaign isn't specified.

In July 1805, a report on 5e Cuirassiers referred to the problem of the end of the scabbard dragging on the ground when dismounted cuirassiers had the belt worn diagonally (le centurion en sautoir).

In January 1812, an inspection noted that 4e Cuirassiers had used their shoulder-belts to "repair" their sword-belts way back before they obtained their armour in 1804, and regarded the fact that nearly a quarter of the regiment's sword-belts couldn't be worn over the shoulder as a problem needing fixed.

Was this purely a dismounted way of wearing the belt? By implication, a shoulder-carry brought the sword lower and probably further forward, which would stop the hilt knocking against the armour in the saddle.

5. The red-and-white fabric trim around the edge of the cuirass is non-regulation.

The strip of red fabric with white edging used as trim around the edge of the cuirass (garniture) was actually part of the seventeenth-century armour pattern of the 8e Cuirassiers – they also kept their plain leather straps, taking the view that no-one had cut through them at Rocroi, Fontenoy or Lutterberg. In the inspections of 1808, we know that 1e, 2e, 5e and 6e had imitated the practice, but nothing is said for the other regiments. 3e had certainly followed suit by 1812, but overspent on their allocated budget, and were reminded that the trim wasn't actually regulation in the first place.

How widely was this actually used? Contemporary full-dress portraits show the trim, sometimes in fairly spectacular quantities, but it's a lot harder to spot on the occasional images of ordinary cuirassiers. The Martinet print of 1808 doesn't have any unambiguous indication of trim – there's a hint of lining of some sort at the bottom, but nothing at the arms or neck. Nor is anything visible in this sketch, which seems to be a Géricault study of an actual cuirassier (possibly even from 8e Cuirassiers, with their traditional plain shoulderstraps):

Was the trim something that was often just used for parade, or by officers who were buying their own armour?

6. The cloak didn't have a shoulder-cape until 1812, and didn't get sleeves until even later.

The regulation heavy cavalry cloak (manteau) was basically a big ice-grey wigwam that was designed to cover both the trooper and the horse he was riding in bad weather, and could be quickly converted into an actual one-person wigwam with a pole and a few tent-pegs; see here for a diagram:

link

As you can see, this did not have a shoulder-cape – that was only authorised for dragoons (whose cloak was probably shortened to provide the material).

The only primary image I know of a Napoleonic cuirassier's cloak down to 1812, showing a trooper of Arrighi's division (7e Cuirassiers?) in 1809, still doesn't have a shoulder-cape:

The regulation cape also had three pair of Brandenburgs across the front, but I don't know of any primary evidence for these continuing to be worn.

The 1812 regulations, standardising equipment across the heavy cavalry, did specify a shoulder-cape, and formalised the cut a little, but what was regulated was basically an even larger version of the existing horse-and-rider-wigwam design, which looked a little odd with the shoulder-cape thrown back to wrap the thing around:

The adoption of a sleeved cloak (manteau avec manches) was ordered in February 1813, and a regulation pattern was promulgated in April 1813. This was, again, a modernised version of the traditional ice-grey horse-and-rider cloak, now with sleeves, an enlarged shoulder-cape and a more fitted structure, but even longer front-and-back – based on a design that had been used by the Chevau-Légers since 1811, but not quite identical in cut to theirs, and very different from the proper greatcoat (capote).

There are references to a report in July 1813 objecting to the recent replacement of the cloak with the greatcoat (capote) but given how rapidly this follows the regulation, I suspect this may relate to a non-regulation issue of actual greatcoats, rather than the new sleeved cloaks – something like this had happened with 2e Cuirassiers a lot earlier as well. But whatever they were, they didn't make nearly such good wigwams.

7. Overalls don't seem to have been popular.

Ankle-length overalls buttoned over the boots (surculottes) were part of the standardized equipment mandated for French heavy cavalry in 1812, and are generally said to have been popular with cuirassiers for some time before this. I'd be interested to know what evidence there is for this, because the one specific reference I know of, dating from 1814, praises a regiment for not using them at all.

Overalls would not have been terribly practical over the knee-pad of the cuirassiers' boots, and the pre-1812 references I've found to ankle-length pantalons indicate tight trousers worn inside the boot – in 1810, 4e, 6e, 7e and 8e were all using white suede ones, while 6e had woolen cloth trousers of similar cut for undress. 10e Cuirassiers bought woollen trousers of this type instead of regulation overalls in 1812, and when this was queried during an audit, the official response from the Ministry of War was that they looked much better than the overalls and ought to be imitated by all the cavalry.

The regulation sheepskin breeches admittedly do not seem to have been very popular either, as they wore out quite fast, were difficult to keep dry without drying out, and could split open embarrassingly when straddling a horse, but nonetheless I know of no evidence for their widespread replacement much before the regiments rotated back to French depots in 1810.

8. The charge did not look like we might think

Here's the real thing, done by the real thing, 7e Cuirassiers, in front of the Lumière brothers in 1896:

YouTube link

I'm not sure what the skirmish line pushed up in front is for (I suspect that's a post-1815 modification) but the rest is absolutely classic – two rows deep, not quite literally knee-to-knee, but I'm pretty sure that they could tap boots if they wanted to, they have their sabres forward in the front rank, raised overhead in the second rank, and they retain formation and control remarkably well all through the charge…

Here's a slightly rougher version by the modern Garde Republicane:

YouTube link

Some parts of this look very by-the-book, with the four trumpeters off to the right, and the file-closers at the rear who move up into the formation as they move forward – but, presumably because they lack much practice, the line gets very uneven the moment they start to pick up speed, and for some reason, there's a second line at the back which makes no sense at all – are they just there to frame the manoeuvre more neatly in the proportions of a film…?

And here's the famous movie version from Le Colonel Chabert:

YouTube link

They're drawn up at least five ranks deep, and the charge gets very untidy as they go forward – again, this is the work of untrained cavalry, and is probably designed to fill the camera, and the overall effect is superb – but this is not how the formation really worked. Watch the Lumière clip again to see how trained troopers on trained mounts perform.

All that said… I'm new here, so, if you want to disagree with any of the above – you're encouraged to do so!!

Great discussion – lots to digest – thanks for posting! Cuirassiers are my favourite French cavalry bar none

Great post,

I am no master on uniforms, but Rousselot seems to show shortened lapels, granted this is painted much later.

Here are some portraits showing the sword belt over the right shoulder for this Major. Sadly this isn't a portrait of an trooper or NCO.

Colonel Michel François de Sistrières de Murat 9e Cuiassiers 1811-1813 in full dress

An interesting way of wearing the double breasted tunic from a Chef d'escadron for the 10e Cuirassiers in 1805.

Chef d'escadron 12e Cuirassiers in a surtout?

Portrait of an Officer 7e Cuirassiers

This is interesting picture showing how different types of cavalry would like in their cloaks. Seems to be post 1811 with the Lancers and Carabiners in helmets.

Do you have documents with your references to inspections? I am working on the Battle of Thann in 1809 and would be interested in finding out uniform details of the Cuirassiers that were attached to Marshal Davout's 3rd Corps. I couldn't find it, but there is a great portrait of the Scherb brothers who both served as Cuirassier officers wearing a single breasted coat similiar to the officer of the 12e above. This is a copy of the portrait of Chef d' Escadron Igace-Leopold-Elysee Scherb 11e Curiassiers 1806-1810.

Michael

Have you a copy of Paul L Dawson's Napoleon's Waterloo Army? He has researched details of equipment and cloth holdings in 1814 and 1815. The sections on the reserve cavalry corps may
fill in some of the later detail you are looking for?

Page 120 in Soldiers and Uniforms of Napoleonic Wars by Francois-Guy Hourtoulle states in an inspection by General Doumerc of the 4e Cuirassiers in Hamburg on 25 Januarary 1812 that, " I noticed that the whole regiment had overcoats instead of short coats; I do not know which is to be considered as the uniform. What is certain is that two-thirds of the Cuirassier Regiments are wearing short coats and the other third is wearing overcoats. This point could do with clearing up, so as thus to bring a bit of regularity into this part of the uniform."

Cartridge-Cases: "One thing which surprised me was to see this regiment without cartridge cases and nothing to hold their cartridges. The Squadron Commander commanding the regiment told me that they had NEVER had any, ever since this Corps of Cuirassiers had been created. Their shoulder straps had been used to repair the sword-belts; Heavens knows what has happened to the actual cases."

@MarbotChasseurs

Dawson records the 4th having 115 gibernes when inspected in August 1814 and by 1815 443 were on issue during the 100 days leaving 446 still in the stores at disbandment.

About the donnation of the eagles, seemingly the artist did use uniforms of a later period than 1804 – infantry officers with shakos?
In case you have the painting in total – it would be a good idea to show here.
The Prussian cuirassiers had in 1806 very short coat tails, this is confirmed by surviving original tunics.

@MarbotsChasseurs
"Overcoat" is probably a translation for: "surtout". Here it's better translated as: "frock".

Indeed, in the original French text it is surtout, frock coat seems to be a better translation than overcoat which is quite misleading.

Would make more sense. Thank you for the clarification. It seems from the portraits we have available, a large number of officers had their portrait done wearing the surtout instead of full dress.

@von Winterfeldt

A "frock coat" is a full skirted coat as is still used today by some British officers on ceremonial occasions.

A undress tail coat is a "frock".

OK I've read and listened…

"classic double-breasted uniform coat"

Well thats a fail at first foot step.
The habit is not double-breasted at all.
The lapels, an external cloth of facing colour (usually) stitched to the inner lining (just like the rest of the garment) were joined at mid-chest by hooks and eyes. The buttons on French uniforms purely decorative. There was no 'double layer' as the purported description suggests. More…

"interesting way of wearing the double breasted tunic"

Again, it's not.
That looks more like a Germanic design (Wurttemburgisch?) than French. Certainly never seen in French uniform sources anywhere, or simply an artistic error of grand proportions. Perhaps he popped over the border to a better tailor for it?

Like the scarlet cloth with white trim borders on cuirasses- perhaps not regulation (is everythin?) yet 'standard component'. His non-regulation white plume also, being a humble CdE only, not etat-major du regiment?

About the donnation of the eagles, seemingly the artist did use uniforms of a later period than 1804 – infantry officers with shakos?

Nothing new here. The paintings of note were painstakingly commissioned and completed over several years, not to mention copied by 'student artists' under the artistes hands and eyes a number of times for multiple important buildings and scenes.

Military-civilian fashion changes came into play very quickly as much as 'sensitive' PR to demonstrate the dynamic change to society etc.

As I've pointed out in my Historical Paintings thread, anachronisms exist aplenty- Guard Dragoon officer @ Ulm capitualtion etc. Officers get dressed in their 'upgraded' status often, just as many post-period portraits are done in the most senior of their roles.

Here it's better translated as: "frock".

A 'frock' in English parlance is a womans dress, in my 60 year history of usage and learning English. Therefore an adjective qualifier is required as well. Otherwise "I'm wearing my frock today" would mean… [nasty_thoughts__] …

It is both unnecessary and unwise to translate every piece of an articulated language into a 'plain English' form. They literally don't work often.

Completely, utterly unncessary. Many, many foreign language words exist in the English vernacular dictionary for centuries at least.

Cartouche is an example- completely unncessary to make it a 'cartridge case' as no such item exists in the period that I know of from years of reading (modern name yes). And yes I call BS on the statement about them.
Why one regiment of a noted corps would be different to all others I don't understand.
If they did not have cartouche, where were their pistol ammunitions kept. At the bottom of their holsters perhaps?

regards d

Does anyone have the French version of Soldiers and Uniforms of Napoleonic Wars by Francois-Guy Hourtoulle so we can see what words were actually used?

Just a couple of observations as I try to digest all this, for which I am thankful.

1. Surtout, frock and overcoat are three different garments.

2. The classic French lapelled jacket is not "double breasted." It's a common mistake, driven by the two rows of buttons on the lapels. But those buttons don't hold the jacket closed. They only hold back the lapels. The jackets were held closed by hooks and eyes down the middle of the SINGLE BREASTED jacket.

First, thanks to everyone for those replies… the original French of the 1812 report on 4e Cuirassiers is online here:

link

Short version, for "overcoats" read surtout, for "short coats" read habit court (this is the source for only one-third of the regiments being in the surtout by that date, and at least one of them retaining the habit in addition).

I tend to leave surtout untranslated, not least because I'm looking for more clarity about what the term actually describes (and just to be confusing, both Coignet and Barres use frac – however you want to translate that – rather than surtout, for their Imperial Guard uniform)…

Some specific replies:

Frederick – thank you for the kind words!

MarbotsChasseurs – oh, those portraits are incredibly useful.

The full-length of the officer from 10e Cuirassiers in particular is wonderfully unexpected – but this raises all kinds of new questions, and ties in to some things other people have said, so I'll discuss this separately below…

The officers in single-breasted uniforms are also very useful to show that sort of thing did exist – the challenge is identifying what is actually a regulation surtout, what's an 1812 habit-veste (or even a post-1815 one!), and what's something more fanciful – the picture at the end of your reply was the one I was referring to, with the spectacularly high waistline and no sign of a waistcoat – but doesn't seem to closely match any of the regulations.

The internet tells me that the cloaks are meant to show what was worn Dresden in late 1812 (you may know this already); the cuirassier ones certainly look largely appropriate – the short shoulder-cape and the lack of a vent at the back to let the cloak flank the horse's tail are both characteristic of the heavy cavalry type in the February 1812 regulations, whereas the new pattern promulgated in April 1813 added sleeves and an enlarged shoulder-cape and I think restored the vent at the back; but the persistently facing-coloured shoulder-capes don't conform to the regulation, and there may be some other interesting discrepancies for other units (the French chevau-légers should have sleeves and a larger shoulder-cape)…

If you're looking for information on St-Sulpice's division around 1809 (1e, 5e, 10e and 11e régiments), their 1808 inspection is summarised in an article which appeared in Carnet de la Sabretache in 1904-1905. Here's the direct link to the relevant passage:

link

But to summarise – everyone has regimental coats (habits), no-one has surtouts; waistcoats are described both as as vestes or gilets, which I think means some are horizontal-waisted, and possibly blue; sheepskin breeches, cloaks, stable-jacket, forage-caps, a full inventory of cartridge-boxes with their belts, but in at least two regiments these are very miscellaneous (presumably Austrian or Prussian); shabraques on the saddles; only 1er and 5e indicate cuirass-trim or long gauntlets, and the other two regiments were a little short of gloves. General complaints about equipment obtained in Germany and Austria – in addition the horses of 10e were too small, 11e were short of epaulettes, 10e and 11e had reduced their facing-colour cloak-lining to a single side.

Handlebarbleep – "Napoleon's Waterloo Army" sounds very extremely useful, if they're listing things like the number of gibernes. The only question is whether they actually took them on campaign… the 443 on issue and the 445 in store seem to be within a copying error of being the same number…

von Winterfeldt – there's a full-scale pic of the painting on Wikipedia, which is also where the detail is from. I hadn't originally realised that the pics would post up as images rather than links:

link

Thanks for confirming that Prussian tails are that short that early, too!

DrsRob – as you say, "overcoat" is for surtout in the 1812 report. But how much the surtout looked like the close-waisted tailcoat we envisage, is the quesion I'm not clear about…

SHaT1984, Widowson – thanks to you both for the thoughtful replies. I'm vaguely aware that by the Napoleonic period, the infantry coat was designed so that the lapels couldn't be shut (though you both seem to know more than I do about the details of construction)… but in the underlying 1786 regulations, the coat was genuinely double-breasted, and the lapels were actually supposed to be able to be buttoned across…

… and that relates to the whole question of what the cuirassiers actually wore (this part is thus a general response)…

That odd-looking uniform worn by the officer of 10e Cuirassiers is actually a version of the original 1786 pattern coat – the three buttons below the right lapel were supposed to button across, and the lapels themselves, while usually fastened open, were also supposed to be capable of closing across; but I couldn't envisage how that was supposed to look until MarbotsChasseurs shared that pic, and certanly didn't expect something resembling that pattern to still be in service as late as 1805.

So, a new question: how much did this style continued to be used…?

As noted above, there wasn't a formal revision of the uniform pattern until some time in 1804/1805, and we don't know what that new design actually was, or how much it was followed in detail…

I'd assumed that the new official pattern followed the contemporary infantry cut fairly closely, as seen in some of the other pics… but I don't know for sure, and I don't know how much those curved lapels could be puled shut…

… but the Dutch cuirassiers certainly wore something with practical lapels, albeit with just six pairs of buttons and none below the lapels – the two pictures here show the style worn shut and open:

I don't know enough about Dutch uniforms to know if this is typical of their wider patterns.

But is this sort of thing what the Suhr image of 1e Cuirassiers in Hamburg actually shows?!

And this would make what 7e Cuirassiers seem to have been doing into something a little more… mainstream…?

Thanks again for all the replies. Thoughts – and disagreement – are encouraged!

AFAIAA the only genuinely double-breasted coat worn in this era was the Russian style seen in both the Russian and Prussian armies. This was double-breasted in exactly the modern sense, in that you placed the right hand side across your front and the left hand side across that, overlapping it by about a hand's breadth. Two rows of buttons marked where the edges were, one edge of course being mostly out of sight under the other.

As others have noted, apparently double-breasted coats usually weren't. Usually, they had centre fastenings and wide lapels in a facing or other contrasting colour. These lapels could, sometimes, either be folded back from the middle towards the shoulders to make what was called a "plastron" front, or folded over to one side to show just an edge in the facing colour. This arrangement didn't actually secure the coat any differently though.

In other cases, I am sure I once saw in a museum an other-ranks' plastron-fronted coat in which the lapels were actually false – just panels of material stitched directly to the coat so they could not in fact be folded over at all.

Habit de cuirasse, 12e Cuirassiers

Museum of the 1812 Patriotic War, Moscow

link

Habit de cuirasse, 7e Cuirassiers

Auction of arms and armour, Saumur, France

link

Habit de cuirasse, 1er Cuirassiers,

Osenat auction house France

(The image enlarges well)

link

Citing 20 year old 'dress regulation' is hardly credible 'evidence' that any Napoleonic era uniforms were the same. False buttons/ buttonholes were/ are 'en vogue' for centuries now and are no indicator of actual usage/ wearability.

No, the Suhr image is a naive drawing at best and doesn't show accurate uniform components, least of all 1813 style. The partly displayed lapels are clearly still curved á la habit ~1806 and not squared off Bardin or the previous regimes 20+ year old plans for clothing.

Clearly this illustration of 'under siege' troops wearing an earlier style shows the lack of application of 'regulations', waiting till equipment and clothing were beyond repair and use etc.

And I see surtout/ fracs on 3 of the portraits- why can't you?
No lapels = NOT an 'habit' (pron: _aB-BEE).

Again I see the common fallacy and failing that there is 'one golden answer' to all the great mysteries of the era.

Cavalry didn't wear infantry greatcoats or such styles. It would be impossible to mount let alone ride comfortable and be free to use arms in such things. The loose capotes, with or without capes are generally vague. Officers may well have embellished designs. The 'cape' portions were deregulated IIRC at some point, but unofficially officers who paid for their own uniforms stuck to 'style'.

Of note- the Emperors escort (close guard) was ordered to wear c1803 (Bucquoy cf) just the cape in order to show 'who was coming' and not the full garment. (NB- the 'cape' in this early design was a detachable, and therefore wearable, addition to the capote- hence the manner of use in this specific circumstance).

The frac was an even simpler version of the surtout, lacking adornments and in plain cloth usually, even metallic trimmings minimised or non-existent (like shoulder strap holders etc).
The surtout was defined as the 'undress' or casual uniform coat; specifically to be worn on 'fatigues' or non-ceremonial/ non-guard duty but still 'in public'.

While the habit changed style (fuller, complete, tighter fitting over time) these second dress components were adopted in the field as much more for comfort than necessity or regulation.
(As an example, the oft-cited 'adoption of the shako' recommended by Junot (1802?) also included replacing slovenly, drooping collars with stiff, upstanding red ones (it seems red may not have been the most common colour as it was specified in the replacements) were stitched/ repaired on habits, neck stocks changed to black only issue, and hair- the trimming of hair from 'republican locks' to short hair, shaved and no more queues to powder- all 'enhancements' yet taken by a General in charge, not the government or decrees. And yes, the sloppy old revolutionary bicornes, replaced at least starting with the 'Unified'(1802) Grenadiers of the Reserve (1804). Even went as far as citing new bonnets de police were to be made with the tails of worn out habits (ie being replaced). An event no known as up-cycling! Fancy!

@ Tassie nice pics. I'd never noticed that overlapped cuff flap position myself until the Russian model, which made me nervous. I will have to inspect my slides more carefully for that.

The latter is mistitled, as he's an NCO/ Mareschal-de-logis not sous-officier. Still a nice buy if you can afford it!
regards d

4th Cuirassier – I'd agree that there were plenty of examples of coats which could only be clip-fastened, but there are plenty of examples of genuinely buttonable ones as well.

For example, here's a senior Vistula Legion officer with his kurtka buttoned up:

Here are some Vernet sketches of British officers in 1814, showing their lapels buttoned across (in line with their 1811 regulations):

link

link

And anyone who has Luis Sorando Muzás' recent book on Joseph's Spanish army might want to check out the portrait of the horse artillery officer on p. 237, with his lapels buttoned across…

Tassie – obviously I'm not saying there were no single-breasted cuirassier uniforms (there are plenty of portraits and surviving examples), just that the official design kept being changed (1786, c. 1805, 1809, 1812) and the inspection reports suggests their use by ordinary troopers was very limited until at least 1812… so that seems to make establishing exactly what we're looking at important.

For example, the caption in that first pic says that's an infantry sergeant-major's uniform of 12e Ligne during the Second Restoration! Is that just wildly wrong?

SHaT1984 – see my reply above to Tassie for my thoughts on single-breasted uniforms.

As to the double-breasted uniform, I'm not just citing the 1786 regulation, which already described a coat more fastened-up than the infantry version:

… les habits seront tenus assez longs pour que agrafés et boutonnés dans toute leur longueur…. Ceux de la Cavalerie seront tenus assez larges pour povoir en agrafer les revers et les boutonner par dessus la cuirasse qui sera portée sur la veste. ("… the coats should be cut long enough to be clip-fastened and buttoned down their entire length…. Those of the Cavalerie should be cut loose enough to clip-fasten the lapels and button them on top of the breastplate, which should be worn on top of the waistcoat." – link)

… but also pointing to the very short 1803 regulation, which revised that regulation now that the armour went on top:

Les régiments de cavalerie qui deviennent cuirassiers conserveront le fond de leur uniform. On y fera seulement le changement de coupe que comporte l'arme des cuirassiers ("The regiments of cavalerie which are to become cuirassiers shall retain the essentials of their uniform. They shall make only the changes of cut appropriate to the arm(our) of cuirassiers" – link)

… and to the 1805 portrait which MarbotsChasseurs linked, which shows a coat entirely in line with those regulations.

I thoroughly agree with you that the practice can diverge wildly from the regulation (the near-total lack of troopers' regulation surtouts reported in 1809 and 1812 is an excellent example of this!!), or even willfully tie the regulation into knots (the 1803 regulation was interpreted as allowing turnback grenades and red epaulettes!)… that is exactly why I was raising the whole topic…

Personally, I find the fact that the 1786 and 1803 regulations, the 1805 portrait, the 1806 Dutch design, and the Suhr pic are all in agreement about the lapels fastening to the waist quite intriguing (to say nothing of the indications of 1786-pattern uniforms in 7e Cuirassier) – though I agree with you that that falls far short of proof… and I'm very conscious that a new pattern was issued in July 1805, and we don't seem to know exactly what those look like!

Incidentally, those 1e Cuirassier troopers in Hamburg had marched straight from their depot at Metz in May 1813 – their commanding officer wrote a rather good set of memoirs:

link

And can you point me towards a contemporary definition of the difference between the habit, the surtout and the frac in uniform terms? The distinction you describe was what I thought I knew before I started on this Napoleonic kick (blame that book on Joseph's army, and my desire to improve my Spanish)… but I've found all kinds of terms being used in ways I didn't expect, and a frustrating lack of precise evidence on pre-1812 patterns and regulations…

That said, thanks to everyone who's replied (at least some of you guys know far more than me about this stuff in general – I hope my honesty in replying doesn't hide the respect!), and once again, you're all welcome to disagree – or to keep disagreeing!!

Hi PassingScotsman,
The habit in Moscow really is that of a trooper of the 12e Cuirassiers. It was reviewed and examined in Tradition Magazine, no. 144, on pages 34 to 35.
(I've no idea why that particular Russian website has given the habit that crazy description!)

I've researched for many years in the archives at Vincennes in Paris, studying the original inspection returns for the Cuirassiers and Carabiniers in the first Empire, using only documents written up and signed off between 1803 and 1815.

It's clear from looking at these documents, that a new single breasted habit was introduced during 1803, but as late as 1807, some regiments were still using cavalerie habits, (with long tails and coloured lapels) the last of which would have been issued as new just before the Austerlitz campaign. If a trooper had just received one of these, then he couldn't expect to receive a habit of the new pattern until his existing one had been worn for it's expected duration, or unless it was declared hors de service (beyond repair) owing to damage and/or excessive wear and tear.

The Vincennes documents include how many metres of cloth each regiment has used for making habits, between, say, 1805 and 1807, as well as how many buttons and of which size.

From this information, it's possible to calculate whether the new habits made were single breasted (less cloth required for regimental facings, and with seventeen large and only eight small buttons) or habits à revers (greater use of regimental facings cloth required for lapels, and only 11 large but with 22 small buttons).

The inspector general who reviewed the 3e Cuirassiers in 1804 notes that "not all the habits are yet of the new model," so we can deduce that there is still a mix of habits with lapels and the single breasted habit de cuirasse.

Please note that the latter should not be confused with the surtout. Both are single breasted, but the latter was much simpler in design and cut, and hence cheaper, lacking piping, cuff flaps or false pockets on the tails, etc.

The regimental orders of the day for the 3e Cuirassiers, written in 1804 by Colonel de Preval and published by Magimel in 1806 makes it clear that the habit was only to be worn with a cuirass, and that the surtout on all occasions when the gilet d'écurie wasn't required.

However, this was, in effect, a peacetime luxury, before the heavy cavalry regiments left their depots for the 1805 campaign.

The Cuirassier regiments didn't return to their depots until 1809, being quartered in Germany and Austria throughout this period, which made replenishment of habits a very haphazard affair.

Undoubtedly, local tailors and uniform manufacturers would have been subcontracted in Germany to make habits for any French colonel who decided it was easier to get them made there than from France, 500 miles away. I've got copies of original documents from German uniform outfitters on this very point.

Fewer and fewer surtouts were made after 1806, as the colonels found trying to balance their regimental accounts on campaign extremely challenging.

The predominant garment worn throughout the 1805 to 1815 period was the single breasted habit, as decreed in 1803. It was known in Cuirassier regiments as the habit de cuirasse. It remained in use, changing only a little in the depth of its front and the length of its tails, to mirror the evolution of civilian fashion.

The example in Moscow is from the early Empire, as can be determined by the depth of its front and the general "fit" as it were.

The Bardin habit, described in 1812, is merely a confirmation of the 1803 regulation, brought up to date as regards cut and military fashion, and with the introduction of the new facing colours rose and aurore.

There were indeed some regiments that continued to conserve their old habits à revers (most probably with shortened tails, a simple job for the regimental tailor) because there was no point in discarding perfectly serviceable uniform clothing during wartime, but by Wagram, such garments were becoming decidedly rare.

Once considered hors de service, the older habits would be literally cut up to be made into bonnets de police (as decreed in 1786 and again in An X) by the regimental master tailor, as nothing was wasted.

So, to conclude, the garment worn by the vast majority of the Cuirassier regiments was the single breasted habit de cuirasse, with habits à revers being the old cavalerie habits, the last brand new ones being issued from stores just before Austerlitz.

Hope that helps.

For anyone interested in accessing the original documents at Vincennes (when the lockdown is over!) here are the file box references for the regiments I researched on my last research visit there:

1er Cuirassiers 1801-15, Xc95
3e Cuirassiers 1804-15, Xc99
4e Cuirassiers 1801-15, Xc100
6e Cuirassiers 1803-15, Xc104
8e Cuirassiers 1801-15, Xc108
9e Cuirassiers 1803-15, Xc110
10e Cuirassiers 1803-15, Xc112

And here's the link to reserving the file boxes to view in person:

link

Tassie – thanks for that very detailed reply. This is the sort of response that I was hoping someone might give (including, as ever, the parts that don't agree with what I'm saying!)…

So, a question:

Is there evidence that a new pattern of uniform coat was actually officially introduced in 1803? The impression I got from the published documents (primarily in J. Margerand's 1904 Carnet de la Sabretache article, though Desbrière and Sautai's La Cavalerie pendant la Révolution provides useful context) is that the idea of an 1803 uniform is essentially an error – this was a proposal that was being kicked around, but (like the associated proposals for bronzed helmets and individual regimental facing colours) was not actually implemented.

And, at least according to the modern reprints of the text (in both Margerand and Bucquoy), the 1804 internal regulation for 4e Cuirassiers actually specifies the habit without the cuirass for troopers in mounted grande tenue. Officers are specified the habit with the cuirass when mounted (though regimental records show that their cuirasses hadn't actually arrived yet), but the habit without the cuirass in dismounted grande tenue (where the troopers wear the surtout). So two out of three times the habit is specified, no cuirass is worn.

Benigni/Bucquoy inferred that the 4e Cuirassiers' habit was single-breasted without lapels, essentially on the basis that the lanyard of the officer's swagger-stick is to be attached to the "third button" on parade, without specifying a lapel – but with the swagger-stick tucked under the left arm, a lapel button would seem a lot more convenient to me (and it's blindingly obvious the thing won't be fastened on the right!)…

So, I hope you can see why I said in my opener that the idea of an 1803-pattern single-breasted habit "appears to be an error"…? A set of abandoned uniform proposals and an imprecise note in a regimental regulation on which button the swagger-stick lanyard goes on do not amount to a lot of evidence… whereas the September 1803 regulation specified only a change of cut rather than design.

We do know from inspection reports that a new pattern of habit and surtout existed by July 1805, and these are presumably the ones whose material is delineated in the column for old pattern uniforms approved in "1806 and earlier" in the 1812 Masses d'Habilliment handbook: the habit is allocated a fairly modest quantity of blue cloth – 1m 50cm per habit compared with 2m 03cm for the dragoons and carabiniers – but the exact same allocation of buttons, facing cloth and lining (11 large and 22 small buttons, 23 cm of facing cloth, 3m 26cm of facing-coloured cadis, and 89cm of toile); the surtout allocation is identical to the dragoon and carabinier ones – 1m 73 cm of blue cloth, 3m 26cm of cadis, 89cm of toile, and still the 1786 allocation of just eight large and two small buttons.

The same source indciates that the cuirassiers' 1809 grande tenue surtout (only actually adopted by three or four regiments, according to an 1812 report) had twelve large and six small buttons (I have no idea how these would be arranged), and the pattern with seventeen large and eight small only shows up in the column for the 1812 uniform.

But then there's the unpublished material, which is obviously the best guide to what was really worn…

And if you're saying that there's a weight of documentary evidence clearly and consistently specifying single-breasted habits for troopers as well as officers, including the "1812" arrangement of buttons, then that's pretty conclusive evidence… I'd imagine that the button allocation would be the clincher here, but I completely understand if you don't want to divulge the details of your own hard work at random on the internet…

But given what the published sources actually say, coupled with the (unexpected) evidence of the 1805 portait, the Dutch uniforms and the Suhr print all pointing in the same direction, I hope you can see why I've been saying what I've been saying?!

Tassie,

Sorry to take over the thread for a quick minute, but can you get document scanned and sent to you as well or only for in person viewing?

Hi MarbotsChasseurs,
You can email the SHD at Vincennes to request photocopies of documents, although you need to know in which box file you wish the staff to look through on your behalf.
The photocopying charges are actually quite reasonable.
Hope that helps.

Passing Scotsman,
Do you have an email address to which I could send you some original Cuirassier documents?
Forgive me for asking on a public forum.

The 12e Cuirassier habit in Moscow is a perfect example of the 1803 habit de cuirass, and its cut suggests early Empire manufacture.

The 12 large buttons and 6 small buttons are (in theory) for the habit surtout, c.1809-10.
The buttons were arranged as follows:
10 large buttons down the front
2 large buttons on the back, to mark the centre of the waist
2 small buttons on each cuff (no flap)
1 on each epaulette.

However, there's only one example of this garment existing, which is an officer's example, at Musée de l'Empéri, at Salon-de-Provence. It has yellow collar and cuffs, and has buttons for the 7e Cuirassiers.
A photo of it is shown on page 202 of the book, Les Tresors de l'Empéri.

I haven't seen any evidence that this item was ever manufactured for the rank and file.

Tassie – Quite all right to ask, and thanks again for the answers this far.

I've quickly set up a disposable spam-bin – cuirassierquestions at gmail – so if you bounce me an e-mail there, I'll reply from a real address!

That button-pattern makes sense (odd cuffs – simplest explanation). I'd taken that to be the unpopular and generally unused surtout from the 1812 report discussed earlier in the thread – 4e Cuirassiers and about three other regiments are supposed to have had them, but maybe they were really using something else…

I'll email you later this evening :-)

Email sent, Passing Scotsman :-)

Email received, Tassie – thank you!!

very interesting discussion

Benigni/Bucquoy inferred that the 4e Cuirassiers' habit was single-breasted without lapels, essentially on the basis that the lanyard of the officer's swagger-stick is to be attached to the "third button" on parade, without specifying a lapel – but with the swagger-stick tucked under the left arm, a lapel button would seem a lot more convenient to me (and it's blindingly obvious the thing won't be fastened on the right!)…

The French officers did not carry a swagger stick as in the sense of British Army NOCs, neither did the NCOs, it was a stick as sort of sign of being an officer or an adjudant sous officier (officially issued with one whereas, according to my knowledge officers and other NCOs just carried it due to prestige, in battle usually not worn – with the exception of adjudant sous officier) – in case it slips off being tucked under the arm, it would fall in the middle of the body and between the legs.

The 12 large buttons and 6 small buttons are (in theory) for the habit surtout, c.1809-10.
The buttons were arranged as follows:
10 large buttons down the front
2 large buttons on the back, to mark the centre of the waist
2 small buttons on each cuff (no flap)
1 on each epaulette.

So no cuff flaps but just a round cuff – just in blue or facing colour? also in case of only 12 large buttons – no pockets on the coat tails as well?

but the exact same allocation of buttons, facing cloth and lining (11 large and 22 small buttons, 23 cm of facing cloth, 3m 26cm of facing-coloured cadis, and 89cm of toile); the surtout allocation is identical to the dragoon and carabinier ones – 1m 73 cm of blue cloth, 3m 26cm of cadis, 89cm of toile, and still the 1786 allocation of just eight large and two small buttons.

22 small buttons, would be three on each cuff flaps, 7 on each lapel, one on each shoulder for the epaulette, 11 large ones, two at the rear waist, 3 on each pocket – but where to place the other 3 (as for infantry beneath the right lapel??)

and still the 1786 allocation of just eight large and two small buttons

Which would give 6 buttons at the front and two at the rear waist and two for the shoulder straps (initially) and later epaulettes, but what is with the cuffs?

Von Winterfeldt – interesting replies too!

* The 4e Cuirassier regulation for the use of the canne specifically pertains to commissioned officers in full dress on foot, à la tête de la troupe, which I'd imagine would largely be a parade/drill thing. I have a bad habit of confusing people when I try to keep explanations simple – but I didn't intend to carry across any British Army semantics by using "swagger stick" as a translation.

Ther 4e's regulations did allow the use of the canne uniforme to some NCOs, and imply that some troopers would have carried them if they could – I'd imagine this would be for walking-out-dress, but I could find out very little about the use of the canne in the Grande Armée.

link

* Yes, I took the number of buttons listed for the habit to indicate an arrangement essentially identical to the infantry, based on what the dragoons and carabiniers appear to have worn.

* The button placement on the surtout in the 1786 regulations is decidedly odd – no buttons on the cuffs or rear waist, two small ones on the shoulders for the epaulettes… and the eight large buttons are all down the front: one at the neck, two in the middle, three lower down. I'd have thought they'd just button the two middle ones, but this isn't how they're shown in reconstructions (or the only primary image I've found, a 1779 sketch for a hussar interpretation which was rejected in favour of a chasseur tunic).

The original pattern was plain blue without pockets, turnbacks or lining. Some time before 1805 a lining in the facing colour was added (mentioned in both inspection reports and the Masse d'Habillement), but the allocation of buttons remained the same.

No idea how this related to what was actually worn in practice, though!!

My maths is terrible. As Von Winterfeldt and others may have alread noticed, one plus two plus three is not eight. There were indeed six buttons on the front (albeit oddly arranged) and two sur les hanches, in the 1786 regulations for the surtout… as he said in the first place…

>>the cuirassiers' 1809 grande tenue surtout

Blather. No such article- the surtout, by its nature, was not, never, ever a 'full dress' item. It was a plainer coat, for second-non-public duties or 'after hours' wear. The phrase is ridiculous and perhaps source shows ignorance of it.

Further, on the basic coat, here's a a dated article by someone who appears to know and be able to interpret stuff pretty well:

c'est peut-être un rappel pour certains, mais j'aime bien lorsqu'on parle de quelque chose, que l'on utilise le terme exact. Cela permet surtout de savoir de quoi l'on parle.

Leçon n° 1 : L'habit veste.

Il s'agit du vétement qui constitue la partie voyante de l'habit uniforme. Pour la période qui nous concerne il est réglementé par le réglement de 1786. Il est également appelé habit à la française, par opposition au règlement de 1772 qui avait imposé un uniforme de coupe étriquée inspirée par la mode prussienne.

Donc cet habit à la française, tel qu'il est reglé en 1786 est en drap blanc pour l'infanterie de ligne française, vert pour l'infanterie légère française, bleu pour les régiments Allemands et Italiens (les Rgts Suédois sont qualifiés d'Allemands) rouge pour les Suisses et les Irlandais.
La coupe est identique pour la cavalerie; de couleur bleu pour les carabiniers, cavaliers et maréchaussée, et vert pour les dragons et les Chasseurs à cheval.

Les hussards ont leur tenue bien spécifique.

L'artillerie porte également cet uniforme, à fond bleu distingué de panne noire ( velours noir) et passepoilé d'écarlate.
Ce velours ou cette panne noire se retrouve par tradition encore de nos jours sur les épaulettes du génie.

L'habit comporte sur le devant des revers boutonnée par 7 boutons de chaque côté. Il ferme au moyen d'agrafes, droit sur la poitrine, il est échancré et découvre l'abdomen. il se termine par des basque longues appelées retroussis.
Les revers peuvent se terminer en pointe (Infanterie légère ) ou perpendiculaire au devant de l'habit, ils sont dits en carrés

Pour différencier les régiments, l'habit se distingue par une couleur appelée "couleur distinctive" ou "distinctive" que l'on retrouve au col ou collet, au bas des manches, appelées parements et sur la patte de fermeture du parement, appelée patte de parements.

Un peu d'uniformologie Paremry2
Exemple de parement droit avec sa patte de parement. Ici un sergent

Les parements sont appelés droit lorsqu'ils font le tour de la manche. En pointe lorsqu'ils affectent la forme d'un V renversé.
Les parements sont dits ouverts au-dessus, lorsque les boutons sont placés dans l'axe de la partie visible, ouvert en dessous, lorsque les boutons sont placés sur la partie externe du bras, ils ne sont donc pas visibles.
Par coquetterie le bouton du bas n'était pas fermé.

Un peu d'uniformologie Scan0001vq7
Ici nous avons un bel exemple de parements en pointe, ouverts en dessous sur un carabinier d'infanterie légère.

L'habit comprend également un petit galon fin, appelé passepoil, soit de la couleur distinctive que l'on retrouve au collet, aux parements, aux revers et aux pattes de parements lorsque ces éléments sont de la couleur du fond de l'habit, soit de la couleur du fond de l'habit lorsque le collet, les revers, les parements et leurs pattes sont de la couleur distinctive. (pour l'infanterie)

Non ! ce ne sont pas des garnitures !!!!!!!

Cet habit se verra transformé en 1793, où le fond devient bleu pour toute l'infanterie, tant légère que de ligne.
L'habit subi encore quelques variations en 1806, mais la coupe reste inchangée. (Passage du bleu au blanc, puis retour au bleu – retroussis simulés).
Il faudra attendre 1812 pour voir modifier la coupe de l'habit qui descend devant, et couvre l'abdomen, et le racourcissement des basques ou retroussis. Cet habit entrera en service en 1813 et ne subira aucune modification jusqu'à Charles X.

Corso
_________________

Source: link

There is a little more on the second page of article after a number of comments. Given Didier Davin(†) was a contributor to the forum, it appears to have some credibility.

Regards_
d

SHaT1984 – this is a complicated topic, and one I'll admit I don't fully understand.

You're right that the standard practice pre-1812 was the iconic lapel-fronted habit and a "plainer" single-breasted surtout…

… but that conventional division between habit and surtout clearly wasn't true of every type of regiment in the Grande Armée.

With regard to the cuirassiers, the short version is that the surtout certainly could be used for full dress: the 1804 regimental regulations for 3e Cuirassiers specify the surtout for NCOs' and troopers' dismounted grande tenue, and the official Masse d'Habillement handbook states that the surtout was supposed to be promoted to replace the habit across the entire corps in 1809 – I say supposed, because there's an 1812 report which shows that in practice only around four regiments adopted them, at least one of which continued using the habit simultaneously.

I also have a suspicion that the surtout was, at least sometimes, closer in concept to walking-out dress than fatigues… but that's a big topic, and one that I'm really just interested in knowing more about!!

Thanks for the reply, though!

According to an article H. Defontaine printed by La Sabretache in LE PASSEPOIL 1926 6me ANNÉE No 5 p65, the 'frac' is as logical as it appears to be in either language, defined here over a century ago, and admitting nearly as much after the pertinent subjects…

"1) "De la redingote est né le frac appelé aussi habit. – Le mot frac vient de frangere fractum (briser), et ce vêtement ne représente en effet qu'une partie ou fraction de la redingote. Au début on retroussait les pans en dehors et on les boutonnait (retroussis). C'est en Angleterre et en Amérique que l'on se mit à couper les deux pans ainsi relevés. Lorsque le frac devint à la mode, le gilet devint plus court n. – Hottenroth. L e costume, les armes, les ustensiles chez les peuples andens et modernes. Paris, Guérinet, 1885-1899, 2 vol. in-fol. av. 240 pl. en c."

A reworked translation being [please correct for inadvertent amateur mistakes]:
>>1) "From the frock coat was born the frac also called clothing. – The word frac comes from frangere fractum (break), and this garment represents only part or fraction of the 'redingcoat'. At first we rolled up the outer edges (/ turnbacks) and we cut them (retroussis). It was in England and America that the two sides were cut. When the frac became fashionable, the vest became shorter n. – Hottenroth. The costume, the weapons, the utensils among the Andean and modern peoples. Paris, Guernet, 1885-1899, 2 vol. in-fol. av. 240 pl. in c.<<

regards d

AFAIK redingote is a French corruption of the English "riding coat". Interestingly this word then came back into English, famously, as "Little Red Redingote" ("Riding Hood"), who did not in fact wear a hood at all. What big cuff-flaps you have, Grandma.

So I'd be cautious about translating redingote as "frock coat". It's credible uniformologically, but philologically, a generic riding coat was in French a redingote, and a frac was apparently an abbreviated redingote, anglicised – misleadingly – into "frock".

You get it all on TMP. Linguistic analysis and filthy double entendres. You've been a wonderful audience. I'm here all week.

The name frac/frock/rock probably has nothing to do with being a "fraction" of a larger coat, and is far older than the eighteenth-century redingote (though French frac appears to be an eighteenth-century borrowing from English, presumably because French froc had come to have the specialised meaning of "cowl").

There was a certain overlap of meaning – think of British officers' tailored frock-coats – but Napoleon's redingote gris and his frac vert de chasseur à cheval were very different items, worn one on top of the other!

(Unfortunately, I have no classy puns to offer to lighten the tone…)

You're both clearly missing the point- that an old large design was cut down and eventually 'matured' over time into a more slender model of wear, fashion or otherwise, by degree and by purpose.
Yes I forgot the corect 'redingote' as a garment descriptor.

No one has suggested that an/any actual redingote(s) got re-manufactured into it- it is a description of a staged process. If the vintage description doesn't suit for you, well…

I'm not quite sure I understand what your point is here. That process had been going on for centuries, and was complete before the Revolution. The impression I have is that the Napoleonic frac/surtout often seems to have been quite a "smart" coat.

You are, as ever, welcome to disagree!!