Talk:British Army during the Victorian Era

Title change?

What happened to the British army between 1815-1837? Perhaps this should be either expanded upon in the Napoleonic wars section or in this section. I think the term Pax Britannica might also be a bit more fitting instead of Victorian era as a title.

Also the British army made gradual minor changes throughout the era leading up to the crimean war so it wasnt as stagnated as one would think.

It isn't contested that Victoria reigned between 1837 and 1901, and great social and technological changes took place during it. "Pax Britannica" by contrast is a POV term, and ascribed to the Royal Navy, rather than the Army. "Pax" would appear to be inappropriate to the number and bloodiness of some of the wars which took place during the period. There may have been gradual changes up to 1854, but it was essentially Wellington's army, under some of Wellington's staff in the Peninsula, which went to the Crimea. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~). HLGallon (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the colonial deployments in NZ are not mentioned? These took place in the Victorian era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.22.62 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No special reason, except lack of research on my part. By all means, throw more details in. This article isn't carved in stone. HLGallon (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Size

One problem I can see with this article is size its already over 50,000 bytes and no way near finished. Would you consider splitting again ? As with the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars and British Army during World War I the British Army in India and the British Army during the Boer Wars could work.

That would remove two sections on India and the mutiny and two campaigns for the Boer wars. If we had the British Army in the Indian sub continent that could remove the Afghan wars as well.

Or just split the campaigns from the article with the British Army campaigns during the Victorian era --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article is likely to balloon if every campaign is given adequate coverage, and all social, organisational and tactical aspects are properly covered. An article on British Army campaigns during the Victorian Era would essentially consist of a list of wikilinks, with brief notes on those few campaigns which do not have their own articles. The list of wikilinks could also be included in the main article, provided that the major campaigns e.g. Anglo-Sikh Wars, or Urabi Revolt were at least discussed, in terms of their effects, and tactical aspects where relevant. An article on British Army in the Indian sub-continent sounds intriguing, though it would also have to include some discussion of the Army's service there in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. 'British Army during the Boer Wars is a little more problematical; the two wars were separated by twenty years, and much else took place in the interim. HLGallon (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Uniforms

Oddly, [article] says the British scarlet uniforms was not last worn at Gennis. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it claims proof otherwise, but then follows with a sentence which appears to be a complete non-sequitur. Cite needed. HLGallon (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

'the "bendovers"

"Some regiments nevertheless rejoiced in the nicknames of the "bloodybacks" or the "bendovers" "

One regiment in particular, the 96th , sported the nickname 'bendovers', supposedly alluding to the configuration of the regimental numerals.

Since men were flogged standing, spreadeagled with their arms above their heads, lashed to a triangular pyramid of poles (traditionally three sergeants halberds), the name is unlikely to have had any connection with corporal punishment.

JF42 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

red jackets and pelisses

The date of the adoption of red jackets "1820s" was incorrect. This was brought in by a Circular, Horse Guards, August 2nd, 1830, ordering that the whole of the cavalry with the exception of the Royal Horse Guards (Blue) waas to be dressed in red at the next issue of clothing.

The reference to pelissses was misleading. Light dragoons, hussars and lancers all wore blue jackets or dolmans. Only hussars wore pelisses and these at times were a variety of colours.

I have amended the passage accordingly.

JF42 (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington as Commander-in-Chief

"The Duke of Wellington remained as Commander-in-Chief until 1852 (except when serving as Prime Minister)"

This needs to be amended. Apart from a brief spell after the death of the Duke of York in 1827, DoW was only C-in-C from 1842 until his death on 1852. JF42 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dress and equipment: infantry tunics

"In 1855, the infantry's tight-fitting and impractical coatee with its vestigial tails was replaced by a loosely cut single-breasted tunic of French inspiration. Within a few years, a closer-fitting double-breasted tunic was adopted. This was eventually replaced by a single-breasted tunic"

This is a very confused passage. A double-breasted tunic approved before the Crimean war was adopted in 1855 and then superseded in 1857 by a single-breasted tunic which in successive models continued in use till 1914. Will amend. JF42 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dress and equipment: infantry headgear

"Until 1870, the usual infantry headgear was a version of shako or kepi. Successive patterns were steadily reduced in size, following French styles. After that date, a conical "home service" helmet inspired by the Prussian pickelhaube was adopted. Highland regiments wore variations on the scotch bonnet. For service in India and Africa, a pith helmet was used by almost all troops."

These truism of French and Prussian influence are misleading and there are arros of fact

A French influence might be detected from 1856 but the form of lower shakos post Crimea was as much following Austrian developments as had been the case since circa 1800, as it was a result of French influence. ‘Kepi’ is misleading as this was the nickname for the soft, peaked forage cap worn in the French army, not the regulation shako or casquette, which would be a more accurate reference. It is also a truism that the 1878 helmet was inspired by the picklehaube. They do not resemble each other in form or material, one is made of leather, the other of cloth-covered cork. The spike takes on a very different form, as well. Leather helmets had been used by Prussia and Russia since the early 1840s, and indeed the Home Service helmet of 1878 is most similar to the British heavy cavalry helmet adopted around the same time, being a cross between that item and the British Foreign Service helmet introduced in 1877 - which was made of cork or wicker, not pith.

I propose this draft amendment:

"Following the Crimean war, the regulation infantry headgear continued to be the cap or shako; successive patterns gradually reducing in height, in line with European trends. In 1878, an entirely different type of headgear was adopted: the Home Service helmet. This was made of cloth-covered cork, topped with a finial spike, reflecting similar continental fashions. In form it resembled the Foreign Service helmet adopted the year before, also made of cork, or alternatively wicker, which was intended to protect soldiers from tropical heat and sun. Highland regiments continued to wear the feather bonnet.

JF42 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

fine HLGallon (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Khaki

"Wolseley had lightweight grey linen uniforms purpose-made for his expeditions in the Anglo-Ashanti wars and Mahdist War. In India, almost all troops soon copied the neutral Khaki (an Urdu word meaning "dust") shade of cloth first adopted by Indian irregular units on the North-West Frontier in the late 1850s. It became official service dress in India during the Second Anglo-Afghan War, the first general adoption of military camouflage for the infantry. Khaki was officially adopted for troops in Africa in 1882, but the last battle in which British troops wore scarlet was the Battle of Gennis in the Sudan in 1885. Khaki became general campaign wear after that date, and became official overseas dress in 1897.[61] A slightly darker shade of khaki subsequently became the official colour for home service dress in 1902. The white pith helmet was often stained with tea or other improvised dyestuffs on campaign to provide rudimentary camouflage. Later, it was provided with a khaki cloth cover."

A few observations:

-Wolseley provided uniforms of light tweed with duck trousers for Ashanti and grey serge for Egypt in 1882- which arrived too late but were used in the Sudan in 1884-85. Both of wool, later supplemented by cotton drill.

- The Corps of Guides adopted khaki clothing in the late 1840s. British troops in South Africa and India are recorded wearing improvised khaki in the early 1850s, a practice that accelerated during the Indian Mutiny 1857-59 and which as continued on a regimental basis afterwards.

- Centrally supplied khaki was provided but it was not official. 1885 is the generally accepted date for official adoption of regulation khaki in India after a fast mineral khaki dye for cotton had been patented in 1884.

- 'Camouflage' is something of an anchronism dating from WW1 and generally applies to dispruptive patterns rather than ‘subdued colour.’ 'Aiding concealment,' might be better.

- While grey and, later, sand coloured ‘khakee’ uniforms were supplied to troops in the Sudan and on the Nile, these were not official issue but campaign measures. At home there was still debate as to the merits of subdued or drab clothing, and which was the most effect colour to employ.

- The last occasion scarlet was worn in action was at Omddurman in 1898, by the Maxim sections of the Connaught Rangers and The North Staffords.

- Khaki became official overseas dress in 1896, not 1897.

- The Foreign Service helmet was made of cork or wicker.

I propose this draft amendment:

'In India after the Mutiny, troops on active service tended increasingly to wear uniforms of drab or 'khakee' cloth. Khaki (an Urdu word meaning "dust") was first adopted in the late 1840s by Indian irregular units on the North-West Frontier. By the Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878-80, khaki clothing was in general use, at first improvised regimentally, and then for the first time supplied centrally. In 1885, following the patenting of a fast mineral dye, a regulation khaki uniform was authorised for use in the Indian army.

In Africa, Wolseley ordered purpose-made uniforms of lightweight grey wool for his Ashanti and Egypt expeditions, and ‘khakee’ uniforms of grey serge or sand coloured cotton drill were worn by troops during the Mahdist War of 1884-85. Thus from the mid 1880s khaki drill was usual campaign wear for British troops in the Empire, and became official overseas dress in 1896.[61] On campaign the white Foreign Service helmet was initially stained with tea or other improvised dyestuffs in order to be less conspicuous. Later, it was provided with a khaki cloth cover.

In 1898, during Kitchener's Sudan campaign, the Maxim sections of the Connaught Rangers and North Staffordshire Regiment wore their scarlet frocks at the battle of Omdurman, and so were the last troops to wear the red coat in action. In 1902 a slightly darker shade of khaki serge was selected as the colour for home Service Dress.'

JF42 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Fine HLGallon (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(Might need a couple of authoritative references. Most of the current factoids were taken from Barnes, which is a little shallow to say the least.) HLGallon (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)