|
|
Post by jpipes on Jan 30, 2010 14:36:09 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the Zapadores were considered an elite unit within the Mexican army, and that much like sapper units in Europe they sported moustaches and wore engineer aprons when doing much of their work.
That said I seem to recall reading for the assault on the Alamo the unit was dressed and fought "as infantry". The 2004 Alamo movie (not a reference work by any means) shows them looking like traditional sappers, as do a few reference books.
Does anyone have any specific information on what the Zapadores would have worn or looked like for the actual Alamo assault?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 31, 2010 4:53:03 GMT -5
Old Chestnut...
Zapadores were an elite battalion of assault troops; considered as engineers/sappers, because they specialised in tackling obstacles/defended positions.
The guys you're thinking of are Gustadores and each infantry battalion had a little detachment - no more than six men and sometimes less - attached to headquarters, both to act as handymen, as bodyguards, protect the colours and generally look impressive/intimidating.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 31, 2010 9:53:05 GMT -5
Slight correction: Gastadores
|
|
|
|
Post by jpipes on Jan 31, 2010 22:46:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply. The unit I am thinking of is most certainly the Zapadores, and what I'm trying to determine is what type/style uniform they wore during the Alamo assault. They were part of the reserve column for the actual attack on March 6th. At least 2 reference books I have seem to indicate they wore different uniforms from the infantry.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 1, 2010 1:46:42 GMT -5
Only up to a point. The Zapadores had the same style of uniform as the infantry, but as with the French Army were distinguished by black lapels and collars rather than infantry red, although their cuffs and turnbacks were crimson under the 1840 regulations and very likely crimson before that as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpipes on Feb 1, 2010 15:38:45 GMT -5
Excellent, thanks for the response! Do you have a reference for the above? I've seen mention of the black facings but wasn't sure if it was in use in 1836 or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 2, 2010 1:36:23 GMT -5
No, I'm going off the 1840 regulations; however as black was the traditional facing colour for engineer units and the uniform described was pretty much the same as for the French service which provided most of the inspiration for Mexican uniforms, its reasonable to suppose that they were wearing the same in 1836.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpipes on Feb 2, 2010 2:32:05 GMT -5
With all due respect I'm a little confused I guess. You're using the 1840 uniform regulations to suggest the facing colors in 1836 were the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 2, 2010 15:58:59 GMT -5
No reason to get confused; as I said these were the traditional facing colours for engineer units in European armies (including both the French and the Spanish) going way back into the 18th century. The 1840 regulations, which appear to be the earliest we have, simply show that the Mexican army was still following that tradition.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpipes on Feb 2, 2010 17:12:38 GMT -5
While I agree that black facing colors were likely in use in 1836 I don't feel we can rule out other uniform facings or styles without specific references earlier than 1840. While much Alamo history is essentially limited to conjecture, it's my hope we can pin down something more specific than being limited to post-Alamo regulations for what the Zapadores unit wore during the actual assault.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Feb 5, 2010 21:58:27 GMT -5
We can't speak with certainty as to what uniform the "normal" infantry was wearing.
There are indeed regulations, but that very different 1832 pattern throws things for a loop. How many of these if any were present in the Texas campaign? Not a few reenactors, illustrators and historians seem to think the cazadores had not only the documented green epaulets and shako cords, but had green faced uniforms as well. As best I can tell, this is based on a single Hefter illustration of a soldado in the Aldama battalion.
The famous "Hero of Tampico" painting that apparently based most of its figures from live subjects in 1835 shows infantry uniforms that don't match any regulation I have seen.
As I've pointed out before on this forum, we know the light-colored fatigue uniforms were worn in Texas, but there is disagreement as to the fabric content, and the red trim that is almost always depicted on the jacket portion of this uniform is not mentioned in any original account I have been made aware of.
Stuart's estimation is well-supported, and there is no way to prove him wrong, just as there is no way to prove him right. I appreciate your desire for specificity, but I think that in this case, that will always elude our grasp.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpipes on Feb 5, 2010 23:23:20 GMT -5
Excellent comments. I agree, existing references are spotty and often times frustrating.
My best understanding at this point is that the army attacking the Alamo would have consisted of men wearing a combination of infantry uniforms from across the range of those available and prescribed. This would include the 1832 reg and later reg that came after it.
-Blue single breasted jacket with red facing and blue pants
-Blue single breasted jacket with red facing and white pants
-Blue double breasted jacket with red facing and blue pants
-Blue double breasted jacket with red facing and white pants
-White jacket and pants (fatigue uniform) possibly with red facings
For all 5 uniform styles the wider stove pipe shako would have been worn.
Of course none of this addresses the uniforms worn by the artillery, the Zapadores, the light units (most like the infantry) the cavalry, or the officers, though in most cases they were similiar in many ways to the infantry styles above.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 6, 2010 6:09:06 GMT -5
To some extent its not actually as chaotic as it sounds. The basic uniforms were quite straightforward.
Infantry wore blue jackets with red facings, grey trousers and bell topped caps (chacos). They also had a white fatigue uniform. What was actually worn depended on circumstances and the individual commanding officers. Depending on where they were in the clothing cycle when the regulations changed they could have single breasted jackets or lapelled jackets – or both. It was normal when new uniforms were issued to keep them for Sunday best and continue wearing the old ones as long as possible – sometimes cutting the tails off to turn them into round jackets – a matter of individual regimental custom and practice. Nevertheless the facing colours were still the same.
The white uniform was supposed to be worn for fatigues or in very hot weather and there could be a mix and match of white trousers and blue wool coats. It would appear that a lot of Mexican troops at San Jacinto were wearing white uniforms simply because the blue ones they’d started with were worn out.
The chacos were black and it was usual to add a white linen cover to keep them clean except on formal occasions or in battle. While there’s no mention if them in the orders for the assault on the Alamo it is likely that they were worn to aid identification in the dark – De La Pena certainly records that he and at least one other Zapadores officer wore white hats rather than black ones.
Cavalry again are straightforward. Permanente wore red jackets with green facings, activos had green with red, and presidiales blue with red, although there’s rather less certainty over headgear with evidence of both crested and maned helmets and broad-brimmed hats for the presidiales. The battle of Tampico painting also includes a nice picture of an elite company trooper (Cuautla?) with a bearskin cap – sometimes misidentified as a mounted gastadore.
The point I’m making in all this is that while there were numerous regimental variations in how the uniform was worn, the basic uniform before the chaos of the 1840s was pretty straightforward.
As to the light infantry, by the way, there weren't any. The only cazadores came from the preference companies of the ordinary infantry battalions. In theory they could have been distinguished by green epaulettes and perhaps cords as well, but otherwise their uniforms were exactly the same as those worn by the rest of the battalion.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Feb 6, 2010 12:55:47 GMT -5
Excellent comments. I agree, existing references are spotty and often times frustrating. My best understanding at this point is that the army attacking the Alamo would have consisted of men wearing a combination of infantry uniforms from across the range of those available and prescribed. This would include the 1832 reg and later reg that came after it. -Blue single breasted jacket with red facing and blue pants -Blue single breasted jacket with red facing and white pants -Blue double breasted jacket with red facing and blue pants -Blue double breasted jacket with red facing and white pants -White jacket and pants (fatigue uniform) possibly with red facings For all 5 uniform styles the wider stove pipe shako would have been worn. Of course none of this addresses the uniforms worn by the artillery, the Zapadores, the light units (most like the infantry) the cavalry, or the officers, though in most cases they were similiar in many ways to the infantry styles above. ..and don't forget the gray pants! Talking this issue over with Martin Vasquez, he thinks that there may have been actual gray pants, or possibly that the particular contractor who, in making blue pants, made them using a dye that either looked very gray, or which quickly faded to gray. |
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Feb 6, 2010 23:44:01 GMT -5
Logwood dye can be used for either blue or gray, though it isn't very colorfast. The gray fades to a kind of dingy tan, and the blue fades to a rather unattractive reddish hue.
I hope I didn't imply that the uniform situation was "chaotic." I really meant to convey that the knowledge of specific details has not been discovered, and may never be.
The pre and post-1832 uniform regulations for both cavalry and infantry would indicate that the lapelled coatees were short lived, and perhaps just an experiment that didn't take. I personally believe that there weren't many of these uniforms in Texas in 1835-36. I'm not sure what we are to learn from the "Hero of Tampico" painting other than some infantry coatees that lacked lapels had white piping on the tails, or perhaps it's just artist's license.
I never really thought much about these details until I decided to try to reproduce some of these uniform pieces. Then, I found that there were quite a few questions, and few good answers.
|
|
