|
gorget
Jun 5, 2010 13:19:11 GMT -5
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 5, 2010 13:19:11 GMT -5
I am doing some research on uniform accruements of the early 19th century. In particular gorgets. I was wondering if anyone has ever seen or heard of Mexican or Texian troops wearing gorgets? The time frame in particular is 1834 to 1837. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 5, 2010 14:05:29 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Jun 5, 2010 14:05:29 GMT -5
I am doing some research on uniform accruements of the early 19th century. In particular gorgets. I was wondering if anyone has ever seen or heard of Mexican or Texian troops wearing gorgets? The time frame in particular is 1834 to 1837. Any help would be greatly appreciated. For the Mexican Army of the period, there is some, if not much, evidence that gorgets were worn. See the color photo of a Mexican brass gorget with central Mexican insignia (eagle, snake, Phrygian cap etc.) on page 51 of Time-Life's THE MEXICAN WAR by David Nevin, 1978 ("Old West Series).
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 6, 2010 19:53:14 GMT -5
Post by marklemon on Jun 6, 2010 19:53:14 GMT -5
greatbigmike, I know that they did exist in the Mexican Army, however, I am unaware of any excavated examples from campsites or battlefields, which is always a key indicator.. Last week I spoke at length with one of the most experienced Mexican relic hunters in the field, and examined his massive book of photos of Mexican Army excavated artifacts from relics. There was not a gorget among them. This does not mean that they were not worn at all, but does suggest that if they were, they were worn pretty rarely.
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 1:02:49 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 7, 2010 1:02:49 GMT -5
I'm not surprised they don't turn up in excavations as they are the sort of thing that would be carefully packed, and looked for if missing, unlike, say, a button.
In the 17th and 18th century officers wore them as a badge of rank and were supposed to do so at all times when on duty. By this period however they were rarely seen off parade grounds or formal guard mountings. Yes they exist and yes they were worn (by infantry officers - cavalry and staff officers didn't have them), but not on active service
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 1:08:51 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 7, 2010 1:08:51 GMT -5
And back to the OP, no I've never come across any evidence whatsoever that Texian troops may have had them. They do not appear in the uniform regulations for the army of the republic of Texas and the best they seemed to have managed during the revolution was to find swords for officers let alone any more formal badges of rank
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 7:07:12 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Jun 7, 2010 7:07:12 GMT -5
Chartrand's SANTA ANNA'S MEXICAN ARMY includes three uniform plates of soldiers and officers wearuing gorgets. These are:
1.) PL E3: TROOPER, MILITIA CAVALRY, 1846-47
2.) PL G2: FUSULIER, FIJO DE MEXICO BN, 1843-47
3.) PL H2: OFFICER, SAN BLAS ACTIVE MILITIA COAST GUARD BN, 1847
On p. 62 of the same book is a photograph of a Mexican gorget in the San Jacinto museum; no info is provided to tell us if this was obtained at San Jacinto or environs, but clearly by all this evidence Mexican gorgets WERE probably seen in 1836 Texas. (Last year I even drew one on an officer for an illustration in a forthcoming book). Chartrand notes that this gorget, which sports the eagle badge, was probably Mexican-made, but adds, "more elaborate examples were imported from France."
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 7:56:53 GMT -5
Post by TRK on Jun 7, 2010 7:56:53 GMT -5
I'm familiar with two different daguerreotypes of an unidentified Mexican officer wearing a gorget, but the images were taken over a decade after the Texas Revolution.
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 8:25:18 GMT -5
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 7, 2010 8:25:18 GMT -5
I would not believe that you would see those items at a battle site since they tend to be more formal and ceremonial in nature. It came up in discussion about officers' uniforms. It would make sense, that they were used since the Mexican army uniform was based on the French uniform. Just one more item to add to those answers to track down. If anyone ever sees any period reference please drop me a line. Thanks
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 9:43:42 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 7, 2010 9:43:42 GMT -5
I believe the collection at San Jacinto represents items purchased from a variety of places and represents an cross section of Mexican items from the 1830-1867 period. I am pretty sure the gorget is not and actual San Jacinto item. Most of the references to the gorgets are from the 1839-1849 period, and I would strongly agree with everyone else that these are dress parade/uniform items.
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 11:26:19 GMT -5
Post by marklemon on Jun 7, 2010 11:26:19 GMT -5
I'm not surprised they don't turn up in excavations as they are the sort of thing that would be carefully packed, and looked for if missing, unlike, say, a button. In the 17th and 18th century officers wore them as a badge of rank and were supposed to do so at all times when on duty. By this period however they were rarely seen off parade grounds or formal guard mountings. Yes they exist and yes they were worn (by infantry officers - cavalry and staff officers didn't have them), but not on active service Stuart, That's my take on it as well. The gorget was being phased out of all but domestic garrison, or parade ground usage by the Tex Rev period, and if the officer even had one in his baggage, it probably was not taken out on campaign the field. Thus, no field excavations. On a different note, the evidence I am finding is leading me to the distinct impression that the Mexican Army was a much more diverse-looking lot than it has previously been thought to be. For example, field excavations in Mexican campsites in both Mexico and Texas show that the ratio of .71 Brown Bess balls (.75 caliber) to other calibers, matching French, Spanish, and even possibly earlier American pieces (Model 1816) is rather small, and the strong possibility exists that a goodly number of soldados were diversely armed. Perhaps, to make some sense of this logistical nightmare, the Mexicans sought to issue each type of arm to differing units, in order to maintain a practical system of ammunition dispersal. But this perhaps needs to be placed in a different thread. Mark
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 14:35:42 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Jun 7, 2010 14:35:42 GMT -5
Gorgets worn during the 1847 battle for Mexico City:
Evidently gorgets WERE worn in some battles by Mexican officers, if we are to give credence to two contemporary, or near-contemporary, artistic depictions:
1.) 1848 Mexican lithograph commemorating the defense of the Garita De Belen (Gate of Belen) on September 13, 1848 (p. 340, EYEWITNESS TO WAR, PRINTS AND DAGUERREOTYPES OF THE MEXICAN WAR, 1846-1848). Officer in question is in center left, directing line troops. He wears a double breasted frock coat AND a gorget.
2.) James Walker's painting of the Battle of the Gate of San Cosme, which occurred while the attack on De Belen was taking place. (Walker, by the way, was present in Mexico City during the battle). He shows, also left center, a captured, hatless Mexican officer in a single-breasted frock coat AND wearing a brass gorget. Meanwhile, the battle rages all around. (This painting was repro'd as endpapers to TEXAS AND THE WAR WITH MEXICO, pub. in 1961 by American Heritage. Artistic license, or the reality?
So, what to conclude? I would say that the tradition of the gorget as simply a parade item in the Mexican army was obviously not a rule without any exceptions.
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 14:55:26 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 7, 2010 14:55:26 GMT -5
I'll cheerfully admit that as I wasn't there myself its not for me to contradict contemporary/near contemporary images, but I would make two caveats:
Firstly the artist(s) may simply have recycled images of Mexican officers, including sketches he himself had made in happier times. I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt, but its a possibility that can't be ignored.
Secondly, both images relate to the fighting around Mexico City - the national capitol, which no doubt involved all manner of units which would not normally have set foot outside of the place and thus marched into battle wearing all sorts of finery not seen in the field - just like the heavy artillery units dragged out of Washington for the Overland Campaign
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 15:01:21 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Jun 7, 2010 15:01:21 GMT -5
I think the important point to consider is that these images were done by on-the-spot artists, at least that can be guaranteed in Walker's case, and that the Mexican litho, printed but a year later, also appears to have its other military details compellingly accurate.
And yes, the point about it being Mexico City and not a field battle hundreds of miles away is something to consider. But there were such things as dress gorgets and duty gorgets, so I would suspect that there's a lot more work left to do on this subject.
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 15:16:59 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 7, 2010 15:16:59 GMT -5
Oh that keen eye...perhaps stand corrected, or at least now more to consider...
|
|
|
gorget
Jun 7, 2010 18:33:03 GMT -5
Post by marklemon on Jun 7, 2010 18:33:03 GMT -5
So, what to conclude? I would say that the tradition of the gorget as simply a parade item in the Mexican army was obviously not a rule without any exceptions. Gary, Certainly there are exceptions to every rule, and I would not be shocked to discover that a very few officers in the Texas campaign wore the occasional gorget. But I think we are speaking here about the tendency, or the general state of dress in the field, not the rare exception. As pointed out previously, there are no known excavated gorgets that I am aware of in Texas. This is the first bit of contributory evidence that they were not commonly worn on campaign. In addition, we should consider Potter's eye-witness observation that in the field, Mexican officers wore the short, dark blue "frogged and braided" jackets and wide brimmed hats, certainly an undress state of attire with which a fancy gorget would appear most incongruous. Mark
|
|