|
Post by garyzaboly on May 23, 2009 5:24:00 GMT -5
Let's be careful to not get another thread shut down. Perhaps the discussion on the most effective means of bribery can get its own topic or be continued in private. I wouldn't be too surprised if the Mexican Army followed the method of many European armies by cutting the tails off old coats and reissuing them as fatigue jackets. I've often wondered about the shakos, as well. I kept finding it hard to believe that an army that couldn't even manage to supply its soldiers with wool coats, much less overcoats, could still find the funds to put a decorated leather shako on everyone's head. Recently, I've been learning about the shakos issued in the first half of the 19th Century by European powers and have discovered that not all were made of leather or felt. Many were apparently cardboard or pasteboard covered in painted cloth, or even wicker frames covered in linen. Both will give the appearance of a shako with a cover over it. It's ironic that while many of Santa Anna's hastily-recruited Activos in 1835 were poorly equipped, most of his regulars were fairly well equipped, for the Mexican Army. Monies from the church, merchants, and other private individuals did pour in by the bucketload, and the result was reflected in a number of accounts of fresh new uniforms, shiny equipment etc., which is why his soldiers were not a band of ragamuffins when they arrived at Bexar in 1835. As for getting into Mexican archives....I'm a born optimist, and despite the roadblocks put in place by Mexican officials, the plain fact is that you CAN get into them if you work hard enough at it. Lord, Santos, Chartrand, Davis, Jackson, Hefter, White, et al have proved that.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 23, 2009 8:14:44 GMT -5
An interesting observation and well worth looking at.
At Angostura in 1847, we have an observation from a Mexican source that many of the units had shakos made from palmetto leaves...
We know that the shakos (or at least some of them) during the Texas campaign had cords, as Delgado mentions the Texans decorating mules with them after San Jacinto. And we have a variety of shako plates of different styles uncovered at various TR sites...
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 23, 2009 9:16:17 GMT -5
At Angostura in 1847, we have an observation from a Mexican source that many of the units had shakos made from palmetto leaves. I'm aware of the reference, and, though lacking proof, I assume they were woven from strips cut from the leaves, and possibly covered with cloth. This probably would have made a much cooler and cheaper shako. Four or five decades later, German troops in East Africa were issued tropical shakoes (I forget the German name) woven from reeds and covered with khaki.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 23, 2009 10:59:38 GMT -5
We know that the shakos (or at least some of them) during the Texas campaign had cords, as Delgado mentions the Texans decorating mules with them after San Jacinto. And we have a variety of shako plates of different styles uncovered at various TR sites... Kevin, From the same document I referenced earlier, is the specific mention of chords: 79 in the artillery attached to the Zapadores Battalion, 364 in the San Luis Potosi Battalion, 270 in the Queretaro Battalion, 291 in the Yucatan battalion. Unless I am misreading the word "cordones," then these are the units which had chords on hand in June of 1836. But I do find it interesting that the units, (excepting the artillery attached to the zapadores) which had chords were all Activo units. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 23, 2009 14:54:36 GMT -5
We know that the shakos (or at least some of them) during the Texas campaign had cords, as Delgado mentions the Texans decorating mules with them after San Jacinto. And we have a variety of shako plates of different styles uncovered at various TR sites... Kevin, From the same document I referenced earlier, is the specific mention of chords: 79 in the artillery attached to the Zapadores Battalion, 364 in the San Luis Potosi Battalion, 270 in the Queretaro Battalion, 291 in the Yucatan battalion. Unless I am misreading the word "cordones," then these are the units which had chords on hand in June of 1836. But I do find it interesting that the units, (excepting the artillery attached to the zapadores) which had chords were all Activo units. Mark Thanks Mark. That is an interesting point. Of course, none of these were at San Jacinto either.
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on May 24, 2009 23:44:02 GMT -5
I haven't a clue what use a "duck cape" would be, unless it is waterproofed, or perhaps some early form of a havelock designed to protect the neck from the sun. A shako by itself isn't very good for that.
If I may quote Rueben M. Potter from 1874:
I like reading a bit farther into this than perhaps I should. First off, back to the fatigue uniforms, Potter says they are cotton, though I guess he could be mistaken about them being linen or hemp 38 years later. I've personally seen more documentation on cotton weaving in Mexico in this time period than the other two fibers, so I'm leaning towards cotton as being the fabric. He also doesn't mention any red trim. This could simply be his omission of what he considered to be a mundane detail. It could also be that the uniforms weren't trimmed. McArdle's painting does not show the trim. It was in evidence in the 1820's and 1838 in the interior, but maybe not in Texas in 1835-36.
The bit about the shakos is interesting as well. If Potter saw them close enough to know what they were made of, he'd forgotten by the time he gave this interview. I find it notable that the ornaments were worn outside of the white cover. Could this be because the cover was permanently affixed over a reed frame or cardboard body?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 25, 2009 1:25:27 GMT -5
Right, from a European perspective...
Shakos (or more properly Chacos) were originally introduced by the Austrians in the late 18th century as a quite small leather cap which made a smart appearance and provided a measure of protection from cuts. As they grew in size and developed into the familiar bell topped model leather was abandoned because it was too heavy. Instead the body of the chaco was made of felt, but still had a leather peak and a leather top, and some leather strapping by way of strengthening it and holding it in shape when wet.
For the latter reason it also required a treated duck or oilskin cover (usually duck for the rank and file, oilskin for officers). This often had a slit at the top front to allow a cockade or company pom-pom to be inserted into its usual place. Otherwise any decoration tended to be limited to painting regimental numbers on the front. It's entirely possible that some Mexican units may have painted the regimental letter instead, eg: M for Matamoros or G for Guerrero, just as they had on their collars.
Now, its worth noting that this cover was normally worn at all times except formal guard mountings and parades, so to some extent what was worn underneath was less important. In the National Army Museum in London there is in fact an officer's "chaco" which is actually the oilskin cover stretched over a cane frame with a leather peak added - the real one presumably being kept in in a band box for high days and holy days. As I recall he was serving in India and there is plenty of other evidence for chacos there being made of lightweight material stretched over a cane frame - when worn at all.
Moving on to jackets, this extract from Johnson's December 13 inventory of stores handed over after the surrender of Bexar is pretty unambiguous as to the jackets being of duck:
DELIVERED BY MANCHACA 67 muskets, 15 coats, 9 gunlocks, 49 duck jackets, 1 bunch of wire, 3 bars of steel, 1 small do. of iron, 1 bunch flax thread, 15 skeins sewing silk, 63 duck jackets, 2 barrels containing 166 bayonets, 9 aparejos, 58 lances, 1 pair scales with weights, 1 piece of linsey, 50 muskets with bayonets, 13 lances.
Generally speaking, practice in the British Army was to issue a new coat annually. This would then be fitted to the individual soldier and carefully hung up out of harm's way for parades and guard mountings, with the previous year's coat then being worn for ordinary duties - not fatigues - perhaps with the tails cut off to turn it into a jacket if appropriate for the climate. What we tend to refer to as fatigue jackets were more properly a form barrack dress and normally made of white wool - in Highland regiments and the Footguards these lasted right up to WW1, although ordinary units switched to red wool in the 1870s. Cotton or linen jackets could be issued for hot weather but as a general matter of policy wool was retained as more healthy - the reasoning being that if it was really hot the soldier could unbutton his coat, but (a) he needed it to provide a measure of protection from the sun during the day, and (b) nights are frequently very cold.
Finally, having rambled on for too long, I'll close by commenting that the cloaks referred to in Mark's Matamoros list were probably for sentries as they could be worn over a soldier's uniform and accoutrements at night.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 25, 2009 10:08:13 GMT -5
Duck "capes" and "overcoats" imply cavalry and officers' use rather than foot soldiers. You can see such items in THE BATTLE OF TAMPICO and in at least one Linati print. The infantry were generally issued greatcoats, if they were lucky. Otherwise they had to make do; some no doubt had ponchos. Others, such as the luckless soldado guards observed in Texas in 1835, protected themselves from the rain by holding their blankets on bayonetted muskets over their heads.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 25, 2009 10:09:42 GMT -5
Duck "cloaks" also suggest cavalry not infantry.
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on May 25, 2009 11:36:25 GMT -5
Thanks, Stuart. I know this is all old hat (no pun intended) to you, but it's pretty new to me.
Gary, it's not the concept of a cape or cloak that I'm having trouble with, it's the utility of a cape made of duck. A wool cape makes perfect sense, but unless it's treated to be waterproof, what would a duck cape be useful for? Is this how the Mexicans referred to a stable frock?
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 25, 2009 12:41:03 GMT -5
Phil, Some Mexican cavalrymen in 1832 WERE issued capes "of Queretaro cloth with white buttons," signifying a wool grade cape. The "duck" cloaks and capes were obviously cheaper. Were they treated? Good question. The utility of a duck (or "canvas" or "sailcloth") garment issued for the soldier on fatigue duty or on the march was probably as effective, or ineffective, as it was in cape or poncho form. In colonial times canvas clothing and capes issued to troops were sometimes coated with oil or paint to make them truly weather resistant. Officers of the Alamo de Parras company in 1830 had both capes and "jorongos"--ponchos---(the privates just had the "jorongos"), but the cloth isn't indicated, nor is any kind of treatment mentioned. But considering their long-ranging patrol duty, you know they HAD to be fairly effective garments against the elements. By the way, adding another name to the list of those Alamo writers who managed to get into Mexican archives: our old friend Jeff Long. Gary
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 25, 2009 14:40:59 GMT -5
Thanks, Stuart. I know this is all old hat (no pun intended) to you, but it's pretty new to me. Gary, it's not the concept of a cape or cloak that I'm having trouble with, it's the utility of a cape made of duck. A wool cape makes perfect sense, but unless it's treated to be waterproof, what would a duck cape be useful for? Is this how the Mexicans referred to a stable frock? Phil, I wouldn't underestimate duck. Its a very tightly woven canvas, used for sails and tents. Even without being treated its more waterproof and windproof than wool - and a whole lot lighter and consequently more comfortable. Once wool gets wet it gets very heavy so if you're talking capes and cloaks, you really are looking at a lot of weight. And of course wool can also be uncomfortably warm. Although its perhaps not directly relevant a limited number of patent knapsacks were on trial with the British Army at Waterloo which actually featured a duck cape which could be rolled forwards over the soldier's shoulders in the ebent of rain - thus avoiding the necessity to halt and unstrap a greatcoat. It didn't catch on, but the point is that there was nothing odd about duck capes
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on May 25, 2009 14:57:49 GMT -5
I've not done any research on this but it seems that wool would have been the prevalent issue as the Mexican Army was going into a winter campaign(the troops issued with summer kit aside). I don't really see issuing a lightweight garment to men marching out on a winter campaign but I guess it could and did happen.
Using duck overgarments is not unheard of, just look at dusters... though if I wanted a waterproof cape/cloak I'd ask for a woolen pattern! Regardless of what the garment is made from, a cloak is an excellent horseman's foul weather garment... covers the rider, horse, tack and weaponry. I've always like the scene gary depicted in BoNM showing the advance guard held up at the Medina... the claoks and jorongos are a nice touch!
Regarding the ADP's using jorongos, I wonder how many were wearing them and how many were using them for saddle blankets since that return for the company in San Antone shows many without a saddle blanket. Mexican saddles are not made to be used without a blanket like English style saddles are.
So are there any other folks out here interested in Mexican cavalry uniforms? Shoot me a PM... I'm always interested in visiting about this branch of SA's army!
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 25, 2009 15:13:37 GMT -5
One account of the aftermath of San Jacinto noted that the Texians were selling off the Mexican "ponchos." Unfortunately, the make of these ponchos is not noted. I lean towards the "sailcloth" or "duck" ponchos for Santa Anna's campaign, if only because we have more visual and written documentation to back them up. Certainly the officers probably had the higher quality---finer wool---garb. In 1757 one Major George Scott recommended to the British high command that a new corps of light infantry be formed for service in Nova Scotia. Among the items he recommended was a cloak made of "painted canvas," lined with bays, which would keep the soldiers warm, especially in trenches, and their weapons dry (he recommended an inside "pocket" be added to accomodate the butt of their carbines or muskets.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 25, 2009 15:14:30 GMT -5
Duck "capes" and "overcoats" imply cavalry and officers' use rather than foot soldiers. You can see such items in THE BATTLE OF TAMPICO and in at least one Linati print. The infantry were generally issued greatcoats, if they were lucky. Otherwise they had to make do; some no doubt had ponchos. Others, such as the luckless soldado guards observed in Texas in 1835, protected themselves from the rain by holding their blankets on bayonetted muskets over their heads. The return for the army dated June 30, at Matamoros, lists both cloaks "of coarse cloth" and capes "of duck." The cloaks were issued to the infantry (there is only a token listing of 20 in the cavalry, and those were for the Cuautta detachment). The duck capes were issued to the cavalry. The infantry return also shows overcoats on hand in very large numbers.
|
|