The uniforms worn by Continental Army soldiers during the American Revolution evolved due to disorganization and clothing shortages. The British wore red coats, while many Americans wore their own clothes. Military apparel of standard material, cut, color, and appearance came into widespread use only about a century before the Revolution. Several trends influenced the uniforms, including the change from blue coats with red facings for all troops except generals and staff officers in 1782, and infantry uniforms designed with white metal.
During the Revolutionary War, soldiers did have pockets, with two larger pockets in the outer coats, two in the inner vests, and two small ones below the waistband in their breeches. They also used backpacks. In the 1930s, the British Army decided that the Service Dress was fine as a dress uniform but a bit lacking as a combat uniform. This led to brightly colored uniforms appearing “stupid” to Call of Duty warriors.
Uniforms were a vital consideration for the armies during the Revolutionary era, as battles fought with black-powder weapons would produce enough smoke to make it difficult. The Polearm became more ceremonial and was used in formal military presentations. The waist belt is an accoutrement for formal military presentations.
By the 20th century, the red coat was abandoned for practical duties in favor of khaki by all British Empire military units. Red coats remained the color used in the Royal Army’s dress uniform until World War I, when they were phased out due to the discomfort they caused.
The armies were organized, their clothing, rations, and tactics defined combat during the Revolutionary War.
📹 American Revolution: The surprising truth about Britain’s redcoats
The British Army of the American revolution. Like most British armies throughout history, they were over-stretched, under …
Why did WW1 soldiers wrap their legs?
Leg wraps, also known as spiral puttees, were wool cloth strips that were several feet long and wrapped tightly around the boot’s top, protecting the legs from underbrush, dirt, and mud in trenches. They replaced canvas leggings. The Army’s uniform evolution began during the Revolutionary War, with American soldiers primarily wearing uniforms similar to the British and French armies. The Army established uniform regulations in 1779 and made efforts to standardize small arms and equipment, with some success by the end of the war.
When did the US military stop using blue uniforms?
The Army Blue Service Uniform, which was the sole service uniform between 2015 and 2020, is primarily used for ceremonial occasions or formal social situations. Over time, various non-combat service uniforms have been authorized by the Army. In the early days of the U. S. Army, combat uniforms were similar to everyday duties. Modern times saw the development of field uniforms suited for battle. During the 19th century, Army uniforms were relatively simple, with combat soldiers wearing a standard dark blue coat and light blue trousers. Uniform standards were relaxed during the war years, especially on campaign.
Why didn’t they wear armor in the Revolutionary War?
The efficacy of armor in resisting bayonet charges was constrained by the substantial weight of body armor, which would have impeded the rapid movement of the army. Moreover, the majority of metal production in the colonies was directed towards the manufacture of cannonballs and shot.
Is it OK to wear old military uniforms?
The text states that no person can wear any part of the national guard, army, navy, or air force uniform unless they are a member of the service, an inmate of a veterans’ home, or a member of an organization of US veterans. A theatrical professional may wear the uniform in a playhouse or theatre while acting as a member. Civic organizations may parade or travel in a body or assemble in a lodge room, but they must not parade or appear in uniform when the active militia is in active service or called into active service.
Why didn t ww2 soldiers wear camo?
Patterns can provide more effective crypsis than solid color when the camouflaged object is stationary, but any pattern, particularly one with high contrast, stands out when the object is moving. Jungle camouflage uniforms were issued during the Second World War, but British and American forces found that a simple green uniform provided better camouflage when soldiers were moving. After the war, most nations returned to a unicolored uniform for their troops, with some nations, notably Austria and Israel, continuing to use solid color combat uniforms today.
Digital camouflage provides a disruptive effect through the use of pixellated patterns at a range of scales, helping to defeat observation at a range of distances. These patterns were first developed during the Second World War by Johann Georg Otto Schick, who combined micro- and macro-patterns in one scheme. The German Army developed the idea further in the 1970s into Flecktarn, which combines smaller shapes with dithering, making the underlying objects harder to discern.
In the 1970s, US Army officer Timothy R. O’Neill suggested that patterns consisting of square blocks of color would provide effective camouflage. By 2000, O’Neill’s idea was combined with patterns like the German Flecktarn to create pixellated patterns such as CADPAT and MARPAT. Battledress in digital camouflage patterns was first designed by the Canadian Forces. Pixellation does not in itself contribute to the camouflaging effect, but it simplifies design and eases printing on fabric.
Do any of George Washington’s clothes still exist?
The Costume Design Center consulted known records, including surviving artifacts, contemporary depictions, and Washington’s papers, to inform their design of a coat worn by President Washington. Clothing worn by Washington is still present, but only military attire. An actual suit from this period is not known to have survived. The Accessories Team Leader at the Costume Design Center used an example from Colonial Williamsburg’s collection as a prototype and design inspiration.
Beverly Prewitt, cutter, draper, and patternmaker, developed the pattern after an initial fitting with Daniel. The fit was adapted using CAD, and the custom pattern was printed and selected for the fabric, cream wool broadcloth. The antique was lined with a shalloon, and the silk satin waistcoat was constructed to finish the white broadcloth coat and breeches.
Why did armor stop being used?
Plate armour, a type of protective clothing worn by nobility and cuirassiers during European wars of religion, began to decline in the early 17th century. However, it remained common among nobility and cuirassiers. Post-mid-17th century, it was mostly reduced to a simple breastplate or cuirass, with the exception of the Polish Hussars. The use of steel plates in flak jackets began during World War II and was replaced by fibre-reinforced plastic since the mid-20th century.
Mail armour, a layer of protective clothing worn from the 9th to the 13th century, was made from hundreds of small interlinking iron or steel rings held together by rivets. It was designed to defend against thrusting and cutting weapons, rather than bludgeons. Typical clothing items made of mail included hooded cloaks, gloves, trousers, and shoes. From the 10th to the 13th century, mail armour was so popular in Europe that it was known as the age of mail.
Partial plate armour, made out of bronze, protected the chest and lower limbs as early as the late Bronze Age. The Dendra panoply protected the entire torso on both sides and included shoulder and neck protections. Less restrictive and heavy armour became more widespread during classic antiquity, and the Roman empire used plate armour in the form of the Lorica segmentata between the 1st century BC and 4th century AD.
Why did the SS wear black uniforms?
The All-Black SS uniform, adopted in 1932, was a popular choice due to its black-white-red color scheme, which was characteristic of the German Empire and later adopted by the Nazi Party. Black was also popular with fascist movements, as it was used by the blackshirts in Italy before the creation of the SS. These uniforms were tailored to project authority and foster fear, and were produced by the German clothing factory, Hugo Boss, during the war.
Once the war began, the black uniform was seldom worn, with combat units of the SS-Verfügungstruppe (SS-VT) and later the Waffen-SS wore a variation of the field-grey army uniform with SS insignia. Most SS personnel wore a variation of the Waffen-SS uniform or the grey-green SS service tunic. SS uniforms used various insignia, such as collar patches to denote rank, shoulder knots to denote rank and position, sleeve cuff titles, and “sleeve diamond” patches to indicate membership in specific branches of the SS.
Why didn t WW2 soldiers wear camo?
Patterns can provide more effective crypsis than solid color when the camouflaged object is stationary, but any pattern, particularly one with high contrast, stands out when the object is moving. Jungle camouflage uniforms were issued during the Second World War, but British and American forces found that a simple green uniform provided better camouflage when soldiers were moving. After the war, most nations returned to a unicolored uniform for their troops, with some nations, notably Austria and Israel, continuing to use solid color combat uniforms today.
Digital camouflage provides a disruptive effect through the use of pixellated patterns at a range of scales, helping to defeat observation at a range of distances. These patterns were first developed during the Second World War by Johann Georg Otto Schick, who combined micro- and macro-patterns in one scheme. The German Army developed the idea further in the 1970s into Flecktarn, which combines smaller shapes with dithering, making the underlying objects harder to discern.
In the 1970s, US Army officer Timothy R. O’Neill suggested that patterns consisting of square blocks of color would provide effective camouflage. By 2000, O’Neill’s idea was combined with patterns like the German Flecktarn to create pixellated patterns such as CADPAT and MARPAT. Battledress in digital camouflage patterns was first designed by the Canadian Forces. Pixellation does not in itself contribute to the camouflaging effect, but it simplifies design and eases printing on fabric.
Are there any surviving Revolutionary War uniforms?
The rare surviving uniform, which may be the only one with the original jacket and breeches, is believed to be the only known one belonging to Colonel Peter Gansevoort Jr. It is currently housed at the National Museum of American History.
When did armies stop using colorful uniforms?
In both World Wars, the dominant color palette of military uniforms was khaki, characterized by a lack of vibrancy and a prevalence of drab hues. By 1916, the advent of modern warfare and the concomitant financial economy had resulted in the disappearance of traditional embellishments, giving rise to monochromatic shades of khaki, grey, or sky blue.
📹 Why were Red Coats red?
Copyright: DO NOT translate and re-upload our content on Youtube or other social media. SIMPLE HISTORY MERCHANDISE Get …
I’ve read “The Pattern”, a great microcosm of a British unit the American Revolution. It also shows the effect great leadership can have on a unit. The 33rd was a run of the mill infantry regiment before Cornwallis, but during his administration it became known as the Pattern. The paragon example of what other regiments should strive for. Thanks Redcoat History for delving into the American Revolution.
I’m a Yank Historian. One of my favorite things is correcting the HUGE misconceptions about the “savage” Redcoats. Or the “Boston Massacre” that was a complete and total accident. I try to remind my countrymen about John Adams and how he stood for what was right by defending the British Soldiers accused of killing the colonists in cold blood. Fact must reign supreme. Great article gents! I’m very proud America comes from Britain.
As an American who’s extremely patriotic and passionate about our origin, I have massive respect for the British Soldiers and Navy. There’s not much more impressive than seeing redcoats in formation and marching. I always understood that the British Army was the most professional and well trained army in the world at the time.
I was taught in school here in the states that the British Army was the best in the world. Well trained HIGHLY Disciplined. There’s a story about an American sharp shooter was picking them off. As soon as one man would fall, the man from the second row would step up in the man’s place and never we blink an eye. Stood at attention in ranks. Very disciplined. At Bunker Hill the British marched in the open up hill being slaughtered but they kept coming. On the 3rd try they broke through and took the hill… they were no joke
I’m an American too, never heard or thought the British of any age were anything but professional. To claim any professional military is just people trying to escape the gutter has a lot of truth to it, but is that bad? From the Marian revolution of ancient Rome to my own military service, men signed up for the military as a way to escape poverty. Were it not for that opportunity, I would never have the education I have today. I would hardly consider myself a ruffian.
I’m an American who studied British Colonial American and Eighteenth-century English history. Very well done and informative. Yes, British troops were very good and it was only in the later stages of the war that American soldiers could perform bayonet maneuvers like the British troops. One thing I would question is the reality and opinion of the public of the standing of soldiers. It is true that class consciousness was not as developed in the Eighteenth century, but people did have a pretty good sense of who was above and beneath them among the various “orders” or “sorts.” That a third of the men in the 33rd were either untrained laborers or from the declining cloth trades speaks to many being from the lower orders. Also, John Beattie’s book on the courts and law (about 1985) noted that much of the writing public believed soldiers were the dregs of society and that they often became criminals when they returned home. Many would have preferred soldiers to die in their county of service, rather than to have such likely unemployed men (post war periods often have high unemployment) who have been trained in killing loose in British society. At least, that is what I remember of many of the points Beattie made. Of course, the educated public (and officers like Wellington) could be quite prejudiced.
Great article! Being an American, we are always taught that the British were poorly trained and that the Americans being from an agrarian culture were just better able to fight with unconventional tactics that the British could not match. Probably the British failed as a result of logistical problems more than tactical issues.
Very nice. From 20 yrs, 1985-2005, experience in the USAF, which may very from person to person and branch to branch, we had airmen enlisted that came from a troubled atmosphere that were fantastic and excelled as aircraft mechanics of all specialties. Maybe the structured life suited them but those above me were very mechanically skilled and displayed great leadership and interpersonal skills. They generally even held the respect of their Officers. I imagine it being similar in the 33rd at the time when you mention maybe criminals and hardened people being recruited.
A distant relative was “recruited” into the 42nd at a very young age. His elder brother fled the recruiters but he figured he was too young and was surprised. He fought in France and eventually in America, by then an officer. He stayed after the war and married a Scottish American woman. Col. James Stewart III.
I’m sure it was both… it is always the case… Armies rarely turn men away. I say this because I served as a U.S. Marine at the beginning of the GWOT and while the supermajority of men were there because they wanted to be there after Sept 11, there’s always the exception and were some scummy dudes too. That’s the nature of the military. I’m sure that the British Army of the Revolutionary War was the same… most were patriots for England, saw it as an honorable calling/service for King and Country and the dregs were most likely the exception. It’s interesting that Yorkshire makes up such a high percentage of enlisted men. We have a phenomenon much like this in the U.S. military today… the Scotch-Irish descendants that reside mostly in the South and Appalachian Mountains region make up a LARGE portion of the U.S. military. That’s been historically true for some time.
To my knowledge, the American Revolutionary Army where just farmers who took weapons and fought a very well fit army and were losing the war until a French King decided to spoil the British by sending the French Army to fight them in American soil. This Louis King spent enormous amounts of money until the US won the war. Unfortunately spending enormous amounts of money lead the French Treasury nearly empty to which high taxes were imposed to pay for King Lois’ caprice and as taxes got higher the people got fed up and a Revolution came, he was deposed and guillotined. A high price to pay for messing up your enemies success against the uprising British Colonial .
I’m an American 🇺🇸 and grew up in that area close to the battlefield of the battle of New Orleans (war of 1812) we named an area of our town full of oak trees after Fallen Major General Sir Edward Pakenham …Pakenham Oaks, there is also a street named for him… he was respected even as our enemy, i was always fascinated with the war tactics of the British Redcoats, Great Uniforms Great Military minds of the British Army And Navy they ruled the world at a time 😊
I’m a 61 yr old American. All throughout elementary, secondary school and college (I took 1 yr of American History in college). We were ALWAYS taught that the British Army was the greatest army on the face of the earth for that time period; i.e. both British officers and soldiers were well trained, well disciplined and fearless in battle. This was a huge hurdle the Continental Army had to overcome as its soldiers had a tendency to break and run in the heat of battle against such. This was why von Steuben’s appointment as inspector general of the Continental Army by Washington was invaluable. He immediately saw the lack of discipline and proper training with the troops and whipped them into shape by creating a training program during the winter at Valley Forge. That training had a significant impact on the rest of the war. I would also add that the arrogance nd or presumption of certain British commanders towards the Continental Army at the worst times, also cost them dearly.
Yankee here. Family literally fought in the American Revolution. My family has served ever since. I love the Brits. Proud to have family ties there. Maybe we had some issues a couple of centuries ago, but love Great Britain. Was genuinely sorry for the loss of your Queen. She was a genuine hero. May we serve in solidarity as brothers and sister forevermore.
One of the most prominent British regiments during the red cost period was the 44th Regiment of Foot which excelled in combat and won in Bunker Hill, Havana and numerous other battles both before and during the late 1700s independence period. Today, many US reenactment groups now display the “44” Regiment redcoat insignia.
Good article a lot of Americans think they defeated the British army, the main reason was because of lack of training and the red coat. I remember years ago i watched a article given by a history academic on George Washington’s website. He asked the audience what was the average experienced of the a British solider at the start of the revolution? There was total silence, he then said about 6 years and there was loud gasps of shock from the audience. He said the British soldier was very experienced and well trained, people could not believe it.
It was very interesting to learn that some British recurits nearly 300 years joined the British Army for similair reasons i did in 1997. For a simple reason of wanting to serve and protect Great Britain and the Union flag. Unfortunatly i severley damaged in basic training so was never able to become the soldier i always wanted to be and that is my single biggest regret in life. Although i may have reconsidered if i had actually been deployed in a war zone and been shot at 😂.(tounge in cheek)
The loss in the Colonies changed the British army and armies across the world forever. From Rogers Rangers to the early Rifleman, green camouflage uniforms and the use of Rifles instead of musket formations in the hands of free thinking soldiers taught to adapt fire and move is standard tactics across the world now.
I too am an American but not a United Statesman. I am Empire Loyalist Stock descended from a Northern European gentleman who, in the war of independence remained loyal to the crown, migrated his family north,returned to the fighting,was captured and imprisoned(with health consequences) and joined his family on cessation of hostilities and his release.I do not understand United Statesmen referring to themselves as being only of the continent and not one of the continents countries. Every other country of the Americas refers to their nationality as being of their country yet United statesmen refer to themselves only as being of the continent, not even distinguishing North or South America. Why is that?
The brits are among the most highly skilled and professional militaries on the planet at that time. The rebels have got to be thankful for the French for helping them out. And even then it was still a hard fought victory. My respect for the then patriot rebels grew more knowing they’ve faced (and won against) such a difficult enemy even with the help of their French allies.
America was deeply divided during the revolution. Why if the colonist did not have Irish fighters, they would have lost. The history books don’t tell that either. All the credit goes to the most pompous aristocratical colonial families they can find. Were British officers brutal or strict? I’d say they had to be or it comes with the territory, same with the colonial officers. I live in New England. If I happen to mention I drink tea the average New Englander would say Americans drink coffee not tea, we through that in the harbor. I’d point out they colonist didn’t like taxes. Isn’t it funny that Americans often engage in class warfare and brag about paying taxes now or say their taxes pay for this and that, which is ridiculous. When you think about it the colonists were no different than the Puritans which came before them. They just wanted to rule their own country. One could even argue there is a blurring of lines,especially after JFK was assassinated and even more so when the CIA entered the White House. Then Americans were being fed all this Princess Diana nonsense. There’s an old saying, the best way to defeat an enemy, allow them to think they won. The American Revolution is the result of Irish beating the Brits. Unlike 1798, if Irish people are well armed, they tend to fair very well on the battlefield. I guarantee the Guerrilla style tactics the colonists employed were the result of Irish involvement. Washington I hear was very grateful for their presence.
You, your website and content are awesome !! . The two things that got me interested in the British Redcoat were the painting by Howard Pyle of the British Grenadiers at Bunker Hill and the movie ” ZULU ” . Thank you for all the hard work you do providing us with this information and the guest speakers you have joining you . Much love, respect and admiration from Baltimore Maryland USA . ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
One thing should be crystal clear to Americans; global super powers get way more hate than justified. Out of all of the “European” imperial colonial powers the Brits were the best. They started the abolishment of slavery, and many other civil rights movements. Finally they had invested a lot into the infrastructure in the US and without them we would have probably failed or been killed off. They kinda just wanted to get some of that back and they were justified. The US would not have been successful without them. It may have been a minority but a large minority of Americans wanted to stay a British colony. HOWEVER they did have some assholes that wanted to find out.
Lions lead by donkeys. The British could control the seaboard areas. As soon as they went inland, they struggled. The loss of the American colonies is complete because of the horrible leadership, often refusaling to or poor working together. Examples, Johnny B is coming down the Hutson river. He takes the forts and has done his part in the plan to cut America into parts. The general in New York is supposed to March north to meet John Bs army. Instead he marches south to take Philly. Lots of Militia had stayed home in New England and not gone to help against Johnny Bs army for fear of the army in New York. With them removed, they went to fight and beat Johnny Bs army. Later, the head general, I think Clinton at this point, had plenty of time and resources to save Cornwallis at Yorktown. Nobody has ever come up with a reason he didn’t.
The second time I heard anyone say “the scum of the earth” was in 1983/84 when a fellow apprentice on our Working Pupil course in the British Horse Industry (Equestrian) referred to we, on the job, trainees collectively, with that phrase. I can’t remember covering the American Revolution in school history and the only other time I’d seen and heard the expression was in school history and in general conversation about Hitler. At first, I didn’t get the nuances of my colleagues sarcasm but it was my first job, she was from a ‘broken home’, I from a ‘sheltered’ one. She left for Australia soon after, I twenty years later. I’m still in Australia twenty years on again and I really feel like “the scum of the earth” now! Perhaps, I should’ve gone to America instead. Nay mind, after twenty years in Australia, I’m soon away home, back to blighty, and n’er stray further than the home counties, e’re agin! Don’t like crims one tiny bit but can’t help lovin’ the Redcoats, at an appropriate distance, of course. There, I’ve stood up for us alright, so stop beating up on me, you’ll n’er find a more loyal, Brit o’UK, Englander, anywhere, ever!!!😁🏴🇬🇧
This whole scum of the earth Wellington comment is a British/Continental understanding of the army from a later period. All of the American sources and the contemporary sources at the time do nothing but speak about how the British are the best army in the world and The Americans don’t stand a chance blah blah blah
An interesting side issue came up when I was reading of the War of 1812. At the west end of Lake Huron was Ft St Joseth and that was about as far west as official British forces went. Ft St Joseth was a relatively poor fort because the British had to hand over Ft Mackinac to the Americans under Treaty. The British had a problem that almost all their fortresses were on what became American territory. The interesting part of the story was the garrison. It was the 10th Veterans Regiment. according to the book the average of the garrison was 42 and was essentially made up of those released from the army because of injuries or health. If they could last to retirement they could get full pension rather than half pension of the injured. Don;t know if it was complately accurate. When the war started they were informed of the war before the American garrison at FT Mackinac and together with indigenous peoples and furtraders they were able to get in position before the poor American commander was aware the US had declared war on Britain. They even had time to evacuate the civilian population before suddenly appearing presenting the Americans with a demand for surrender. Taking the fort had a huge effect on the war in the west.
Great article, and I wouldn’t exist without a Redcoat ancestor. My grandmother is a descendant of Colonel Ambrose Mills (1722-1780), who was hanged in NC by Patriot forces. His son William Mills then blended into American society after the war. It makes me proud because I’ve always had an affinity for Wellington, Nelson, and the heroes of the empire.🇺🇸🇬🇧
A friend of mine in Wales🏴 actually said it best that, in regards to military might and overall mentality, it could be said that the U.S.🇺🇸 is the son closest to the father🇬🇧. Canada🇨🇦 is the well-behaved first born but Uncle Sam is the rebellious son more like the father in his prime (which the father hates to admit😂).
You went into such great lengths focusing on the 33rd, yet Cornwallis wasn’t in command of that unit during the American Revolution. So it seems youre just picking random statistics trying to apply them all during the period of 1775-1783. I also highly question the credibility of a guest that suggests the Brown Bess musket used by British forces could fire “blanks”.
When he mentioned a sample size of 61 men, I was rather taken aback by the certainty of his research. Furthermore, anyone willing to serve in the understaffed and poorly supplied conditions he described during the empire’s global conflicts would not be someone who is there solely because they want to be, especially after a decade of service.
Maybe it was just to build ourselves up, but American history teaches that the “redcoats” were well trained, well disciplined, and well lead. We over-emphasize the genius of our leadership (because mostly they weren’t, well, militarily most weren’t; politically, yeah Washington was a genius) and underemphasize the contributions of the French. But we never claim that we were fighting slackers, and often, especially in the early days, emphasize how much the colonist could learn by imitating the redcoats. Of course, we also emphasize how effective guerilla tactics were, because they were. Very hard to fight when differentiating enemy soldier from civilian is impossible.
It was a common piece of propaganda in olden days to picture one’s enemies as coming from the ranks of the desperate and/or criminal, serving in an army run by brutal and cynical officers (who are the losers and ne’er do wells of their own classes), fighting out of fear for bread and a pittance of pay rather than patriotism and higher standards. Such tropes and stereotypes were very common during the US Civil War, for example, in dpeeches, editorials, political cartoons, songs, etc., on both sides.
I don’t know what kind of education American kids get today, but I was always taught that British soldiers were well-trained fighters that had us outmatched. We succeeded by using guerrilla warfare to avoid traditional battles and utilizing French resources for critical engagement. We were never taught that British forces were inferior, to the contrary.
Media coverage of the performance and deeds of Loyal Colonial soldiers is next nil and awareness of some very fascinating old ghost is largely confined to students of this era in history. Fortunately the ‘Haldimand Papers’ are freely available on line and the records for detailed study of the various regiments. This data base is complimented at the individuals files related to war losd claims and compensation by the crown. Many are wonderfully detailed accounts of genuine daring-do while adventuring as old settlers, refugees, fleeing the mob committes and duty with the military. Very much a successful ‘Hit & Run’ Raid war that devistated upper New York in particular. Most War-Loss claims were settled at 10% of proven value and compensation of freehold lots of land for re-settlement in Canada. The scale of numbers in this part of the front in the 1st Amercan Civil War is small enough to allow following the war (and an individual) in a manner that is almost intimate.
Little known fact: King George originally signed off on the color green as the dye to be used for his soldier’s garments for camouflage purposes. However it was Lord Dalton Sexton, master of coin that was charged with actually choosing and purchasing the dye. Incidentally enough, Lord Sexton had red-green colorblindness and having ordered 4 galleys worth of crimson dye (worth about 24 million pounds in today’s money inflation adjusted), the English crown ended up going with red.
I find it interesting to expose the historical myth from the reality of the situation. The tendency of the American myth machine to distort history is renowned. As an amateur historian, it is part of my research to separate the two to get a clearer picture of a historical event or period. Thank you for helping to make this topic clearer regarding the state of the British armed forces during this period.
As an American we were never really taught that the Redcoats were terrible people, we were always taught they fought with a set of civilized rules. I mean the movie The Patriot had a really evil one but he was based on Tarlaton who was an anomaly and it also makes for a better movie. We were even taught in college that Samuel Adams intentionally made stuff up about the red coats for propaganda to fuel the spirit of Independence.
On the western Pennsylvania colonial frontier, the American side recruited sharp shooters from the militias to serve at Saratoga. Two sons of the Oliver Miller family helped win that battle, as remembered by the historical society Oliver Miller Homestead (where I was a volunteer docent for many years), part of the Allegheny County Parks System in South Park PA 15129. The western Pennsylvania colonial frontier beyond the Allegheny Mountains was largely settled by Scots-Irish who were strong supporters of the American cause. David McCullough in his book ‘1776’ said Washington considered it an option in case of a worse-case scenario, he could retreat with his army beyond the Allegheny mountains.
British troops were and are notoriously stubborn at giving up. Even when the odds are greatly against them. This was a civil war, not a revolutionary war. If not for some serious flawed generalship, the outcome would have been very different and Washington left swinging. The French intervention when British logistics were stretched, changed the outcome. Am I bothered? Of course not. We should all be grateful in the West for what grew from a small beginning.
Bro, anyone who knows history and military history knows all tactical and strategical limitations of england and every other nation. Even in terms of morality, it becomes an exhausting campaign. You’re preaching to the converted if the algorithm sends us articles about topics we know about lol. To prove this fact-the US and britain have a really strong alliance, especially after WW2, bygones be bygones. Only lower levels of society still believe in the myths of redcoat degeneracy.
As a proud Englishman, I have read with great appreciation the comments made by my American cousins. After reading much about this conflict I am resolutely of the opinion that it was a war that did not need to be fought. I am convinced that the rebels were unpopular amongst the majority of colonialists of all European descent. Even some French American colonialists were against the war. History proves that Great Britain was prepared to peacefully give up her colonies even assisting them to independence without violence. That is why the British Empire was the most noble empire the world has ever seen (not perfect) but morally superior to all other empires that ever existed and for that reason it will never be matched. I must add, I am immensely proud of the USA and all your achievements in particular your fight against fascism and communism. World peace and prosperity over the past 230 years has been achieved because Britain improved the lives of millions and the USA picked up where we left off. Together we should be immensely proud that China or Russia would never have given the world peace, democracy, capitalism, modern farming, common law, modern medicine and modern education. We may have lost our way but I foresee a great move back to traditional values and a new wave of Anglo sphere influence as the world wakes up to the frightening alternative.🇬🇧🤝🇺🇸
Great articles.Our-USA view(I am 73) was the 1776 Brit army was best in the world-had recently 1763 defeated the French-in what we call The French and Indian War- I we were taught some distain for the ACTUAL GERMAN-HESSIAN-TROOPS-not because they were evil or incompetent or cowardly-but because they were mercenaries-fought for $$.Otherwise Brit forces were feared respected hated-in our-USA-historical view. Oh I am from New Orleans; we still celebrate-every year around New Years- The Battle of New Orleans-Chalmette battlefield. In 1953 or so a movie was made and the song from it-is still played- yes we know we lost the war-and the battle was after it ended-but we WON that battle-so…we remember and celebrate it “in 1814 we took a little trip along with Col Jackson down the mighty Missip. we took a little bacon and we took a little beans and we caught the Bloody British at the town of New Orleans” Apparently Col Pakenham and his troops-were experienced-Napoleonic wars-but a musket ball is a musket ball-you walk-in formation into protected positions-you die We-USA-also had cannon-also well positioned- In any case I like your articles despite there being about Redcoats- Col Jackson-a somewhat flawed man of his times-hated the British-they were responsible for the death of most of his family-he was a Scot/Irish-held grudges as they do
Love the content, as an American, I’d love to see an episode about Royal American regiments from the periods before the Revolution. The French and Indian War (Seven Years War for you non-colonials), I know it’s a bit bias. I’m curious how the Royal Americans were seen by the typical British regiment and how they got along in combat in the American Colonies
As I understand it, England had overstretched their forces with protection of their Empire and war with France so while soldiers might have wanted to be part of the ranks, qualifications for recruitment were lowered and men less trained who were sent to America, in part because they originally saw it as an insignificant rebellion that needed only a show of force… which also can explain why some battles were not won decisively.
The 33rd was not a typical regiment. It was very well funded by wealthy commanders beyond Cornwallis’s leadership. Your descriptors in your opening were probably more correct – as in: All of the above. And, also correct in that they were all pretty well drilled, no matter their backgrounds. Leadership varied, as in any army. In all, the Brits were a very sound Army for most of its history – even til now. I’m glad they’re on my sisde. No student of the American Revolution can have anything but respect for the British Army of those days. A corrolary study will also reveal that Americans today are still under the false impression that Geo III was a tyrant. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The lecturer did not seem to present the discussion of height stats correctly. Of the appx 379 Soldiers listed in the graph, the average height appears to be 67.5in (5’7.5) at best if the column of ‘Under 5’.6’ was calculated as all 5’5 and not shorter. Most of the Soliders appear to be between under 5’6 and 5’7.5, so the average height is much shorter than in the UK today (5’10).
I live in northern Georgia, very near upstate South Carolina which saw vicious fighting during the American Revolution, involving both the British Army, American provincials and ‘Tory’ irregulars. Nothing in documented history or lore really supports any idea that the British regulars and officers were anything other than generally proper. Even that Banastre Tarleton deliberately ordered a massacre at Waxhaws in 1780 has been largely disproven. There were atrocities committed by ‘British forces’ but all that come to mind at the hands of the undisciplined ‘Tory’ irregulars who even the British officers tended to dismiss as ‘banditti.’ The American Whigs also indulged in their share of wanton slaughter as well, but then the Whig vs Tory fighting in the Southern Theater was a true civil war.
British soldiers reasons for joining the army are mainly unemployment. My grandfather joined in 1932 because of it, my step father and 4 uncles joined in 1968-1973 because of it, and my nephew joined this year because of it. My grandfather said he joined because of ‘lunch’ in the 30’s as a young man he couldn’t eat 3 times a day, he loved his Regiment the Cheshires but was a socialist. My uncles and step father were in the Green jackets they loved their regiment too. And apart from a few, the officer were posh idiots. How do I know this? Coming from a working class military family and growing up in the 70s and 80s as a pad brat. These posh historians are full of crap. His data even proves my point. Unemployment and starving Irish, which my paternal side were of. This is just academic rubbish. Oh between them all, 3 military medals and a dso. And 2 mentioned in despaches.
I congratulate you on the considerable effort that has been made to accurately characterize the late 18th century British soldiers serving in the American theater. However, far less seems to be known about the Hessian mercenaries serving King George III at that time. Some of the key battles of the conflict, including Washington’s famous nighttime crossing of the Delaware river on Christmas Eve, resulted in the defeat and capture of large numbers of Hessian soldiers. And their private written correspondence has been rather illuminating. For example, their letters reveal that they were surprised to discover that many of the people that were shooting at them were NOT “English colonists”. They were, instead, back-woods bands of Ulster Scots who had emigrated from the plantations created by King James. Furthermore, the long-range impact of these German speaking mercenaries on the American history that followed should not be overlooked. Today, maps tracking the ethnic origins of people through-out the lower 48 states lists German as the most common for most counties in the US. English, Irish, and Ulster Scots lag far behind in that regard. It might explain some of the reluctance of Americans to get involved in the conflicts of WWI and WWII. I have spoken to American families that trace their ancestry back to the Hessian mercenaries. Some of them were surprisingly open about their support for Germany during the wars of the 20th century. Again, history shows itself to be full of unintended consequences.
The 18th-century British Army was an 18th-century institution. The American Revolution has forced everyone (especially us Americans) to up our game in thousands of ways. Compared to modern western armies of 2024, the 18th century Brits were appalling. But that isn’t a fair comparison. Compared to other contemporary armies, they were very good. Like modern Brits and Germans (we can’t forget the Hessian mercenaries), the 18th century British army had warped ideas about America and did act on these delusions.
They recently discovered the bodies of some Highlanders in near my hometown in South Carolina. I was saddened that I found out after they were reburied. I wanted to pay my respects. I might be a ‘splitter’ by British standards but I have so much respect for them serving so far from their homes and contributed to the rich history and culture of my state. Personally I always play the British in any game (Total War) and invade my own state 🤣 so I wouldn’t say I have any ill feelings for them; despite how Hollywood tried to portray them.
Think the “part time” and “dandy’s & fops” reputation of C18 & C19 British officers was mostly based on the more aristocratic officers of the London based Guards and High Status Cavalry units rather than its line Infantry regiments, artillery, engineers etc. But too be fair to even some of these officiers like the ultra aristocratic Lord Cardigan who returned to his yacht after leading the charge of the Light Brigade too disaster they did provide the Army with a degree of diplomatic protection and /or spend a lot of their own cash on making sure “their” regiments uniforms, horses and equipment were top quality.
I’m an American and I’ve done a fair amount of reading primary British sources, mainly of our Civil War era, and I think this view of the average Redcoat comes from the British upper classes themselves! They were always talking about “the mob” – the mob was going to run rampant if they got any political power, etc. And they were referring to the working classes of their own people! Sounds a little like the talk of too many elites today, eh? Hillary Clinton has called me a “deplorable”! Joe Biden has called me a “domestic terrorist”. Seems it was the same back then..
Much of the myth making about the revolutionary war happened long after it was over. Partly this was political, because major figures had reputations to make or protect. Partly it was because of the 1812 war and arguments over Canada. What tends to be forgotten is that a substantial minority of Americans were dead against revolt. A further significant minority were very ambivalent about independence, especially because of trade. The reality was that, at the time, only a minority of Americans wanted independence. They weren’t the settler/working class. The vast majority of independence seekers were land owners and businesses owners who hated taxes of any sort. Taxes was the real cause of the conflict. It’s also important to remember that there was significant support for American representation at Westminster in England among upper and middle classes. That’s why after the war ended in 1782, immigration from Britain continued to be higher than from elsewhere.
I think this is a little overthinking. Just look at modern soldiers, many are volunteers who have trades and skills but just get bored and want adventure, patriotism and the chance to kill. Also many are down and out, running from something and seek a respite abroad. Perhaps in the 17th and 18th century it was probably more of the later as times were much tougher but it would have been a balance.
I think your wrong about previous professions first thing you learn not to do is boast about what you used to do when joining the British Army you will be targeted and I can see no reason why the same was not applied back in them days I was an apprentice trained Mechanical/Electrical Engineer when I joined I remember some Instructor showing me how to use a Hack Saw I didn’t know to laugh or cry, I just followed and kept quite.
😂 We definitely weren’t taught that the British were the scum of the earth. I think you British were taught that within your own text books if anything. We more or less just learned the political landscape of the time on the whole. Personally as an American I’ve always admired the bravery and courage of the British especially in WWII when they stood alone against many. Mr. Churchill is one of my biggest hero’s in history.
This is a subject that has made me wonder. Stop and think about it. When they were in Europe, Germany or wherever they probably didn’t own property. Here they are saying that hey we are Scotts, Irish, German and now we can own property like gentlemen. I think the same thing in 1812. The British were fresh from fighting the French and they meet the Americans, really without a standing army, the British walked all over us. I think their long supply line and dealing with the frontier people started to give them a pause.
As a Yank and Veteran who has read a stupid amount of Military History, The Brit Redcoats were the Legionaries of their day, probably the finest soldiers in the world. They didn’t have a world spanning empire for no reason. Why it’s such a shock that we were able to win the war, but as we have seen from many examples before and since, It’s almost impossible to win a conflict in a country that is united against you and won’t quit and will continue to fight no matter how many conventional battles they lose.
Unfortunate, the speaker perceives the listener has a perception of the subject, and assumes a negative perception. Other than wearing red coats, British, and England why would i know anything? Interesting farmer is not listed as an occupation, but maybe laborers were farmers? Perhaps, the article will get better, but maybe not as the speaker prejudiges are so strongly spoken. ‘We have this impression’? Who is we?
If you only account for the soldiers that were literate, then yes you will get a skewed perspective. Listening to some chap with an accent that screams ‘officer class’ obviously gives one side of the story. Look at the records of magistrates from the late 1700s, this will give you some answers. The soldiers of the time were hard men,they were working class and they won wars.
Going back to the Hundred Years War the English Army, which was even then had a proportion of Scots, Irish, and Welsh volunteers or mercenaries, was a place to go seek adventure, fame and fortune on the continent. It is only as England and Britain became more economically successful that the lure of military service waned. I also think the Restoration brought in a much more elitist snobbery against the common soldier since they were more closely identified with the Parliamentary forces and not the dashing Cavaliers who they defeated.
How many Red Coats were recruited in the Americas. I’m of the opinion that those that were on Kings mountain were from Charleston SC. Also a significant cause of the war was because the British had made treaties with native Americans, but this was in conflict with the the colonists who wanted westward expansion. Can you shed any light on this. After a defeat at Savannah GA. Red Coat prisoners were given to the french to be used as slaves on their plantations. In fact there is a picture in Savannah depicting this. Your feedback would be appreciated.
Great ;i love this doc about soldier ‘s background and sociology .I didn t know that the commun soldier of 33 RD mainly came from from yorkshire .i was thinking they came from Ireland,maybe due to it was former rgt of Welllington .Speaking of Yorkshire ;go visit the muséum of York army museum, it is focuses on Inniskilling rgt and 5th dragoon .
Yep, it was a British civil war – or a cousin’s war as it has been called – as both sides were British. My forefather from Massachusetts who fought the whole war through with Washington would have told you he was fighting for his rights as an Englishman. We didn’t consider that we had thrown them overboard halfway across the Atlantic! He would have laughed at the idea it had anything to do with The Enlightenment
when he claims that poverty was not the driving force he does not seem to be backed up by the figures. The previous occupations could easily indicate that it was. Moreover, he does not tie it into the economics of when and where. they were recruited For instance many could be agricultural labourers and if bad harvests etc or other factors were involved then work would be scarce, for weavers and other trades the new industrialisation could affect them. Obviously other factors were involved as he says but I would have preferred a more detailed analysis.
As a history fan and American I can say that generally speaking, the red coats had this air of menace to them as these elite proper soldiers that we only got the better of by luck, cleverness and asymmetrical warfare to say nothing of our guts and the fact that we survived our many blunders while your country eventually had one too many. Though admittedly even I still view the red coats as brutal, they WERE patriotic and saw Americans as traitors so, they treated them as such!
Looking at the chart the average seems to be 5.8 feet, which means almost exactly 1.75 metres, that is a fairly considerable height. Most Europeans at that time (1750-80) were farmers and led fairly healthy lives compared with the ones of their descendants during the horrendous Industrial Revolution which killed thousands of children and created lots of sickly, undernourished young men. Another detail that highlights the considerable average height of the British soldiers of the 33rd of Foot at that time and proves Robbie´s point about the myth of the “small people in the 18th century” is the fact that in 1939, to join the elite infantry regiment “Grossdeutschland”, the most prestigious unit of the German Army, you needed a minimum height of 1.75 metres.
It’s like any group of people. You’re going to have professional British soldiers and unprofessional, as well as brutish thuggish officers, which there were, and it’s well documented… as well as kind and caring officers. It’s not one or the other. It’s like anything with people from different backgrounds. You’re going to get a mixed bag.
And after being wounded, or losing a limb or sight, They could be seen selling matches on the streets of most British cities, trying to subsist on a few pennies. Absolutely shameful, Allways been the same, Even after the great victory over the Spanish armada, sailors were refused permission to go ashore, most of them starving, disease taking a hold, festering wounds from timber splinters flung at them in showers as cannonballs shattered the decks, Aye, even Elizabeth the first, whose crown and realm they saved, ignored their plight. And where other countries raise great monuments to their soldiers bravery, we have just a small plaque in Falmouth commemorating the raid on St nazaire, These commandos, And all British servicemen throughout the ages, even unto the present day, Deserve so much more Than a largely uninterested apathetic British public.
What i learned was the british were the worlds best and most professional army while the americans were a bit of everyone, the rich and poor alike who rallied around the right leaders especially george washington but ive never heard the british were criminals like that since the punishments in there military were brutal
One can look at the time period of the American revolution as the first real world war. What was happening in the states was not isolated to just the states. There was fighting in the Caribbean and many other places at the same time. The British army for many years had the best fighting navy and certainly the best land army but…/ it was stretched very thin. Requiring Mercenary Prussians who also were high quality. You really have to look at what else was going around at the time and where GB prioritized to understand the conflict better. Also the British just fought the French in Canada and it was not clear the French would not retaliate in the colonies and when. The Spanish were also no friend to GB and the British had to allocate forces everywhere.
I think the thing to remember about recruitment from England and Ireland, is that it definitely makes sense for Ireland to provide the second largest number of recruits after England because they had the second highest population in the UK, certainly higher than Scotland and Wales. And Ireland was unquestionably part of the UK back then, so I think a lot of people look at that with modern eyes; but its not really all that amazing in the period. I think that somewhat later in the period, not quite so much in the final years of the 18th century but going into the 19th, Ireland roughly provides a third of the manpower overall in this period for both army and navy. England with the most at half, Scotland with one sixth. Welsh numbers are not recorded due to being quite low, but in proportion with its population.
If you look at the results of the American war of independence battles, the British usually only lost when they were outnumbered by more than 3-1. It was like the Americans in Vietnam. They won most of the battles because they were the better Army. But they lost the war, because they didn’t want to fight it enough.
All my life I’ve always wanted ( since I was a kid ) a huge toy soldier army of highly detailed redcoats..containing all the different ranks. They had the most iconic and most beautiful ( intimidating ) uniforms of any army in my humble opinion. I’ve always had a fascination with their historical reputation and let’s admit it my American brethren…those Brits were very brave ! 🇬🇧 Interesting website ..new subscriber! 🇬🇧❤️🇺🇸
Most armies had poorly trained officers, and foot soldiers who were either the poor and desperate hoping to make a better life for themselves or the indentured forced into service. Battle changed them if they survived. There were always a few trained and educated leaders. Wise men listened to the trained, and survived. Stupid men charged into bloodbaths. The professional volunteer soldier comes and goes, through history. Their training is usually on personal survival. The tacticians are always apprenticed in through practical experience, regardless of their book-learning.
close to zero prisoners were used by the British army during these times…. Great Britain was extremely busy exporting those guys (and women) to offshore territories…….. New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Van Diemen’s Land (now the island of Tasmania, Australia… the name change was in 1856) The best, well, nastiest conditions were at Norfolk Island… that was brutal if you were a prisoner. That was end of the road, back in the day. Norfolk Island is between Australia and NZ…. it is Australian territory today. Similar situation to Guantanamo Bay (Hold them offshore)…. but you stayed there…. it was a one way trip normally. No prisoners or misfits were sent to New Zealand though way back then !! (Yeah OK, today we got a few of your own anyway!!) Prisoners/misfits were sent to other parts of the ‘British Empire” as it was, at the time. I understand, but can’t quote sources, that quite few arrived in ‘the America’s” in general terms. (Not USA as a country as we know it today… but ‘in the colonies’ of the time. Which includes a reasonable amount of today’s USA, Canada, Caribbean area )
Also, about height I’d like to dispel that myth too-90% of guys lie about their height as with other sizes. People give generalized statements like “I’m 6′” while only being 5’9, which is actually kind of tall. There’s a reason 5’11 was minimum req. for grenadiers because even today, 5’11 is 6’1-6’2 in perceived height. People just forget how tall 5’11 and 6’0 actually is(a 6′ will visually be the same as a 6’2 guy, no joke), and most lie. 5’9 even today is kind of tall. I guarantee you anyone who says 5’9 is actually 5’6-5’5 if you put them on a ruler. Try it, guarantee you’ll be shocked. People weren’t shorter back then, people just raised the “average height” to give impression modernism increased height-it didn’t, it’s a hoax.
After the pinisular war 2 of my uncles were moved, one went to the Jamaica’s the other who was shot in the eye and leg was moved to Canada for a rest he was a Sergent. He arrived in Canada, as he landed he was back on a boat and up the Patomac for Colonies, was in one battle beating the colonialists then on to Washington during a meal in the white house, he was told to get torches await orders, involved in the white house burning, after leaving the Army he became a Chelsa Pensioner.
Back in 1976 (?) a London newspaper published a poster titled “The British Redcoat In America and then the U.S. government printed it as well. If you want a real good look at what life was like for the Redcoats this has everything. I got my copy around 1981 and rolled it out on the floor….wow, it was filled with pictures and information of the real war. I drank several beers while going over this 🙂
@4:20 the graph that is shown fails to take into account how the selection process works. When you are fighting abroad, there is a need for resources to the front. Now look at the spread of different jobs and tell me that you want to be yanking miners out of the cold earthso that they’re not making any raw materials for bullets and guns and horse wagons, etc.
Truthfully, I found this article a bit boring. Useless statistics. I’m from the US and I think that you are glorifying redcoats too much. The United States Constitution was based on the fact that Britain — the king, parliament, and soldiers were usurping the colonies (made of of brits mostly), and they were abusively causing tyranical actions. Firing muskets on their own british subjects at Lexington was far from noble. The amazing story is how the US colonists had the balls to break away from their own government overseas and fight a much more organized army. That being said, there has been immense recociliation and the connection to UK, even after 1776 and 1812.
As an American, I’m extremely grateful that I had a great history teacher that taught me all the sides/perspectives of the war. Misconceptions like the “Boston Massacre” helped me put things into perspective and just see how volatile everything was. Nothin but respect for our brothers across the pond
I just have to say that I don’t understand why many people outside of the US think that American Citizens mock the British Soldiers in our history books. We are taught that it was family against family, at least I was, throughout all of grade school and into Highschool. The only people we really revile are people like Tarleton the Butcher for his atrocities, or Benedict Arnold for his greedy war profiteering and lack of honor toward his fellow man. We’re taught that the British Generals were cunning, but many did NOT want to be there. George Washington lost a lot of early engagements, because we were fighting a professional world class army – mostly with farmers and former militiamen of the British Army. The vast majority of our textbooks hold the British Army to a pretty high regard – mostly because a lot of our Generals were British Soldiers!
So in other words the Roman army transitioned into the British Army. One key aspect seldom brought up because it’s not sexy is the army building things. Todays modern military’s have specialized units but you’ll never see the 82nd airborne building a highway. I bring this up because here in the states we’re seeing the outcome of men no longer being taught to build. Hence why our political hacks left the door open on our southern border.
They were grossly underpaid and under-resourced. They sometimes sort part-time work in the colonies when not on duty. Often making ship rigging, shucking oysters and clams, road building, shoveling snow. The crown would billet them in the colonists’ homes.This wasn’t popular with the colonists. This is why billeting troops in private homes is banned under the US Constitution.
Really enjoyed listening to the many revelations ( to me) about the ‘ ordinary soldiers ‘ and the ” usual officers ” . I grew up under the old teaching of ‘ the scum of the earth ‘, the fop foolish officers and of course the ” harsh brutal discipline ” . So this was a fascinating eye opener exposing those old myths as just that …..the reality discussed as openly as it was and supported by the facts actually makes far more logical sense than the myths . Great article and most thought provoking, thank you.
We have to remember that Americans back then would have compared a Redcoat to their own fighting men. Most Americans of the time hadn’t had to fight the Indians for a long time and had never had to face an invading European army . They were not used to how armies of the 18th cen behaved. European armies were expected to “live off the land” when on the march. And the British did quarter their soldiers on American civilians every chance they got. Americans were simply not used to this. One of the wise things Washington did was to forbid his own army to forage or live off the land (that’s why they were always starving, etc) because he knew that would alienate the people from his cause. It did, over 7 years, do a lot to alienate most Americans, the great majority of them farmers, from the British cause. So it wasn’t that the average Redcoat was scum or even badly-behaved by European standards, it was that he was by American standards.