When was the uniform introduced on the battlefield?

I´m a bit confused as I´ve seen English Civil War Musketeers depicted in identical clothing, while the Swedes and the Danes had to use paper and straws to tell each other apart during the Battle of Lund a few decades later.

 

The Parliamentary New Model Army was I think the first to introduce uniforms to Britain certainly the Red Coat has his Genesis here. As to why no uniforms decades after the English Civil War, the answer I would say was money. Uniforms came a poor second to guns. Bare in mind however uniforms until the very late 19th century varied from unit to unit. Armies only truly became uniform with the need for camouflage.

 

I suppose it's to do with who is funding the soldiers and whether the army was a profesional standing army or made up of part time yeomanry and volunteers.

The Romans, Greeks and possably others in that area and period (Egyptionss, Asssyerians etc) would have had a unformaty of costume for the some units. These representing full time permenant employees/soldiers.

obviously as these civilisations fell so did the practise of supplied uniforms.

It wasn't until the late 17th and early 18th century that the english and others started to have full time soldiers and they would have been supplied with uniforms.

You are right in that the uniform depicted the regiment, within the guidlines for the country and were not universal across all troops. Therefore there could be considerable variation.

Uniforms were very important pre camouflage as they told people your country of origin and thus side. Napalionic colours were roughly red for the UK, blue for the french and black for the Prussian. Hence the debate over the approaching troops being black or blue.

FNG

 

...although obviously the armies of the Medieval period used some kind of uniform symbol to prevent 'friendly fire' - or should that be 'friendly hacking'.

Typically the troops employed by a noble in the later Medieval would wear a surcoat with his colours on, and often his crest as well.

In the early Medieval, Emblems or Symbols were more common. The Plantagenet family, for example, made all their soldiers wear a sprig of the plant 'broom' for identification.

Even during the Napoleonic, regiments (in Britain) were still largely funded by noblemen, and therefore had uniforms largely inspired by the imagination of said noblemen.

Generally, uniforms come in when armies are professional, standing units under one commander. That commander can be the leader of a country, or just a nobleman. Or even a mercenary leader.

National armies get uniform uniforms when they are always under the direct control of their national leader.
So for Britain, roughly early/mid 19th Century, after a few false starts (Cromwell, etc).

 

The english had uniforms and a standing army during the jacobite rebelians, which ended on a marshy moor in 1746.

Begs the question how a flower stays on in hand to hand combat and how many people would be attacked by their own side in a melee when it fell off!

FNG

 

There was a great moment during the wars of the rose when a commander in the Lancastrian forces mistook a 'star' (of Oxford, IIRC) on a banner for a 'sun' (York, IIRC), and attacked his allies. This cost the battle.

I think the fragility of emblems are what lead to the rise of tabards and surcoats.

Interestingly, the 'Border Rievers' (irregular troops from the English-Scottish border) were often hired by the English kings when fighting the Scots (and their Scottish counterparts were hired by the Scottish king!), and used to wear armbands or insignia to show which army they belonged to.
It was often said, by both English & Scots, that the Rievers would deliberately wear loose and/or easy to remove insignia, for a variety of reasons including escaping a defeated army or even to switch sides as the fancy took them!

 

Norway was one of the poorest countries in Europe well into the 19th century ( the 'Albany of Europe', according to the host of a recently broadcasted documentary series ). But uniforms could apparently be afforded from 1697, when the first uniform regulations were introduced. Almost fifty years after the English Civil War, but uniforms had been in use for quite some time. The regulations of 1697, however, saw the same pattern introduced nationwide.



The grey coat was already in use, but green and red coats were not uncommon before 1697 ( the colour was usually determined by the taste of the regimental commander ). Regimental colours were prominent, as can be seen, but they do at least look like they are on the same side. The grey coat was replaced by a red coat in 1717.

I must be allowed a small diversion btw, since you mention camouflage. Skitroopers had the same red coat as the rest of the army from 1717, but the inside of the coat was blue. This to allow the skitrooper to pass for a Swede by turning the coat inside out. Camouflage was taken a step further in 1733 when the colour of the uniform was changed to green ( for skitroopers only ) to ease concealment.



The inside of the coat was still blue, as can be seen. The uniform colour was changed back to red in 1747, however, because the commanding general at the time found the green colour to be ill suited for parading.

 

Why doesn't that surprise me... :roll:

 

The uniform would say a lot about the political climate in Europe at any given time in other words ?

On a sidenote; I seem to recall having seen British soldiers of the Napoleonic Wars with blue uniforms, Hussars and artillery IIRC. Wouldn´t that just add to the confusion of an already very 'colourful' battlefield ?

 

Oh yes. There were even grey, light green, dark green... pretty much every colour except purple.

That is why I do not see the Napoleonic as the era of a national uniform.

 

It wasn't much better before then, either, at least in the French Army. The regiments Rochambeau led in America during the Revolution wore uniforms of a wide variety of colors, including white and even pink! :roll:

 

My brain just caught up with my eyes.

I like the reversable uniform idea!
But is green any less visable than red for a skitrooper? Surely skitroopers are used in the snow (hence the skis). :-?

 

Hiding behind a tree for example, would be a lot easier in a green uniform. The uniform was also used all year round, and Winter lasts for four or five months only. 'Skitroopers' are slightly misleading perhaps, as they only used skis during Winter. Anyway, red uniforms have a tendency to stand out whether it is snowing or not.

 

Yeah, like wearing a big sign that says: "Hey, enemy! Here I Am! Please Shoot Me!!!"

 

didn't roman soldiers wear similar armour and dress ?

 

Actually, yes, very good point.
Roman soldiers had definate uniforms, which also had slight variations that gave note of their unit, IIRC.

But then, Greek & Macedon soldiers had uniforms of a kind, being militia.

Anybody care to comment on Babylonian, Assyrian or Egyptian armies?

All these are, of course, great centralised armies of their nation (or city state) under the direct contriol of their leader (in theory at least!).
And they died with the centralisation.

 

I was about to make this point. Uniforms are a sign of a centralized state prepared to spend money to make its army look impressive / unified / recognizable in battle. As soon as states began to lose the funds and the power to effectively do this, uniforms disappeared. It can be seen from the fact that late-era Roman armies were often largely made up of mercenaries and allied troops - who didn't have uniforms.

Another thing you must consider is that Roman legionnaires, like Macedonian and ancient Greek phalanxes, were (urban) militias, who tended to be well-funded, disciplined and uniformed.