MA Work
I am finding it a real struggle to get my head around the mentality and mind-set of British Army officers c.1800 to 1860, especially in the cavalry.
As S H Myerly has pointed out, the British army was obsessed with appearance and 'show' on parade. So much so that it was considered a well dressed 'showy' regiment was one which was efficient and would be effective in the field. The showier the uniform, the whiter the cross belts and shinier the boots and metal work the better. Irrespective of the comfort and practicality of the uniform. Even in the Crimean War, one general, Sir George Brown, ordered the Light Division to retain the hated leather kneck stock and even went so far as to threaten officers and men of the Light Division for not turning out in correct uniform and for having dirty cross belts or having lost pieces of equipment with a Court-Martial. This was in the middle of a siege when the British army was up to its arm pits in mud and half starved, yet all Sir George could think of was getting pipeclay for cross belts, blacking for shoes and court-martialling officers who turned out in the incorrect order of dress.
In the cavalry, Colonels had the right to buy horses for their regiments, and as time went on the horses, even in the light cavalry which according to regulation were meant to have small, nimble, active horses no more than 15hh, had horses upto 16hh - the same size as a heavy cavalry horse! Similarly, light cavalry troopers were meant to be no more than 5' 6" tall yet many regiments had troopers around the 6' mark because they looked better on parade. This was a vicious circle as bigger men needed bigger horses to carry them. The Colonel of the 16th Lancers went as far as to only purchase chestnut horses and favoured recruits with red hair because they matched the red jackets of the regiment. Another regiment actually painted their horses so that each troop had the same colour horse.
In addition, instead of using hardy horses which could survive the rigours of campaign as had been in use inthe army during the 18th century, appearances became the deciding factor for horse purchase. Even as early as 1796 regiments of Light Cavalry were purchasing thoroughbred-cross (TBX) or thoroughbred (TB) horses of race horse or hunter type because they looked good. The problem with TB or TBX horses is that they are very fragile, and need careful management and consistently high quality forage. Something which is not available on campaign. AS early as 1808-1810 it was recognised that the British cavalry horse, being large and either TB or TBX, meant that they were not at all suited to the rigours of campaign life. It was estimated that 9 out of 10 British horses would died within the first three months on campaign because they simply were the wrong sort of horse for campaign. Even the French recognised the supreriority of their cavalry mounts, being smaller, hardier and certainly not TB or TBX. And yet, nothing was done about it. This was despite the fact that it was recognised in Britain that although British horses looked pretty they were absolutely no good on campaign.
By the Crimean War the British cavalry were mounted on horses that were totally unsuited for campaigning, and only good for parade duties. The cavalry uniforms were uttelry impractical with breeches so tight it was hard to actually mount a horse and jackets so tight it was almost impossble to swing a sabre. Why? Simply put, because they looked good on parade. The French cavalry, because they had less showy horses and had practical uniforms were considered inferior.
The British cavalry slavishly copied the Prussian style of riding from the 18th century as used by Frederick the Great. If it was good enough for Frederick, it was good enough for them even 60 or so years later. They used what is called a balance seat where you literally balance on the horses back and the legs are not used as a riding aide. All the control is from very heavy bitting. The French and other European countries had abolished that system around 1800 for the French seat which we use today as the modern, current, riding seat. Even in Britain the French seat had begun to replace the Balance seat by the 1830s amongst civilians but not in the military who retained it until the 1860s. It was all but extinct in civilian riding by 1850. Despite the French seat being the present day seat, the British military consisdered it worthless and inferior to the balance seat of Prussia from the 1750s. No one rides with the Balance seat anymore and Britain was the last to abolish it. Even in the early 20th cenutry the debate Balance vs Modern seat was still being raged.
I cannot get my head around this. The more I read the more my brain boggles. The British cavalry KNEW their horses for all their fine looks were no use on campaign yet what did they do? Kept on buying TB or TBX horses of increasingly large size. And yet they are astonished that the British Cavalry in the Crimean War falls appart in three months because the horses simply could not stand the rigours of campaign and the work asked of them. British officers disparaged and mocked the French for having small "miserable little weeds" of horses who didn't look pretty, and were certinaly not TB, but they could and DID survive on campaign. The British saw that their "ideal" cavalry horse was not suited to campaign, and one would have thought that they would have learned a lesson from this. But they didnt. After the debacle of the Crimean War they still bought large, showy TB or TBX (increasly TB rather than TBX) horses which they knew were no good on campaign, had seen die in their hundreds in the Crimea, but looked good on parade.
I just don't get it.
As S H Myerly has pointed out, the British army was obsessed with appearance and 'show' on parade. So much so that it was considered a well dressed 'showy' regiment was one which was efficient and would be effective in the field. The showier the uniform, the whiter the cross belts and shinier the boots and metal work the better. Irrespective of the comfort and practicality of the uniform. Even in the Crimean War, one general, Sir George Brown, ordered the Light Division to retain the hated leather kneck stock and even went so far as to threaten officers and men of the Light Division for not turning out in correct uniform and for having dirty cross belts or having lost pieces of equipment with a Court-Martial. This was in the middle of a siege when the British army was up to its arm pits in mud and half starved, yet all Sir George could think of was getting pipeclay for cross belts, blacking for shoes and court-martialling officers who turned out in the incorrect order of dress.
In the cavalry, Colonels had the right to buy horses for their regiments, and as time went on the horses, even in the light cavalry which according to regulation were meant to have small, nimble, active horses no more than 15hh, had horses upto 16hh - the same size as a heavy cavalry horse! Similarly, light cavalry troopers were meant to be no more than 5' 6" tall yet many regiments had troopers around the 6' mark because they looked better on parade. This was a vicious circle as bigger men needed bigger horses to carry them. The Colonel of the 16th Lancers went as far as to only purchase chestnut horses and favoured recruits with red hair because they matched the red jackets of the regiment. Another regiment actually painted their horses so that each troop had the same colour horse.
In addition, instead of using hardy horses which could survive the rigours of campaign as had been in use inthe army during the 18th century, appearances became the deciding factor for horse purchase. Even as early as 1796 regiments of Light Cavalry were purchasing thoroughbred-cross (TBX) or thoroughbred (TB) horses of race horse or hunter type because they looked good. The problem with TB or TBX horses is that they are very fragile, and need careful management and consistently high quality forage. Something which is not available on campaign. AS early as 1808-1810 it was recognised that the British cavalry horse, being large and either TB or TBX, meant that they were not at all suited to the rigours of campaign life. It was estimated that 9 out of 10 British horses would died within the first three months on campaign because they simply were the wrong sort of horse for campaign. Even the French recognised the supreriority of their cavalry mounts, being smaller, hardier and certainly not TB or TBX. And yet, nothing was done about it. This was despite the fact that it was recognised in Britain that although British horses looked pretty they were absolutely no good on campaign.
By the Crimean War the British cavalry were mounted on horses that were totally unsuited for campaigning, and only good for parade duties. The cavalry uniforms were uttelry impractical with breeches so tight it was hard to actually mount a horse and jackets so tight it was almost impossble to swing a sabre. Why? Simply put, because they looked good on parade. The French cavalry, because they had less showy horses and had practical uniforms were considered inferior.
The British cavalry slavishly copied the Prussian style of riding from the 18th century as used by Frederick the Great. If it was good enough for Frederick, it was good enough for them even 60 or so years later. They used what is called a balance seat where you literally balance on the horses back and the legs are not used as a riding aide. All the control is from very heavy bitting. The French and other European countries had abolished that system around 1800 for the French seat which we use today as the modern, current, riding seat. Even in Britain the French seat had begun to replace the Balance seat by the 1830s amongst civilians but not in the military who retained it until the 1860s. It was all but extinct in civilian riding by 1850. Despite the French seat being the present day seat, the British military consisdered it worthless and inferior to the balance seat of Prussia from the 1750s. No one rides with the Balance seat anymore and Britain was the last to abolish it. Even in the early 20th cenutry the debate Balance vs Modern seat was still being raged.
I cannot get my head around this. The more I read the more my brain boggles. The British cavalry KNEW their horses for all their fine looks were no use on campaign yet what did they do? Kept on buying TB or TBX horses of increasingly large size. And yet they are astonished that the British Cavalry in the Crimean War falls appart in three months because the horses simply could not stand the rigours of campaign and the work asked of them. British officers disparaged and mocked the French for having small "miserable little weeds" of horses who didn't look pretty, and were certinaly not TB, but they could and DID survive on campaign. The British saw that their "ideal" cavalry horse was not suited to campaign, and one would have thought that they would have learned a lesson from this. But they didnt. After the debacle of the Crimean War they still bought large, showy TB or TBX (increasly TB rather than TBX) horses which they knew were no good on campaign, had seen die in their hundreds in the Crimea, but looked good on parade.
I just don't get it.