The Good Comrade...

Here's a striking picture by Anton Hoffman that I came across recently entitled "The good comrade":

Südwest Afrika

Prior to the First World War, Germany had built up a small world-wide empire in an effort to compete with their main rivals, the British and the French. Part of Germany's empire was located in Africa and in particular Südwest Afrika or what is today know as Namibia.

Map of present-day Namibia, the territory that was once German Südwest Afrika.

The German military force that garrisoned Südwest Afrika consisted of the Schutztruppe, a force that was specifically recruited for colonial service, separate from the main German military establishment (the biggest distinction is that it was a "national" force that belonged to no individual German state). However, members of the German Army were often seconded to the Schutztruppe and there are records of Chevaulegers having served (and died).

At it's height, the Schutztruppe consisted of some 17 companies, all mounted (one rode camels) for maximum mobility in a mostly arid/desert country with almost no roads or other transportation infrastructure. Below are some illustrations of the Schutztruppe:

Moving into action.

The Kamel Kompanie

    

Individual Trooper

Another picture of the Kamel Kompanie.

German Column

This is just a brief glimpse of the Schutztruppen of Südwest Afrika and I hope to write some more on this subject in the future.

  

Cavalry in Battle

The video below has some interesting comments about cavalry and how they are depicted in movies as opposed to the reality. It's focus is on the use of cavalry in Ancient and Medieval times but still bears some validity to the First World War period. Naturally, the biggest issue is that in reality, the horse made for a large target that was readily attacked by the enemy. But this can't be readily depicted in film since they are not actually trying to kill the horses (in theory, anyway). It's worth a listen.



The 2 Chevauleger, Recreated - The Early Years, Part 2

Here are some more pictures of the 2 Chevauleger at Jack Rabbit Trails in 2001-2003:

The Opening Barrage

A Nice Hit...

Myself and one of the former unit members c. 2002

Group Shot- We had a variety of uniforms and equipment.

Defending Forward

Lineup

The Enemy is Out There...

Lineup Again...



Moving Towards Spring...

Spring will be here sooner than one thinks, especially here in Calfornia, and that means the Great War Historical Society's Spring Battle which this year is scheduled on the weekend of March 27-29. For the 2 Chevauleger, this means that we must prepare ourselves for the coming battle. Some things that we'll have to do to prepare are:

1. Re-stock on blanks and check to see if more stripper clips need to be orders (they have a way of getting lost).
2. Prepare grenade simulators- one can never have enough of these.
3. Ensure that one's uniform and kit are complete and in good repair.
4. Coordinate with each other in regard to mess arrangements.

This is only the beginning. Another aspect is that because the battlesite is relatively new, there is a lot of work that needs to be done to the trenchworks and especially the 2 Chevauleger bunker which is under construction. We will attempt to schedule at least one or two workdays prior to the battle so that we can put in some work. Completing the bunker is essential in order that we have some shelter at night during the battle. Up to now, the alternative has been to set up tents in the hobo camp area, something I would like us to get away from. Even if the work is partially done, we can still make use of it by stringing a couple of tarps overhead for shelter.

This is just a rough sketch of what needs to be done but it least gives a starting point.

Horrido!

The "Transitional Uniform" Recreated

Here are a few pictures illustrating my recreation of one possible uniform that a trooper in the 2 Chevauleger could worn circa 1915-16. These pictures were taken at a steampunk (yeah, I know, it's a long story) event that was held aboard the HMS Queen Mary which is now permanently docked in Long Beach, California and is now a museum.

In the above picture I am wearing the Bavarian version of the 1915 pattern Bluse which was meant to replace the variety of tunics used by the various branches in the German Army. Pinned on the Bluse are ribbons for Bavarian Long Service, Service in the China Relief Expedition in 1900-01, and Service in Southwest Africa 1903-05.

The shoulder boards are carmine with dark green trim. This was authorized on an interim basis due to the shortage of Orange-Rot (orange red) wool fabric to make shoulder boards per the 1916 new uniform regulations.

The transitional shoulder boards.

These are the proper shoulder boards per the 1916 regulations.

Naturally, the eye is attracted to the fact that the 1915 pattern cavalry breeches I am wearing are of a different shade of wool than the tunic. Colors did vary from lot to lot even though the color is supposed to be Feldgrau. As the war went on, color of fabrics and especially wool would vary more and more as a result of materials shortages.

The visored cap is a private purchase item, trimmed in the carmine trim of the 2 Chevauleger.

The breeches are the 1915 pattern cavalry breeches. The pair depicted in the picture were recently made for me and I was wearing them for the first time. There is a 1909 pattern Chevauleger Ulanka to go with them but I have not sewn the buttons on it yet.

I am also wearing the 1911 sword belt sans the actual sword. I probably should have worn the proper 84/98 bayonet with sword knot but due to paranoia over weapons in public places these days, I opted to go without.

The 1911 Sword Belt, Disassembled

Another View

The 1911 Sword Belt, Complete

For footwear, I am wearing private purchase ankle boots with leather leggings. I probably should have also had NCO insignia since this was a more common look for an NCO as opposed to an enlisted man but it still could have happened. Finally, just for effect, I also had a riding crop with me.

The above is a bit impromptu but I hope it helps give an idea of just one of the possible variations of a proper 2 Chevauleger uniform during the First World War era. The one thing that I have discovered in researching uniforms of the German Army, there was a lot more variation in the details than one would expect and especially as the war progressed.

Horrido!

Winter is Here!

It looks like winter has arrived...

Dragoon, Winter 1915

The 2 Chevauleger, Recreated - The Early Years, Part 1

It's throwback Thursday and here are a few pictures from the early years when the 2 Chevauleger had just been formed. These were taken at the old GWHS battlesite at Jack Rabbit Trails in Riverside County, California back around 2002-2003. Enjoy!

 

 

Closing in on the British

On the Offensive

Some of the Original Unit Members

Manning a Machine Gun



Vendors - Some Musings

One of the most fundamental parts of a living history impression, at least a military one, is that you need a uniform and the 2 Chevauleger is no exception. And, like many people in the living history game, I am not a tailor so I must rely of on the offerings of a vendor. For some periods such as American Civil War, this is fairl easy and there are a variety of vendors offering products in varying degrees of quality and authenticity.

 

For periods that are not as widely reenacted such as the First World War, finding a decent (or any) vendor can be a major challenge. For years, First World War reenacting was pretty much of a "steady state" period with its core group/ The numbers might vary a bit but for the most part it has held stable up to recently. Along with this there were a small number of vendors whose offerings were, for the most part, fairly decent in quality and price. It was a pretty closed system and did not see a lot of vendors coming and going like with American Civil War nor was there the constant tension from "authentics" pushing vendors to improve their offerings, for good or ill. 

 

However, in the past few years the situation has begun to change as we enter the Centennial of the First World War. First, there's been an influx of new members joining, many of them outside of the established networks and not having a lot of knowledge about the period. At the same time, many of the establshed vendors have been withdrawing from the business of supplying the hobby and this has created a void of sorts. 

 

Like any void, new vendors have begun to fill it with offerings of varying quality. To be honest, a lot of it is of questionable value made overseas by outfits who have done little, if any, basic research and quite often reverse-engineer items obtained from other vendors, The better ones will reverse-engineer from originals but omit a lot of the details. There are even vendors that will drop ship so if you order from Vendor X, you would never know that Overseas Manufacturer R is actually making it. Needless to say, the quality control can be pretty questionable.

 

Not that all overseas manufactuers are necessarily bad but there are a few who seem to have jumped into the market hoping to make a profit by churning out uniforms and equipment of indifferent quality and which, to be honest, are a complete waste and to put it bluntly, are garbage (stronger words come to mind but I'll try and maintain some decorum here).

 

On the other hand, there are a few vendors that I've run across that are quite decent but who need to be educated in what's correct and what's not. Unfortunately, this is not always helped by various language barriers. It's can be a struggle but it can also have a rewarding pay-off.

 

Which now brings me the one side of the coin on vendors- price. Reenactors are some of the most notorious when it comes to not wanting to spend money. Yet, at the same time, they demand spot-on quality and accuracy but are not willing to pay the price that it's worth. At the same time, you have vendors charging high prices (justified or unjustified) and then complaining that nobody is buying and that they just can't compete, especially against overseas imports. While some of the complaints are absurd, there is a grain of truth to each.

 

One other major issue is that many vendors are solo operations, usually run on a part time basis in the evening and weekends while the individual has a regular job; essentially they are cottage industries. While this can be a good thing, often the scenario plays out where ta vendor with a quality product will then overwhelmed by orders as their reputation grows and consequently, they get further and further behind. These vendors struggle hard to catch up but often they'll simply collapse. The more organized ones will earl on call a halt to taking new orders. Also, many vendor operations are so poorly financed that they're literally financing (i.e. buying materials et al.) current orders with money taken in on future orders. It's not a way to run a business, trust me.

 

Even worse is when you have some variant of the above scenario but they make an item that's critical to a specific impression. If they go under or get backed up, anyone attempting that impression will have to wait a long time, often months, if not more, to get their order. This in turn can adversely impact recruiting, especially when word gets around that one might be waiting for over a year for a uniform. Not a good situation and not one that's going to help this hobby grow.

 

Then there are the authenticity wars and the quest to find the "one true X item"...sometimes there's no clear-cut answer and often several vendors each make a quality version of the same item. That's allright, market choice and all that...and then there's the "fan boys" who uphold one vendor as being "it" while denigrating all others. Discussions with such types are a waste of time.  

 

The above are just some observations based on having been a reenactor/living historian for over 25 years and having reenacted the First World War era for a good 15 of them. I am optimistic that a lot of the issues facing our period and vendors will eventually work themselves out but it's going to be a rough ride. 

 

  

And Now For A Little Humor...

One of the biggest problems in reenacting is obtaining historically accurate uniforms and equipment. Unfortunately, many of the better vendors are backed up on orders and wait times can easily be six months to a year. This sums up my feelings on the matter...

The Camoflage Stahlhelm

Here's some information that should go a long way towards explaning camoflage painted Stahlhelms:

 

The Truth About Camoflaged Helmets

Riding Breeches/Reithosen, Part 1

One uniform item that distinguished the cavalry from the other arms were riding breeches or Reithosen. With the introduction of the new feldgrau uniform in 1907, feldgrau colored Reithosen were also developed. On March 23, 1908, the Prussian War Ministry authorized the issue of a pattern of Reithosen designated, appropriately enough, the 1908 pattern, which had been previous approved on March 16, 1908. Bavaria was quick to follow suit, authorizing the 1908 pattern on May 11, 1908 followed by Saxony on July 17, 1908. The 1908 pattern was also authorized for Jaeger zu Pferd and machine gun detachments (presumably the ones attached to cavalry divisions).

The 1908 pattern Reithosen were similar to the trousers issued to the infantry in that they were made of feldgrau colored wool. However, as typical with riding breeches of the era, the legs tapered down towards the bottom to provide a snug fit and stirrups straps were attached to the bottoms so as to prevent the legs from riding up. More significantly, the 1908 pattern featured a reinforced seat made from heavy chrome tanned leather that was dyed to match the breech's feldgrau wool body.

Below are some illustrations of the 1908 pattern Reithose: 

Details of the Reithose (illustrations 1, 2, 4, 5)

However, the leather double-seat was found to be unsatisfactory because it was too thick and inflexible. In response, Saxony ultimately adopted a modified pattern utilizing a seat made of matching wool twill. In 1910, the Prussian War Ministry also authorized modifications either using suede (which was lighter and more flexible) or matching wool. On January 1, 1910, the Bavarian War Ministry authorized the use of smooth suede that was lighter and more flexible. Subsequently, in 1913 the Bavarian Army trialed the use of the Saxon pattern Reithosen with the wool twill seat and had favorable results so the use of the Saxon Pattern was also authorized.   

With the outbreak of the war, the 1908 pattern Reithose were put to the ultimate test. On august 15, 1914, the Prussian War Ministry issued an order directing that the color of the Reithose was to now be stone grey (steingrau). In response to feed-back from the field, on April 26, 1915, the Prussian War Ministry authorized the use of chromed goat or sheep leather with Saxony following suit on May 5, 1915. Due to the increasing scarcity of leather, on March 3, 1915 the Prussian War Ministry directed that the leather double-seat be replaced with a cloth one and that leather only be used as knee protection. On March 12, 1915 Bavaria issued a similar order followed by Saxony on March 16, 1915 and Wurttemberg on March 9, 1915.

Subsequently, on February 12, 1916, the Prussian War Ministry directed that leather was to be eliminated in the Reithosen and that the double-seat was to be made either of another layer of wool or wool twill. The cow and calf leather were now urgently needed for mountain boots and other items while the sheep and goat leather were urgently needed for head harnesses in Stahlhelms and gas masks. Identical orders were issued by the Bavaria on December 13, 1916, Saxony on December 9, 1916, and Wurttemberg on December 8, 1916.   

Below are some illustrations of the 1915 pattern Reithose. Unfortunately, illustrations depicting all the various changes as ordered by the various German states are not available but below is a representative sample.

Front View

Rear View

Interior view- These were made in 1916

The rise.

From Jürgen Kraus

This is only a very rough overview of the development of the Reithose as issued to the German cavalry. As more information and pictures become available, they will be posted to this blog.

So what does this all mean as far as the unit impression goes for the 2 Chevauleger? Well, in order to portray as much of the war as possible in the most economical manner, the 1915 pattern Reithose are authorized for use and a source of these has been developed. Most of our events will be focusing on the later war, 1917-18 and as such, the later 1915 pattern would be the most appropriate. However, this is not to rule out the use of cloth seats but for now, the leather seat is preferred because it goes the furthest in creating a cavalry "look".

Admittedly, a lot of this is subjective and without definitive records which may or may exist, it's a hard call to make, It would be logical that leather would be used less and less as the war went on but by the same token, given the lower numbers of cavalry and lower casualty rates, it's reasonable to assume that earlier stocks would not have been consumed so quickly as compared to the infantry. 

In the end, it is important to note that while exceptions to what was officially issued can be found (in an army numbering in the millions, it's logical that there will be exceptions and especially in the case of the German Army which had to cope with all manner of material shortages as the war went on), we still strive to establish a definitive look that is both historically accurate plus maintains our identify as a unit.

The 1915 Universal Bavarian Cavalry Boot

With all this recent discussion of riding boots, you're probably wondering "so what DOES the Bavarian pattern 1915 Universal Riding Boot look like?" Well, here it is:
 

From Jürgen Kraus

Riding Boots and Impressions

Yesterday somebody sent me a link to an Ebay auction for a pair of boots that are  purported to be issue First World War era German riding boots. Below are some pictures:

Consistent with many pairs of military riding boots, they were not hobnailed and only had heal and toe plates to retard wear.

Heel Plate

Overall, these are a nice find and they appear to be a pair of 1915 Universal Prussian Cavalry boots, most likely from 1916 or beyond since they're blackened.

However, the question arises "Are these issue?" The short answer would be "no" based on the location of the seams running up the shaft of the boot. The official issue boots had a seam running up the back versus these which have them running up the sides. The illustrations below should show what I am referring to:

Note the position of the seam which is on the back of the boot.

A side view. Notice no side seam.

So what are we to make of this? Is this a simple contractor variation that the army inspectors passed? Given the decentralized nature of uniform procurement in the German Army, this is plausible. Or perhaps these were private purchase boots- once again, the Germans could be very loose on what was acceptable as private purchase items and it was often left up to the discretion of the local commander. 

So would this be acceptable for wear (assuming it was a reproduction of the original)? At first glance I would say no on the basis that the shafts are unmistakably characteristic of the Prussian pattern which was not, as far as we can tell, issued to Bavarian cavalry. But that aside, would the fact that the seam on in the "wrong place" (i.e. along the sides of the boot shafts) be cause enough for rejection?

Maybe...but then again, would significantly detract from the look the unit is trying to portray? Not really. So in the end, I might be inclined to let it pass (if it was the Bavarian pattern in terms of the boot tops).

So while this may seem to be a lot of trouble over seemingly insignificant aspects of the uniform, as living historians we have to constantly be making these sorts of decisions and sometimes the answers are not the easiest to arrive at.

Horrido!

Getting the Look

Every production whether it be film, television, or live theater, has a production design that sets the overall look for that production. Long before the cameras roll or the actors start rehearsing, the production designer will make a series of decisions in consultation with other production staff (the director, wardrobe, makeup, props, etc.) in regard to what sort of an atmosphere a production is going to project. For example, a horror movie set in a haunted house will probably feature dark sets complete with cobwebs, dusty furniture, rot, decay, etc. Obviously they're not going to make things look cheerful nor are the actors going to look and act like they're going out to a fun party.

For living history, we also are creating a production (although there are those who would deny this because that seems all too "theatrical") in the way we present our history. The First World War on the Western Front was filthy, muddy, and fraught with random death; while manning the front line, soldiers spent their time living in trenches and bunkers. Days were mostly quiet and boring and at night things could liven up with trench raids. Then there were the periodic major offensives where things could become positively terrifying. It's plain that given a choice, most would have preferred to have been somewhere else.

While recreating some aspects are out of our control due to safety, legal, or cost considerations, we still try to present a look that was typical of the First World War. For the 2 Chevauleger, we try to present an appearance appropriate for the 1917-18. In recreating this appearance, we rely on various reference books of uniforms, equipment, and weapons, photographs, and various official publications for our information. Unfortunately, the day when we could have interviewed veterans who were there has long passed so gaining information first-hand it  out. With luck, someday we may discover personal accounts that were written down but that day has still yet to happen.

Now in the course of our research, there are several approaches to recreating the uniforming that are available and in the end, decisions had to be made as to which to focus on. For example, with the 1916 regulations, the uniform tunic of the Chevauleger, along with the rest of the German Army, changed to the Bavarian version of the 1915 Bluse. In theory, we could use this uniform along with the new shoulder boards. However, after studying the photographic evidence that we could secure, we came to the conclusion that the Chevaulegers did everything to hold on to their prewar 1909 pattern tunics or Ulankas. Thus, the decision was made to stay with the 1909 tunic. The decisions on everything else (breeches, footwear, weapons, etc.) are similar and in each instance a choice had to be made. Some choices were easier than others but in the end they were made. 

Now, we could have opted for allowing people to utilize various exceptions and while they *might* be correct, they detract from the overall appearance we are trying to make. And yes, this is a subjective process and in many instances there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. My overall goal is to represent a Bavarian cavalry unit that is attempting to maintain its identify in spite of the fact that most of its function as mounted cavalry has largely been made irrelevant by the conditions of trench warfare and the overall stalemate.

And now we come full circle to the issue of Reithose or riding breeches. After doing some research, it would appear that as I guessed, they were used throughout the war BUT they were changing in response to shortages of leather. Now, I deliberately chose the 1915 pattern with the leather/suede double-seat even though I probably could have gotten by with using wool but I decided to stick with my choice because it will allow for maximum use for portraying the 2 Chevauleger during almost any part of the war from 1915 on. Also, the Reithose are a distinct uniform item that sets us apart from the infantry and that ties in with the look I am striving to create with the unit. It's a subjective choice on my part and perfectly plausible based in the information we have so far. 

So there it is. No wrong answer or right answer.

Horrido!

A Question of Impression - Follow Up No. 1

Using photographic sources as a source of information for building a living history impression can be double-edged sword. While on the one hand it can provide accurate information in regard details about uniforms, equipment and weapons, it can also be misleading in that is the picture representative of the norm or some sort of exception. When utilizing pictures as a research tool, it's important to supplement with other sources such as first person accounts, the appropriate regulations and other official manuals, and anything else that can possibly corroborate the source.

Some of the basic questions that one should be asking when looking at a period photograph should be:

1. What is the date of the picture? Is it consistent with the period being portrayed?
2. Is the uniform, piece of equipment, and/or weapon in the photo representative of what was generally issued for the army and time period or is it an exception?

For example, one may look at a uniform in a picture and decide that it would be suitable for recreation for a living history impression but be dead wrong. One extreme example of this comes from the American Civil War:

Captain Samuel J, Richardson, Company F, 2nd Texas Cavalry

Now, based on the above picture, would it be all right to base a generic impression, recreating the leopard breeches? Common sense and some basic research would suggest a resounding "NO!". This is an extreme example but it illustrates the potential danger of basing an impression off of only one picture. Now if there were a large sample of officers all wearing leopard breeches, that assessment might change.

So it would stand to reason that one should have some sort of a representative sample- in short a number of pictures that show a similar uniform or piece of equipment. But then there is the problem of exceptions and just how big should the sample be? That's a tough one to answer. Is it 20 pictures? 30, 50, 100, more? I am sure that the museum/history professionals have better answers but in my limited experience I have found that sometimes you just have to make an educated case and realize that it's subject to revision at any time as more information is discovered.

However, I do believe that in many instances the basic questions of uniforming, equipment, and weapons use have been answered sufficiently enough where one can make decisions with a high degree of confidence and this is especially true in the case of infantry. For the cavalry and especially the Chevaulegers, the answers have been less clear although many questions are slowly getting answered or at least more information have become available.

Some of the challenges facing us in researching the Chevaulegers, and the 2 Chevauleger in particular have been:

1. Lack of first person accounts of soldiers who were Chevaulegers or members of the 2 Chevauleger. They may be out there, hidden away in various attics, libraries, or private collections.
2. Lack of facility in the German language- much information is no doubt out there but if it's in German, it's inaccessible. However, this is changing as we gain more contacts over in Germany plus various unit members learn German. But still, it's one of the biggest barriers.

The above are just some basics but you get the idea. We are attempting to solve them but it's not an easy task.

So what does this all ultimately point to? Well, basically that what we do should be regarded as a work in progress. We will never have all the answers but we can make some reasonable attempts based on the available information and this in turn translates into the unit authenticity standards. Ultimately, we can use the standards to determine just what sort of an overall impression or "look" we wish to portray.

(The next installment will cover the overall unit "look" or impression.)

Horrido!

A Question of Impression

The other day someone decided to call me out on the matter of cavalry breeches or Reithosen, asserting that they were turned in as the need for cavalry diminished and that they had never seen any examples of cavalry soldiers wearing ankle boots and puttees with Reithosen. They also wanted to know if there were any directives issued by the army in regard to this.

At first I was bit annoyed with this- calling me out? Please. However, after thinking about this, my curiosity was piqued. Now, the individual in question had no clue about the history of the German cavalry arm during the war and just assumed, like most, that after the initial mobile phase of the war the cavalry became dismounted, turned in their horses, and became infantry. Well yes, some did, and of approximately 110 cavalry regiments that started the war, only about 22 remained mounted by the end of the war with most of these stationed in Russia as occupation troops. But in the case of the 2 Chevauleger, it remained mounted for the entire war (of the eight Chevauleger regiments, only one was formally dismounted, the 8th).

With that out of the way, we turn our attention to the use of ankle boots and puttees. Ankle boots did exist before the war but they seemed to be more of a private purchase item that were mostly used by officers. Also, one sees pictures of infantrymen wearing low boots or shoes with trousers in what was termed the "walking out uniform" (this is an area that bears more research). In any event, I have not seen any with cavalry breeches.

Moving into the war years, one sees ankle boots and puttees being first worn by Jaegers and later by Stosstruppen for practical reasons- it's a lot easier to move about rough terrain and move quickly in ankle boots. Eventually you see increasing amounts of pictures of just regular infantrymen wearing them.

Besides practicality, ankle boots required less leather to make which makes sense given the growing shortage of key military materials, of which leather was one, as the war went on. Unfortunately, the documentation on a lot of this remains obscure although I am sure that more will be discovered as time goes on. 

So, how does this apply to me? Well, after going through my Jürgen Kraus books, I could not find much in the way of information in regard to the issuance of Reithosen or ankle boots as it applied to cavalry. I am still searching though...

But what I do have are a number of pictures that depict Chevaulegers wearing both riding boots and ankle boots and puttees. The majority of the riding boot pictures do have the troopers wearing riding breeches. Interestingly enough, the pictures depicting soldiers with the ankle boots and puttees tend to be wearing what appears to be regular infantry issue trousers (as far as I can tell, they lack the tell-tale lines indicating a second seat characteristic of cavalry breeches). Below are just two examples that I came across:

This is a group portrait of Chevaulegers from the 1 Eskadron, 2 Chevauleger Regiment c. 1915. Most are wearing the 1915 pattern universal pattern Bavarian riding boots along with the 1915 Reithose. There are two individuals wearing puttees and ankle boots, the second and third men from the left in the top row. 

Here is an excellent example of a Chevauleger wearing ankle boots, puttees and spurs along with the issue 1915 pattern Reithose.

This is a nice portrait shot- once again, riding boots and Reithose.

This picture is interesting in that the Chevaulegers are all wearing ankle boots and puttees. One is also carrying a GEW 98, as apposed to the standard issue Kar98az. It is difficult to tell if they're wearing Reithose.

Now from the small sample of pictures and the lack of any concrete documentation, it's hard to make a single definitive answer one way or another. It also does not help that the majority of pictures depicting Chevaulegers are from 1914-15 wtih a few from 1916 that I can definitely date. Also, when it comes to the German Army in the First World War, there was a lot less "uniformity" than one would think, especially as the war goes on. The primary reason for this is fairly straight-forward: material shortages. 

There are some preliminary conclusions that one could draw:

1. Local commanders authorized the wear of ankle boots and puttees either because that was all that was available from supply or preference on either the commander and/or troops' part.
   
2. Reacting to official directives (which have yet to be discovered). It's also noted that in some cases there is uniformity, in others there is not. 

So, what does this all mean in terms of creating an impression? Well, there appears to be no real rhyme or reason to a lot of this and for the moment, pending further research. I leave this as an open question, which brings me to the question of just what is authorized for wear in the 2 Chevauleger?

The answer is a somewhat weaselly- At present, I prefer to take a flexible approach, both on the basis of cost (riding boots are a custom made item that can be expensive versus ankle boots and puttees which are more affordable) and personal preference. Either does not impair the unit from recreating an accurate representation of the Chevauleger during the First World War.

In the end, this is going to bear further investigation and perhaps we will have to change our assumptions and maybe even items of our impression. As I have always said, this is a work in progress and subject to change as further research is done. More will, no doubt, be following.

Horrido! 

The Colonel-in-Chief

As with all other cavalry regiments in the German military establishment, the 2 Chevauleger has a Colonel-in-Chief. This position was an honorific one and entailed the performance of no actual military duties and the practice still lingers on today, most notably in the British Army. During the later Kaiserzeit and into the First World War, the Colonel-in-Chief was Albert, the 8th Prince of the House of Thurn und Taxis.  Albert's full name was Albert Maria Joseph Maximilian Lamoral Fürst von Thurn und Taxis and he was born on May 8, 1867 at Regensburg and died on January 22 1952 in the same place. He was styled the Eighth Prince of Thurn and Taxis and Head of the Princely House of Thurn and Taxis from 2 June 1885 until his death on 22 January 1952.

Below is a portrait of him, c. 1916:

RE: More Feldmützen & Reenactorisms

As a follow-up to my previous post, here is a picture that illustrates all the various "styles" that Feldmützen could come in. Because of the decentralized nature of the German uniform procurement during the First World War, each Army Corp area contracted directly with vendors so there could be a wide variation from the official army standard.

The above picture is humorous, entitled "A Sunday with no money" which seems to symbolize the universal soldier's situation. Note the variety of Feldmützen with this group- some stovepipe, some more tapered.

RE: Trench Clubs

The First World War brought many changes to warfare and in some regards, it revived older practices. As the stalemate of trench warfare asserted itself on the Western Front, the war came to resemble a massive siege as in older times only now with modern weapons. However, some older weapons were also revived and modified. One such weapon was the trench club. Reminiscent of Medieval maces, trench clubs were improvised from a variety of materials, all with the aim of creating a weapon that would kill or incapacitate the enemy in the close-quarters of the trenches. Normal rifles with fixed bayonets were of limited utility and not everyone had access to a pistol. Trench clubs were perfect for the muddy and wet conditions of the trenches, requiring no ammunition and not subject to mechanical breakdown.

Trench clubs used a variety of materials and while at first they were improvised by individuals, they were later manufactured in quantity in army workshops. Below are a few pictures:

German field workshop- They worked on making and/or refurbishing various items including machine gun mounts. In the front to the left is a pile of freshly made trench clubs.

Close Up View

One example of a trench club weighted with lead at the end.

Various exampled of of trench clubs on display at the Bavarian Army Museum at Ingolstadt.