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!