New Cavalry Picture

Here is an interesting picture that I cam across today of an unidentified unit, most likely Western Front from 1917 on, judging from the stahlhelms. Note the one soldier in the front right appears to be wearing grenade bags along with the rest of his kit. It also appears they are wearing rucksacks and one has a pommel bag strapped to the rear. 

From all the excess equipment and the rucksacks that the soldiers are carrying, it would appear that this unit was making an administrative move rather than a tactical move with combat a possibility.

The photographic evidence above supports what Kraus' findings in regard to rucksack use by the cavalry and provides yet more documentation to support our impressions. It's little details like this that help up to do a better job with our living history.

Horrido! 

Riding Breeches/Reithosen, Part 2

To continue our story, one characteristic of both the 1908 and 1916 pattern Reitosen or riding breeches is that they are minimally tailored. Beyond the legs gradually tapering in, there is little of the extreme lines one normally expects with riding breeches or the more extreme lines found with officer's breeches.

1916 Pattern Reithosen, Front View-  Note the gradual tapering o the leg and that the leather seat extends down most of the leg.

1916 Pattern Reithosen, Rear View- Once, again, this is a relatively untailored garment and is in no way form-fitting.

Line Drawing of the 1916 Pattern Reithosen

So, as it can be seen from the above pictures, the Reithosen were generously cut and were intended for practical use out in the field. These were not designed to look good for parades and in fact, they go against popular concepts of what cavalry uniforms should look like. Wars will do that. 

Perhaps some of the confusion stems from the Reithosen being confused with Stiefelhosen,which were a more tailored fitted garment. The enlisted version of the Stiefelhosen were originally issued to soldiers assigned to machine gun detachments. Later, they were also issued to mountain troops and field artillery. Below is a line drawing of the enlisted 1908 pattern Stiefelhosen:

1908 Pattern Stiefehosen

But even here, there is not much difference between these and the Reithosen. 

Just for comparison, here is what people normally associate with cavalry breeches:

Second World War Era Officer Breeches. The extreme tapering from the hips to the legs is evident. This type of styling was characteristic of officer uniforms and was also in existence during the First World War.

In the end, more research will have to be done but it is safe to say that the Reithosen was a loosely fitted garment intended for practical use in the field.

The New Chevauleger Uniform

It's been quiet here for awhile so here's an update of the latest from the 2 Chevauleger. As many of you know, obtaining the proper uniforms has been a recurring problem almost since the unit was originally formed in 1997. At first, converting vintage Swedish Army tunics from the 1940s was the way to go but at best, this was a half-way solution that was makeshift at best. Sure, the outline of the proper 1909 tunic was achieved but that was about it. The color and the wool were completely off and when lined up next to a proper tunic, the differences are obvious. But, it was all we had at the time and there was no real alternative, especially since nobody in the group had any tailoring skills and there was nobody in the marketplace willing to attempt the project except at an exorbitant price. It also did not help that we did not have an original 1909 tunic to work off of.

With the unit dissolving in 2004 and an overall lack of interest, the status remained unchanged with the Swedish conversion tunics being the closest thing in existence. However, with the revival of the unit in 2011, further efforts were made to address this issue. With the growth of the WWI reenacting and the upcoming Centennial, there were more vendors coming into the marketplace plus more research sources were now available due to the internet- where before one had to really search for hard information, it was now more readily available and especially in the various works by Jürgen Kraus.

What was especially interesting was that several vendors, all located in China, were offering what they termed "Chevauleger tunics" but upon closer examination, they completely missed the mark. I ordered one such tunic and was able to examine it. While the workmanship was not bad, the details were off and it was evident that they'd never consulted any sources whatsoever (it's not like they're not out there and in fact, it's never been easier). After an unsuccessful attempt to contact the vendor to suggest some corrections, I decided that the only way we were going to recreate the 1909 tunic and the proper breeches was going to be doing it ourselves.

However, the big problem was that there were no patterns for this tunic out there- at least that were readily accessible to someone here in the United States. So once again, I pretty much had to shelve the project; in a pinch the 1915 Bluse per the 1916 regulations would have to do. 

But as luck would have it, through a strange series of events I came in contact with a vendor, Vijay Singh, in India and after several attempts, we finally managed to nail it down. The only downside is that I have to send him the rear belt ramps and the side belt hooks for him to sew into the tunic and I then have to sew the buttons on myself when I receive it (unfortunately, he was unable to procure the correct Bavarian lion buttons so I had to have those custom cast elsewhere).

Anyway, the first production model was made from feldgrau colored wool  that I had bought from Woolrich (the bad part is that Woolrich has a high minimum order- I bought some yardage from someone who had purchased a large amount) and then sent to India to be made (the shipping and duty cost me almost $200- I don't recommend this route). The uniform was meant as a private purchase uniform for garrison/away from the front lines (basically I use it for living history events that do not involve battle reenactments).

So, after a long struggle, here's the first generation production model. Here are some details:

I am wearing the 1909 pattern tunic, or Ulanka, with 1916 pattern riding breeches or Reithosen. The cap is a private purchase visored cap trimmed in carmine, the facing color of the 2 Chevauleger. The piping on the tunic is also the same carmine (obtained from Mehler of Bavaria, the original contractor). I am wearing the rank insignia of a Gefreiter or corporal. The sword belt is the 1911 pattern with sword hanger. The buttons are nickle plated (all I had were brass buttons and this was the only way to get them into the "white" which is the color for the 2 Chevauleger). For front line conditions, the buttons would either be dulled down with a coating of a yellow brown paint and lacquer or just a dull white brass. The boots are the 1916 pattern Universal Bavarian Cavalry boots.

Close up. I am wearing the 1911 sword belt with the sword hanger. The service ribbons are, for left to right: Bavarian long service, China, and Southwest Africa. 

Full length shot. This is the 1909 tunic with 1916 pattern Reithosen or riding breeches. I am also wearing Bavarian Gefreiter insignia.

Another view with the private purchase visor cap.

Overall, I'd say we have achieved complete success and more uniforms will be arriving soon. The only bad part is all the buttons I'll have to sew on (22 per tunic).

Horrido!!

Kennzeichenborte

OK, have you ever wondered just what exactly they called the trim found on the collars of Bavarian uniforms? It called "Kennzeichenborte" and was brought into use per Royal Order, dated April 1, 1916. This was part of the uniform changes mandated by the 1916 uniform regulations. Below are some pictures to illustrate:

 

A close-up of the version for enlisted men. The officer version used silver thread.

The Kennzeichenborte in use on the 1915 Bluse- techncially, it was supposed to run along the edge of the collar all the way around and then up in front but due to shortages, they would often only run it up the edge of the colloar in front.

 

The 1916 Uniform

With the war dragging on with no foreseeable end in sight, the German Army had to readjust its procurement practices. At the outbreak of the war, German (and by extension Bavarian) uniforms were elaborate in terms of trims, insignia and other style characteristics that indicated what exact regiment or corps that the wearer belonged to. Even with the introduction of the feldgrau uniform starting in 1907, trims and insignia could still be elaborate. In many instances, it was considered to be excessive yet the German War Ministry allowed it as a concession to the force of tradition. 

However,by 1915 it had become quite obvious that given the increasing manpower needs of the army combined with growing shortages of various basic materials such as wood, cloth dyes, metals, and the like, it was evident to all that changes were going to have to be made in uniform/clothing production if the ever-expanding army was to be adequately clothed. In response, the German War Ministry started work on a new set of uniform regulations that were ultimately released in 1916. The most notable reform was the introduction of the 1915 Bluse. 

Essentially the Bluse was an extremely simplified tunic that used no metal except for the shoulder buttons, side belt hooks, and rear belt ramps. Also, what metal buttons that were used were all of a common pattern and the distinct right and left-facing Bavarian "lion" buttons were no longer to be used. Finally, the buttons were to be dulled with a brown-colored coating or painted over in a feldgrau color. Also, somewhat over-optimistically, a "peacetime" uniform was also provided for that was more elaborate and intended for use solely for parade and formal occasions. From what can be determined, few of these were produced on an official level and what examples that do survive were private purchase items. 

Interestingly enough, facing colors for many regiments were changed wholesale and this included the 2 Chevauleger Regiment. Whereas before, the regiment's official facing color was a carmine red, it was now an orange red or "orange rot" trimmed in a dark green piping (think hunter green). While the facing color was to be used on the formal "parade" uniform, it was also indicated for use on the shoulder boards, the only item remaining that distinguished the wearer's unit and these were to also be worn with the Bluse. Below is an illustration of the ideal, per the 1916 regulations:

The 2 Chevaeulger formal uniform is pictured on the left, the everyday field uniform on the right.

This is quite a difference in contrast with the previous regulations which are illustrated in this post.


The 1916 uniform regulations were formally instituted per War Ministry order in March 1915 for the Prussian Army (which pretty much included most of the contingents from the various minor German states making up the German Empire) and March 1916 for the Bavarians (who were always a bit behind either out of stubbornness or in an attempt to economize by not changing).

In practical terms, this did not mean that instantly the old uniform was discarded. Rather, like all armies, they used up whatever stock was on hand of older pattern clothing and slowly introduced the new patterns. In fact, one can find many instance of prewar uniform being used all the way up to the end of the war in 1918. In the case of the 2 Chevauleger, one tends to see them using their 1910 tunics or Ulankas all the way up to 1918; it seemed that the men did not willingly want to let go of them. The 1916 uniform regulations marked a dramatic shift both for the German Army in particular, and armies in general in that it reflected that the First World War was the first modern war where the heraldry of uniforms with their elaborate, often colorful,insignia and trims were to give way to more sober and practical styles based on utility and ease of production.

Horrido!  

Chevauleger Wedding Picture

Here's an interesting picture - A wedding portrait. The interesting thing is that the Schwolie in the picture is also wearing another badge, possibly that of the 11 Bavarian Infantry Division. Unlike the Austrians, the German Army was never big on having distinct badges for units and efforts were made to suppress this- the only big exception with the Mountain and Jaeger troops. Finally, the Schwolie is wearing his sword belt and you can see the sword hanger- this suggests that this portrait was taken in 1915 before swords were officially withdrawn.

When the 11th Division was created in early 1915, the 1 Eskadron, 2 Chevauleger along with the 2 Eskadron, 7 Chevauleger were assigned as the divisional cavalry/reconnaissance elements. Later, only the 2 Eskadron, 7 Chevauleger remained.

The 11th Bavarian Infantry Division saw action both on the Western and Eastern Fronts and among its achievements was helping to bring the Brusiliov Offensive to a halt in 1916. Previously in 1915, the 11th had fought in the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive.

Portrait- Trooper & Horse, Dragoon Regiment No. 6

Here's an interesting cavalry picture of a soldat of Dragoon Regiment No. 6 at the  outbreak of the war. The one flower he has pinned on his tunic plus the fact that the regimental number is on his picklehaube cover points towards 1914.

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!

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...

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!

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! 

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.

More Recreated Views

Here are some pictures that were taken of me at a recent photoshoot. They illustrate the various uniforms the 2 Chevauleger wore during the First World War.

Transitional uniform c. 1916. The simple Bluse was coming into use although I still retain my prewar private purchase cap and sword belft.

2 Chevauleger per the 1916 regulations with shoulder boards reflecting the 1916 uniform regulations of Orangerot and Gruen.

Taking a break,,,