The weapons and dress of the serviceman are what distinguishes him from civilians; differences in those weapons and dress, often only discernible to the initiated, are what distinguishes friend from foe. While uniform, in the sense of a national military costume principally fashioned from cloth and codified according to regulations, is a comparatively modern concept, warriors have, since the earliest beginnings of warfare, worn costumes which identified them as warriors and differentiated them, as a group, from their enemies: since such aims were uniform so, to an extent, might their dress be described.
Although it is important to make the distinction between the uniform costume and body armour, there are areas where the two concepts meet. Although most elements of armour were common throughout its development from the medieval period in western Europe, this very commonality necessitated national and local distinctions being made, in order to avoid fatal mistakes. Few items of early armour rendered the wearer quite so anonymous as being dressed from head to foot in mail, especially if a cylindrical helm completely covered his head. The earliest form of national uniform developed from this anonymity in western Europe in the late 12th century, as a result of the multinational Crusades and the need to differentiate between the warriors of the different nations. Long flowing overgarments, called surcoats, had begun to be worn by mail-clad knights in the mid-12th century. While these probably served to protect the knight a little from both sunshine and damp, they also had an important additional function: they could be decorated with symbols identifying the man beneath. Just before the Third Crusade, in 1188, the rulers of England, France, and Flanders met at Gisors in north-eastern France and decided how their knights should be identified, nation by nation: the English were to wear white crosses—presumably on a darker ground—the French red crosses, and the Flemings green ones. It is assumed that these crosses would have been worn, in front and behind, on their surcoats by the knights and presumed that the knights' retainers and men-at-arms contrived some similar means of proclaiming their national identities and allegiances. It is probable that such nationally distinctive colours were only worn on appropriate occasions, such as on foreign service.
The development in the 13th century of the art of heraldry in Europe led to surcoats, and their shorter, sleeved successors—called cyclasses and jupons—being used as vehicles for the portrayal of the wearer's armorial bearings. As heraldry expanded from its initial simplicity, so personal badges and charges on an individual's shield of arms became granted: these could be worn in replica by a knight's retainers, who might also wear his livery colours (the principal colours of his coat of arms) and from these heraldic beginnings the concept of regimental uniform grew.
These two systems of quasi-national and personal livery uniform existed side by side until the 17th century and the growth of national permanent or ‘standing’ armies. Not that there was no standardization of military uniform before that; there was just no national standardization, except when the troops of one nation were fighting in the territory of another. The combination of the feudal system—which lasted in attitudes long after it had ceased to function economically—and the growth of heraldry, together with the generally shaky nature of internal national politics in Europe and in multinational allegiances until the 16th century, meant that the period from 1200 to c.1580 was marked all over the continent by conflicts undertaken by armies made up of small groups of differently dressed soldiers, each group having a different parochial allegiance, led by powerful and influential individuals whose allegiances were, generally, intensely personal and selfish. The small groups making up these armies would, as we have seen, wear their lord's livery and sometimes a personal badge too; if part of a larger formation or alliance they might assume a badge symbolic of that alliance, such as the red rose of the house of Lancaster or the white rose of that of York during the English 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Increasingly powerful monarchs sought, with varying degrees of success, to end such a chaotic system of parochial military units with short-lived allegiances and, at the same time, instituted corps of personal bodyguards—wearing the royal livery—to protect themselves. Such bodyguards were, necessarily, uniformly dressed, their liveries reflecting the royal heraldic colours and, often, these royal livery colours became the basis for part, or all, of the eventual national military uniforms which would spread across Europe in the 17th century.
For the first half of the 17th century, there was little difference between the dress of soldiers and that of civilians in Europe, except for the obvious one of the protective clothing worn and weapons carried by soldiers. If there was an exception to this rule it would be in the case of the landsknechts, German mercenary pikemen and musketeers renowned for their swagger, menace, and exaggeratedly flamboyant dress. As professional (and thus full-time) soldiers, European mercenaries of the late 16th and early 17th centuries were unlike most soldiers, except royal bodyguards, who were recruited when needed and disbanded as soon as possible thereafter. Mercenaries had a greater financial stake in their appearance and their trade than did part-time soldiers and thus their clothing, within a considerable range of styles and clothing, became almost a form of uniform.
During the Thirty Years War, 1618-48, and the British civil wars, 1638-52, regiments were formed in Europe which often adopted colours as part of their titles; these referred to the colours of their regimental flags and often to the colours of their cloth coats too. While uniformity of clothing was known within regiments—usually among the infantry and then only for the musketeers, who wore no armour—national military uniforms did not develop until the end of the 17th century. At Edgehill in 1642 it is recorded that regiments on both sides were dressed in a variety of colours and it was at this period that coloured sashes began to appear for officers—the colours often denoting allegiances. During the Thirty Years War, for example, Swedish officers wore blue sashes, the Dutch orange, the French white, Habsburg troops wore red sashes, and those of Saxony green ones. In Britain, royalist officers wore red sashes and parliamentarian ones wore tawny—although no assumption should be made that this practice remained consistent for the whole of the British civil wars. Such regimental uniforms as existed, those—for example—which had been established in France in the 15th century for the compagnies d'ordonnance, were really only continuations of the medieval practice of wearing livery, although the growing fashion for wearing coloured sashes and that of assembling large formations and dressing them in similar colours presaged national uniforms—which was the next logical step in both the history of military uniforms and that of armies.
From c.1660 for the next century or so, the dress of the European gentleman closely paralleled that of the European soldier, and particularly the foot soldier. Each influenced the other as civilian fashions changed or as military advances inspired alterations in uniform. The long coat, called the justaucorps in France, appeared in Europe as a civilian garment, copied from the oriental kaftan, after c.1660; it had voluminous skirts, full sleeves, deep cuffs, and no collar and it was rapidly adopted by the armies of Europe which were, inexorably, becoming ‘standing’ or full-time, national forces. From this change in status developed the concept of national uniforms, a concept actively pursued in the armies of France and Britain. France's army, directed by the reforming war minister Louvois, was assiduously reformed and a national uniform emerged, its principal colour for the infantry's coats being white—the ground of the French royal arms. White, or greyish-white, cloth was the cheapest and most common type, being almost the natural colour of undyed wool, so the colour had an economic base too. French regiments were allowed regimental distinctions denoted by their coats' linings and these, when eventually turned back on the skirts, cuffs, and lapels, would form the basis for the ‘facing’ colours still so important to defenders of regimental traditions. In Britain the French styles and reforms were noted and developed simultaneously, Charles II having been influenced during his exile by the growing power, style, and ambition of Louis XIV. Red had long been a colour favoured for military coats, scarves, and other apparel in Britain and regiments on both sides in the British civil wars had worn it before it was standardized for the New Model Army of the late 1640s; indeed, the monarch's personal bodyguard—the Yeomen of the Guard—had worn red coats laced with gold (the royal livery colours) since its foundation in 1485. The red coat of the British infantry soldier was not unique in Europe's rainbow of full dress military uniforms either: it was worn by the Swiss and Irish regiments in France and ultimately by Denmark, Hanover, and Saxony (until 1734). Like the French infantry, British regiments of foot signified their regimental distinctions through their facing colours and through the increased wearing of regimental badges on their grenadier caps, drums, and accoutrements. Regiments designated as ‘Royal’ adopted blue facings, blue being another principal colour of British royal heraldry and of the national flag.
By the end of the 17th century, most nations had adopted the national uniform colours that would remain constant until either the end of full dress uniforms or a significant change of regime. Apart from France's white and Britain's red, Prussia wore dark blue and Austria pearl-grey. In the cavalry regiments, less national uniformity was observed and what there was largely dissolved in the 18th century as the cavalry fragmented into heavy and light: dragoons, chasseurs-à-chevaux, hussars, lancers, horse grenadiers, and mounted musketeers. No sooner had national uniforms evolved than the old regimental and arm-of-service rivalries resurfaced to shatter the uniformity and create the military kaleidoscope of dress that burgeoned, despite occasional pruning, until 1914.
For much of the century between 1689 and 1789 most conflicts in Europe were caused by real or perceived shifts in the balance of power on that continent as alliances formed, broke, and re-formed and, although it is too simplistic to identify the principal power blocs as Protestant and Catholic ones, it seems apparent that the armies of Protestant nations wore dark-coloured uniforms while those of Catholic ones wore pale uniforms. Countries following the lead of France or Austria generally wore white; those occasionally allied to Prussia favoured either dark blue or another dark colour. The Russian army, for no apparent reason, but uniquely, wore green—except for its scarlet-coated artillery. As the 18th century progressed, so the cut of the original long, full-skirted coat gradually reduced. Its length was shortened, then its skirts were fastened back, then it became cutaway at the front; it grew a collar and sprouted epaulettes. On campaign, especially in hot or wooded countries, the skirts would be cut off and the coat converted into a jacket or short-tailed coatee. Exotic eastern European uniform appeared, like the clothing of the hussar—elements of which were copied in non-hussar units, like rifle regiments. The Celtic fringe became represented by the appearance of the British army's Scots Highlanders who, originally derided as outlandishly costumed savages, rapidly became patriotic and noble ones as their native plaids and flat blue woollen bonnets gradually developed into the kilt and feather bonnet now so well known. Troops trained in skirmishing, sniping, and other agile manoeuvres requiring great mobility or concealment were allowed uniforms which promoted both and the dark green jacket of the Jägers and chasseurs à pied accompanied the short coat and helmet of the chevaux-légers and the light dragoons by the 1760s. In the newly formed USA, the Continental Army's most favoured colours of blue with buff facings—affected for civilian coats and waistcoats by some British supporters of the USA too—were accompanied by a variety of other colours as the American independence war developed. Although dark blue remained the principal full dress colour of the US army, it was by no means uniform—any more than was any other ‘national colour’.
Coats, jackets, and other garments became increasingly embellished during the 18th century as epaulettes, loops, lace, and aiguillettes all appeared. Epaulettes and aiguillettes were created by the plaiting together of the old ‘arming laces’ on the shoulders of padded garments worn beneath the cuirass and used to secure the armour; such laces also appeared on the shoulders of the 17th-century buff leather coats and were quickly plaited in a decorative manner. Breeches and waistcoats became more important in their uniformity as more of them was revealed by the turning back of coat skirts, and long gaiters began to be worn, only to be shortened by the 1770s. Buttons ceased to be purely decorative and began to feature regimental designs. Belts were standardized, the cross belts of the infantry—supporting bayonet and cartridge pouch—characterizing the last half of the 18th century and lasting until well into the next, the brass plate securing the bayonet belt being used to carry increasingly complex regimental badges. Magnificence symbolized the officer, just as assiduous use of pipeclay, blacking, hair-grease, and brick-dust were the daily round of the ordinary soldier as his uniform, ever more complicated, tightly fitting, and—apparently—suitable only for the parade ground, advanced uncomfortably into the 19th century. Trousers increasingly replaced breeches and gaiters towards the end of the century and a variety of footwear emerged at the same time, including boots of differing styles dependent upon battlefield role. The calf-length boot, worn under trousers strapped beneath the instep and called ‘overalls’ eventually became called the Wellington boot, after its most famous adherent.
Practicality, comfort, and efficiency remained matters for overseas campaigns in countries with extremes of climate as far as military uniform was concerned, especially for the European armies, until the late 19th century—although great and sensible strides were made in these three directions by the East India Company's Indian armies after the 1840s. Indian experience produced khaki uniforms, a shade and style invented by the British and widely copied by other nations. By mid-century, the old coatee, not worn by civilians except on formal court occasions, was being replaced by the tunic and frock coat—waisted, skirted, and regarded as more practical, even if they were equally as constrictive as the coatee.
Along with khaki, experiments were made with other drab colours, especially by corps of volunteer riflemen in Britain, but the European wars of mid-century, from the Crimean to the Franco-Prussian, were still fought in full dress uniforms. In the USA, comfort and practicality vied with splendour for acceptance and—contrary to popular belief—dark ‘Federal’ blue and butternut ‘Confederate’ grey were worn by both sides during the civil war.
Insignia of rank appeared and regimental badges mushroomed. The breech-loading long-range rifle (especially in the hands of the trained sniper) and machine gun, capable of dealing in death at long distance, led inexorably to the decline of full dress, although it was a closely fought rearguard action and one that only succumbed to the brutal reality of the casualty lists of 1914-15. Military uniform died in magnificence in the mud and dust of WW I, the French scarlet-trousered poilu being one of its first casualties, and the mud necessitating the invention of the trenchcoat and the rubber ‘gumboot’. Khaki became opposed by feldgrau and allied to bleu d'horizon as the combatants exchanged brightness for drab. Despite efforts to revive it in the inter-war years, especially in nations still nursing or newly pursuing imperial ambitions, full dress was a hopeless anachronism—much mourned—by 1918. The fighting clothing of WW II completed the process, with battledress and camouflage smocks forcing service dress into the position of becoming the principal smart uniform, rather than the combat dress it had been designed as originally.
Functionality and frugality have ruled military uniform since 1918. In an area in which tradition is most sensitively felt, and vigorously defended—especially in the military sphere—changes have been hard fought and more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Navies and air forces have, equally traditionally, taken a more practical view of what they—objectively—regard as working attire than have armies, many navies actually having no uniform as such until the 19th century and most air forces embracing with considerable circumspection the admittedly anachronistic concept of a dress uniform for such a highly technological service. Uniforms adopted a century or more ago for working dress (like mess dress and service dress) are now worn on formal occasions and soldiers go to their duties in comfortable, functional clothing suited to their roles. Significantly, perhaps, and certainly timelessly, it continues to be the case that personnel often find privately purchased kit—like the all-important footwear—superior to anything provided free by their masters. Uniform and uniformity has always been a touchy subject in a society as guided by pride, tradition, hierarchy, and competition as the military world and this shows little sign of abating. In most of the more successful of the world's armed forces, one of the few things which has been, and still is, uniform is lack of uniformity in dress: such is the value of morale-breeding individuality and such has it always been. The pride in the uniform, rather than the uniform itself, is what has made the serviceman.
Bibliography
- Carman, William Y., British Military Uniforms from Contemporary Pictures (London, 1957).
- Knötel, Richard, Knötel, Herbert, and Sieg, Herbert, Uniforms of the World (London, 1980).
- Lawson, Cecil C. P., A History of the Uniforms of the British Army,
5 vols. (London, 1940-67). - Mollo, John, Military Fashion (London, 1972)
— Stephen Wood
