Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The French wore one shade of blue but the few colonists who actually had a uniform wore a darker shade of blue.
Whose bright idea was red uniforms on a battlefield? The Stuarts?
After what happened to Colonel Patrick Ferguson at the battle of Kings Mountain, you would have thought that the military would have been screaming to have that changed.
Hmmmm, not something I've ever thought about before. The British army was still wearing red in 1879 according to the movie 'Zulu.' By the First World War in 1914, they were wearing khaki. I have just read that even after the adaptation of khaki uniforms, most Infantry units wore red tunics on parade, and off duty 'walking out dress' up until the outbreak of the war in 1914.
Why they wore red in particular I don't know. The French wore blue, the Russians wore green. Maybe it had something to do with the English flag, which is a red cross on a white background.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave
Hmmmm, not something I've ever thought about before. The British army was still wearing red in 1879 according to the movie 'Zulu.' By the First World War in 1914, they were wearing khaki. I have just read that even after the adaptation of khaki uniforms, most Infantry units wore red tunics on parade, and off duty 'walking out dress' up until the outbreak of the war in 1914.
Why they wore red in particular I don't know. The French wore blue, the Russians wore green. Maybe it had something to do with the English flag, which is a red cross on a white background.
But wearing red is like saying SHOOT ME!!! And that's exactly what happened to Colonel Ferguson at the battle of Kings Mountain. Then they rolled his body up with one of his mistresses, who had also been killed, dug a grave big enough for two of them, and plopped them in.
Hmmmm, not something I've ever thought about before. The British army was still wearing red in 1879 according to the movie 'Zulu.' By the First World War in 1914, they were wearing khaki. I have just read that even after the adaptation of khaki uniforms, most Infantry units wore red tunics on parade, and off duty 'walking out dress' up until the outbreak of the war in 1914.
Why they wore red in particular I don't know. The French wore blue, the Russians wore green. Maybe it had something to do with the English flag, which is a red cross on a white background.
My hunch is that they wore red because they wanted people to see them coming and be scared out of their wits by the sight. Kind of like uniformed police officers today. Now they wear camouflage because weapons have advanced to the point where skirmish lines are obsolete. A few guys from the pub with some IED's and some fully automatic AK47's would make short work of any pre-1900 army unit from any previous time in history.
I was curious enough to do a google search... The origin of the red uniforms goes back to 1645. I would never have guessed the reason for the choice of red.
Quote:
Part of the reforms that created the New Model Army was to give all the soldiers the same uniform, rather than every regiment being different.These uniforms were supplied and paid for by Parliament, acquired from several different private contractors. As always, the government bought from the lowest bidder - and it so happened that a dye called 'Venetian red' was the cheapest on the market in those days. So the army of Parliament was dressed in red coats because that was the lowest-cost option.
After the Civil Wars were over, the restored monarchy carried on supplying red uniforms for the same reason - they were cheaper.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
My hunch is that they wore red because they wanted people to see them coming and be scared out of their wits by the sight. Kind of like uniformed police officers today. Now they wear camouflage because weapons have advanced to the point where skirmish lines are obsolete. A few guys from the pub with some IED's and some fully automatic AK47's would make short work of any pre-1900 army unit from any previous time in history.
By the time of the US Civil War, the rifles had advanced to the point that accuracy made it increasingly stupid to make huge battlefield displays of manpower. I'm not sure what the difference was at the time of the Crimean War. However, they retired the brown bess by 1840, so it might have been Enfield rifles of the same vintage used in the Civil War.
The standard issue red coats had to predate rifles with much accuracy.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene
I was curious enough to do a google search... The origin of the red uniforms goes back to 1645. I would never have guessed the reason for the choice of red.
Oh come on easthome........ don't forget our annual marches through town centres wearing our red tunics, black pants with a white stripe, and Pith helmet! Then off to the pub afterwards to talk of the good old days in India. Ahh, if it wasn't for that Gandhi guy, we would still be sat on the veranda Sunday afternoons, with a punkah wallah fanning us, as we sink a few gin and tonics. I miss it, I really do.
Ah yes those were the days, everybody in Britain living the Downton Abbey way (apart from the jolly Cockney chimney sweeps like Bert in Mary Poppins)! The world doing exactly what we told them to do! Not like now, not now we have been in 'decline' for 100 years - no wonder nobody listens to us anymore! No wonder we voted Brexit! It's the only way to get the people back to the Utopia that Victorian Britain was for us all!
According to British press reports, it appears that there is a rising expectation that Theresa May could resign tonight, which means withing the next few hours.
4.35pm update: Prime Minister to resign TONIGHT - MP claims
Sky’s chief political correspondent Jon Craig tweeted: “Very senior MP tells me the word from the Cabinet corridor in the HoC is that the PM will resign tonight, Andrea Leadsom is poised to resign to launch a leadership bid, others may also resign & David Lidington will take over as acting PM. Unconfirmed!” 4.15pm update: Foreign affairs select committee chair calls for May to stand down
Writing in the Financial Times, Tory MP Tom Tugendhat said: “There is one last chance to get it right and leave in an orderly fashion.
“But it is now time for Prime Minister Theresa May to go - and without delay.
"She must announce her resignation after Thursday's European elections."
The Tory MP's and members of her cabinet are now all but coming out of the woodwork to call for Theresa May's resignation. Whether the rumors of her resigning today are true or not, we will know within a few hours. But it is certainly past time for her to go.
As far as the EU elections tomorrow, they practically mean nothing as far as the UK's Brexit plans, except to the extent they are looked at as a barometer of how dissatisfied the Tory base is with their party's handling of Brexit.
All polls and every person with an opinion about the EU parliamentary elections - which the UK should not even be participating in - are expecting the Tories to be wiped out in epic fashion tomorrow. As far as I can tell, there is not a single member of the Tory leadership in Westminster that will publicly deny it.
Meanwhile, Theresa May has proposed a fourth vote on her deal and also a vote on a second referendum. The Tories in her cabinet and throughout the party have responded by abandoning her and calling for her resignation. In the olden days, they might have taken her out and burned her at the stake. The animosity towards her appears to be escalating steadily. Surely she will not be able to hold on for very much longer.
Theresa May’s final attempt to patch together a parliamentary majority for Brexit appears to have backfired after her 10-point “new deal” was rejected by MPs from across the political spectrum.
In a speech at the headquarters of consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers in London on Tuesday, the prime minister laid out a series of promises that will be included in the 100-page withdrawal agreement bill (Wab) when it is published later this week – including an offer of a binding vote on a referendum if the deal passes.
But, after a stormy cabinet meeting in which a more generous proposed offer on a second referendum was met with the threat of revolt, MPs on both sides of the Brexit divide said that the proposals were hollow. Within hours, more than 20 Conservatives who backed the deal last time rejected it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
