#1 [url]

Apr 17 12 5:16 PM

Mmm, yes. Sort of.

Though I think even a "smart" regiment might look scruffy by the end of a campaign. Whereas a "scruffy" regiment might be in tatters or near naked by the end of that same campaign.

I think your rule of thumb will work fine for you. All the equivocation and hair-splitting serves to remind us that determining norms may be impossible, so in the end just be sure to make yourself happy with the appearance of your troops.

Personally, I lean toward a more idealized version because I like things neat, and arguably the armies would occasionally present as neat (these are game pieces after all, like a chess pawn or bishop; also, I'd personally prefer to be remembered in a clean-and-shaved condition rather than a snap shot of a particularly haggard day, so I imagine they would too). Others prefer a more distressed treatment of their units because they feel that adds to the realism; and unquestionably, the armies were often outfitted in hard worn uniforms, kit, and equipment.

There is no absolute right answer ... only a range of answers that could be correct at a given time and place. If you wanted to portray the 2d Rhode Island Regiment in August of 1777, with extensive research you might be able to achieve a fairly authentic representation. However, that unit would have looked differently three months earlier or three months later. And they would have been supplied differently than the 4th Connecticut Regiment serving in the same brigade, which itself would have looked both differently 3 months before/after August 1777 and would have been supplied differently than the Rhode Island Regiment at those times too.

In short, there were a variety of factors that would play upon the appearance of a regiment during their tours of duty. And those factors were in constant flux.

Then let us fill a bumper, and drink a health to those
Who carry caps and pouches, and wear the loup'ed clothes.