Quote:
Originally Posted by cbuehler
Point well taken and I accept your explanation! I have a particular fondness for British India and often wondered at the, what I had thought, inexplicable details of insignia and uniform sometimes to be seen in photos.
Cheers,
CB
|
I can totally understand that. In recent times I have always found the regular US Army to be THE model for immaculate uniformity in their turn-out, with an excellent laundering ‘system’, too. By contrast the British regimental system encourages idiosyncratic differences between regiments that became the despair of government financiers, who always tried to control expenditure to an acute degree. It was (is still) a constant battle between the two.
In India things were different because labour was so cheap and each cantonment was in effect a mini-economy under the control of the commanding officer, or garrison commander, depending upon the size. No one could work within the cantonment lines without his permission (a system originated by the Honourable East India Company) and vendors and merchants had to pay for their ‘pitch’ within via a regular rent. This money went towards the internal economy (as it was called) of the unit(s) within and was managed by the unit quartermaster on behalf of the CO. That system, along with soldiers subscriptions at nominal, peppercorn rates, enabled barbering (including hair cutting), laundering, tailoring, sweeping, grass cutting, latrine emptying, water carrying, and air fanning (to mention just the most common) to all be on-hand and integral. Indeed until after the Indian Mutiny (aka 1st war of independence) all these functions moved with the regiments on campaign in a long snaking trail. This was a mutual reliance because if the soldiers left them behind their income and economic life support collapsed.
One effect of this is that the difference in the lifestyle and culture between the ‘home’ battalion(s) back in Britain and the ‘foreign service’ battalion(s) in widespread garrisons was quite stark. As an example NCOs of all ranks on foreign service often wore mess dress in emulation of their officers, because cloth and tailoring was cheap. But the home battalion could not afford this and even sergeants, whose mess kit was not publicly funded (issued), would generally use their full dress tunics, unbuttoned with shirt and black tie beneath, as a form of mess dress.
Within this culture each and every regiment might do something different, some with pockets here, some with them there, and some with none at all. Study reveals a huge variety of small idiosyncrasies that are sometimes so subtle as to be almost indiscernible, but once one knows what to look for they can be seen. The fact that each cavalry regiment, each infantry battalion and each artillery brigade had a sergeant, master tailor, also provided a focus and structure that under the close observation of adjutants and sergeant majors of battalion enabled a uniformity within each unit. As a result you might see something completely different between the first and second battalions of the exact same regiment, especially if they had different lineages prior to July 1881, but these most certainly did not originate from some dressing up box in a photographic studio. If you see something that you don’t understand please post it and I’ll be happy to interpret it for you, at the same time providing references where they are available.