Your welcome Gordon, what realy gets to me is the loss of a complete set of early 17thC soldiers clothing. Such items are almost as rare as hen's teeth today. And this set seems to follow the regualtions issued for the Bavarian and Saxon landmilitas who had regulated uniforms as early as 1610. The amount of triming and lacework shown in the picture is surprising and to me suggests that some care and expense was lavished on the coat. The only thing that seems a bit out of place is the very long rapier.

The similarities between the porte-tache you posted a pic of and the one in my pic are striking, to bad the resolution of my picture isn't better. At times I'm almost convinced it's the same pice.

The musketeers of Dumas' novels were members of Les Mousquetaires (aka Le corps des mousquetaires de la maison du roi) and a part of the Household Guard of the Kings of France. Thus the more codififed uniform worn by men who were actualy cavalrymen selected to guard the King outdoors and who therefore thad to be able to serve on both foot and on horseback. Glorified dragoons one might say but mounted on cavary quality horses. So their dress was not typicla for the poor fellows on the line infantry.

/Daniel

Good Grief, you mean the clothing was original too? Oh my, that's a real tragedy that it was lost then! If we're lucky though, the porte-tache pictured in the Wilkinson book that I posted and the one in the picture you posted are the same, and that the clothes are actually around somewhere. Not likely, but there's some hope at least.

Probably some GI or Tommy nabbed the stuff, but better than an Ivan, who would have just worn it home to the Gulag.

Interesting that the clothing actually follows the Bavarian/Saxon regulations of the day! That makes it's (probable) loss that much greater a tragedy.

Agreed about les mousquetiers. They were to all intents and purposes actually cheveaux leger rather than pieds

Thanks for the info,

Cheers,

Gordon

A shame about the missing German equipment. I'm not surprised at the braid on the clothing, that does look about right for clothing of the time. To have left it plain would be unusual and reflect badly upon the provider as a cheap skinflint... !The long rapier shown MAY be right but I doubt it....I would suggest that it was added by the museum cos it looks pretty!Showing both bandolier, porte-tache and flask may also be cos it looks pretty and "....should belong together..."! However. I tend to carry bandolier, power flask and a bag. The bag carries ball and wad, whilst the powder flask carries spare powder. So it may be right.....

On skirmishing. If you mean thin screens in front of the main body on the battle field. Just doesn't happen! Horse would pound such a screen into the dust in seconds. What tends to happen is small bodies of 6 files each of 6 men placed, the smallest used body on the field, under a junior officer in front of the main body within 200-300 paces. Bandoliers don't tend to rattle unless you're running! You do get files of musket used to probe forward, to conduct clearance patrols and the like. Bandoliers were greatly preferred. The Royalist Oxford army bitterly complained against the issue of pouches and powder bags to carry cartridges and powder in, directly petioning Charles I at regimental Commander level!

Gordon....

English Shotte wearing Bandoliers the wrong way round? Are you sure? Just think were the musket butt goes...and all that hot burning powder and lit match... in the left hand, holding the sword hilt or on the left hip...next to the powder flask and open priming flask!

David;

I'll have to admit that it was a secondary source I got that from, but he swears up and down that he got it from a primary source, though I haven't seen it (that I can recall, at least). So we'll call it unsubstansiated until it's proven.

But I like being accoutred the way you suggest, with both bandolier AND flask with shot bag. Makes recharging the bandolier bottles a LOT Faster (don't have to return to the rear to do so), and you have more than just the 12 at hand should you need them!

I do recall one author denegrating the use of Bandoliers because of the rattling though (was it Smythe, or Williams??) because as he said, the noise or their rattling could cause the soldier to miss the commands of his officer, "to his peril". However, seems as though Bandoliers were definitely prefered by the rank and file! Thanks for the info on the Oxford Army, I wasn't aware of that.

And as I recall (please correct me if I am mistaken in this one) the Dragoons, such as Oakey's, were issued with Bandoliers and matchlock muskets, at least at first. THAT must have been both loud AND awkward!

Cheers!

Gordon

I'm amused by the way the three Musketeers shown have 2 of them with muskets under the right arm and one of them with musket under the left arm, with rest in opposite hands. The rest lives in the left hand so two of them are right. That posture really bloody hurts after a short while! Sword hilts are all on the left hip. So it can't be an engraving the wrong way round! Odd.....

Dragoons. Yes some Dragoons were really lucky and got issued Matchlock muskets with Bandoliers. Snaphaunces were reserved for the artilliary "Firelock" guard. After all, with barrels of loose powder open you would not want muskets flicking ash everywhere! The commander of the Royalist Cornish and West Country's army was knocked out when a wagon full of powder exploded after a prisoner knocked his pipe out on a barrel