You know what? During the 1700's: how did State's armies pick out the colour for their troops?
I mean: it's very specific, isn't it? Us Brits wore red uniforms, the French were blue, Austrians were white and so on.
What determines the colour of uniforms back then? Was there a cunt going around saying "you guys will be blue, and they're red" or something? Were they following their national flag? Whot?
This thread is relevant to my interests. I never really thought about it till now, but now I am curious too.
>>471779
In short: a lot of factors
1) Visibility. Age of Black Powder. Shit created lots of smoke. Had to identify your troops with a bright, singular color in the battlefield
2) Identification. Obviously
3) Yes, some countries did base it off their flags. See Sweden's yellow and blue uniforms.
4) Identification of soldier types. Often enough cavalrymen and infantrymen wore different colors. Hell some regiments even had a different color.
5) Other factors. For example: the British Red Coat is red because red was the cheapest, most visible. dye color in England.
Oh and a lot of people had overlapping uniforms. France and Austria were both white actually. A lot of German states wore blue.
>>471779
>was there a cunt going around saying "you guys will be blue, and they're red" or something?
Honestly, that's probably actually the most accurate answer. There's no absolute scientific reason why certain countries preferred certain colors for their troops. There's about as much reason to it as why a certain style happens to appeal in that country. It all comes down to who is designing the uniforms, and whatever designs the military decides to accept. As to the question of why they would consistently choose the same color scheme, it's likely simply a matter of tradition.
It wasn't as standardized as you think. The French, for example, didn't use blue primarily until around Napoleonic times iirc. Before that their infantry wore mostly white, but red and blue were both prevalent as well. I don't have too much knowledge on this but standardized uniforms weren't really a thing until the late 19th century, before that it differed by regiment and even then people often times wore different stuff.
>>471794
Contd.
Outside of the West: the only cunts that had uniforms were the Chinese and the Japanese.
In 1700's China, under the Qing, the massive million man army was divided into 8 banners, whose soldiers all wore a certain color scheme (pick related). Everyone's armor, flags, and uniform were of the same color as his banner army
The elite banner was the Yellow Banner Army: under the personal command of the Qing Emperor himself. The other elite formations were the White, Red, and Blue Armies. The bordered color banners were regular armies
>>471794
>the 4th officer in that pic
I've seen that uniform design, with the dark blue and the pink facings, a lot in relation to the mid 18th - early 19th century Prussian army. It really looks nice but I've never known exactly who wore it.
>>471812
Meanwhile in Japan, a combination of the Tokugawa Peace, the large numbers of firearms, and bigger armies meant armormaking became an art form rather than a military equipment. This meant that Japanese soldiers of the 1700's wore uniforms.
Theirs is a charming lot really, the uniform of a soldier and samurai was really a girded up kimono, whose colors are based off his immediate liege lord's banner & seal. Samurai often distinguished themselves from the common soldiery by wearing a Jinbaori (an overcoat).
>>471794
In the Philippines, IIRC, individual Spanish colonial regiments supplied their own uniforms. And due to shortages in dyes, they often left them undyed. Blue however was a popular color.
In addition to this, the Spanish army of the East Indies also consisted of a lot of tribal fighters, who continued fighting with their traditional weapons, often only wearing the coat of their regiment over traditional pre-colonial Filipino garb.
>>471845
Oh yeah, this is also worth bringing up: the USA. After the revolution, the Americunts had a big argument on whether to keep the army or not. Argument being that a Standing Army is HURDURR EBIL TYRANNICAL TOOL and that the army should just consist of volunteer militias. Meanwhile the Military Officers pointed out that eventually, a standing army will be needed since everyone else were having em. So they had a compromise in which there will be a small standing army that -during war- will be augmented by State Volunteer armies that consisted of volunteer militias. Hence the establishment of Westpoint (for the Standing army) and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
Here's the funny part: prior the Mid-Civil War, the State Militias did not care about uniforms. Everyone was just to show up with their guns. Thats it.
So a lot of volunteer militias in the early USA's state militias were actually these private armies consisting of
-People from the same town/city borough.
-People from a company firm/guild/trade.
-Friends
-Rich people clubs
Rich people and ranchers took it up a notch and served as militia cavalry.
Most of the time, these people agreed to pool their money and buy firearms or buy/make uniforms for themselves and elect an officer among them (often the company CEO, often the town mayor). And they had very weird uniform choices: often mimicking elite European formations of the time like Zouaves, the Black Watch, or Palace Guards.
The end product of all these meant that the US Armed Forces from the 1790's to the mid 1860's were 1/4ths uniformed, professional men, 3/4ths wondrous cavalcade of militiamen in
-their sunday's best.
-their own versions/copies of the US Army/Marines' uniform
-The "tacticool" uniform of the time.
Its like if the United States National Guards of today called up for volunteers and the cunts who show up are people from /k/ wearing Nazi Outfits and holding SKS's.
>>471821
It says it right in the picture:
Infanterie Regiment No. 18
>>471954
Any more pictures of what these "tacticool" uniforms would look like?
>>471988
Sure. Here are rich New Yorker volunteers.
>>472002
Volunteer Men gunning for the War of 1812/1840's US Army look. And a Pseudo Black Watch.
>>472006
These are from the Civil War btw
Though as the war progressed and both Confed and Union armies had their supply production rolling, volunteers were increasingly uniformed by their respective governments. Looking like the rest of the army.
>>472006
More 1840's wannabes.
>>472024
Uniforms becoming tamer later in the war.
>>472029
...not too tame among some units.
>>472032
>>472038
And just so I'm not shitting you: period photographs & artwork.
Here's the 79th New York State Militia Regiment. Consisting of Scottish Immigrants, they gunned for the highlander/black watch look.
>>472074
The 55th New York State Militia Regiment. Which had people walking around in those bushy palace guard hats.
>>471779
Basically
a) What kind of dye was economical. One of the main reasons the British wore red was because red dye was cheap.
b) What dye was clearly distinct from what your likely opponent would be wearing. Another of the reasons the British wore red was because it was visibly different from the French blue, likewise the Prussian blue/yellow was clearly not the Austrian white.
Lots of countries just bought whatever day was going, like the Dutch who changed uniform colours regularly. Sometimes multiple times during the same war.
>>472077
The National Lancers of Massachusstes - a Cavalry Militia- is an interesting case really.
The standing US Army's cavalry's organization actually -to put it gently- sucked. It was known as the US cavalry. Period. An all dragoon force lacking in the other conventional European Cavalry types like Lancers, Cuirassier Heavy Cavalrymen, Hussars and the like.
It makes sense however as the early USA was in wild terrain and you'd rather have mounted musketeers who can fight dismounted when needed.
But then here come the likes of the National Lancers who performed lancer roles. Something the US army didn't have.
>>471779
Nobody seemed to have the FF: uniform colors
>Yellow
>Orange
>Aquamarine
>PURPLE
>Black
>>472429
>Yellow
No sane Western army would. Yellow = Cowardice in the west.
>Purple
Expensive.
>Black
A lot actually. Look up the Black Brunswickers.
>>472015
Where are all these from?
HNNNNGGG
This thread is practically porn.
Why don't men dress like this anymore?
>tfw no old timey British infantry seargant BF
>>474337
Because you get shot being a colourful cunt in a modern battlefield.
>>474349
lmao are you pissy your modern day fatigues are unaesthetic as fuck?
>>472024
kind of looks like the guy in the middle is talking on a headset
>>471794
Common but not true, the british red goes back to the War of the roses, where one side(i dont remember honestly it was so fucking stupid) wore red, and that was the side who won. Was it the royalists? Either way the british army wore red to commemorate that.
>>474337
Piss stains on the breeches
>>474429
Hussars are hot too
here's a reenactor
>>472077
is there a purpose to the hats?
>>474362
I know I am. Unless you're deployed to a combat zone your uniform should look fly as fuck. Or you do a dirty job like mechanics and shit.
>>476643
At least the dress blues are nice
>>474421
>war of the roses
>was it the royalists that won?
>>472015
DC Private is clearly a time traveling /k/ommando. Just look at that gleeful expression.
>>476460
Makes you look taller and more intimidating.
>>474421
You've completely mixed up your English civil wars m8.
War of the Roses is Lancastrians (red) vs Yorkist (white). Both sides were different branches from The Plantagenets royal family.
The English Civil war was Royalists vs Parliamentarians. Charles I vs Oliver Cromwell.
And the reason red was used in British uniforms is because it was the cheapest dye to use in Britian.
