AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH CIVIL WAR FOOT COAT

COLOURS AND ORGANISATION .

Peter Berry

General
The English Civil War has been the subject of study for 350 years. It is unfortunate that
it is only now that we are beginning to establish how the soldiers were dressed and
equipped. The fault mainly lies with the romantic version of the conflict that envisaged
befeathered rakehells fighting for the King against soberly dressed, hypocritical snivel-
ling bullies fighting for Cromwell.

The Victorians especially viewed the events of the through their own distorting mirror
and the results of all of this can be seen on many a wargames table, where Royalist
musketeers sporting lace collars and big hats adorned with feathered plumes are en-
gaged in mortal combat with Roundhead pikemen wearing lobster pot helmets and
striped rugby shirts.

It will surprise many to realise how little is actually known about the appearance of
Civil War armies. For example, wargamers expect to know all the coat colours and flags
for Hopton's Foot and then get very upset when that information is simply not avail-
able.

Armies, Regiments and Battalia

The Civil War was one contested by a number of regional forces. Although the Oxford
army and Essex’s army tend to hog the limelight as the main field forces for the oppos-
ing sides, there were many sizeable forces fighting for both causes as independent or
semi-independent bodies. These regional armies would often have quite distinctive
characteristics that marked them apart from the main forces.

It is also a point worth making that both of the main field armies underwent massive
changes in composition, organisation, personnel, equipment and experience on a con-
tinual basis. The armies of 1642 were very different to those that took the field a year
later and so it went on. If you come across a set of rules that attempts to condense all
the different armies over all of the years of the conflict into two simple lists headed
‘Roundhead’ and ‘Royalist’ then you really have to question how much the author un-
derstands the complexities of the historical situation/

The Polemos ECW wargames rules contain comprehensive lists concentrating on the
two main field armies which are covered on a year by year basis, but also taking in the
West Country, Yorkshire, Scotland and Ireland. Each lcontains a breakdown of the ar-
mies, lists of known regiments and formations and where known coat colours..
And here we come to something that can be quite difficult for wargamers to grasp. We
all grew up with the idea that ECW infantry were organised into regiments, each with
their own distinctive coat colour. It’s an attractive idea which allowed us to build cool
looking armies with easy to grasp regimental names and organisations. The tragic bit
is, that apart from the 1642 campaign, its not one that can be applied.

The received wisdom is that a regiment of foot numbered about a thousand men and
took the field as a distinct and single unit. In practice, as with later armies, such large
formations were subdivided into two ‘battalia’ each 500 strong. Battalia consisted of
pike and shot companies and reflected the ratios of the parent bodies. You can see ex-
amples of this practice in action in the way the Scots Covenanters took the field and by
careful examination of Streeter’s map of Naseby.

Once the initial enthusiasm of 1642 was over with, Foot regiments never really main-
tained their initial strength and many became drastically reduced in numbers. Some
units lost companies as garrisons and reinforcements to the army could come in the
form of odd contingents of companies.. A field commander could only make sense of
all this by effectively counting up all his foot and then roughly dividing them into bat-
talia sized units. A brigade of which had three regiments numbering 700, 300 and 200
respectively would function much more effectively as two even sized units of 500.

All of this would therefore have a profound impact on how armies were organised on
the battlefield and especially on their appearance.

Given the rigours of war and campaign it was common for soldiers to be issued with
new clothing once a year. However, there was no guarantee that the colour of coats is-
sued from one year to the next would be consistent. For example, John Hampden's
regiment was issued with green coats lined yellow in 1642. In 1643, the reissue to the
army only included red or grey coats. After Hampden's death the regiment continued
under two further colonels, and was unlikely to have received issues of its original hue.
Thus, the regiment could only be called 'Greencoats', or indeed' 'Hampden's, for a short
time of its existence.

The situation is further compounded, when you consider that at any time a regiment
would have had in its ranks; new recruits, who may not have received any issue of
clothing; drafts from amalgamated regiments, or even deserters from the other side. We
are not dealing with chocolate box soldiers in pretty regular uniforms.

As a result when a coat colour is indicated it can only be relevant for that year. There is
no guarantee of it being valid for either preceding of succeeding campaigns. It is also
highly likely that many soldiers served in their own clothing for at least part of their
military career.
You can now add to this mix the fact that the war progressed, regiments rarely took the
field as an entity, thus a brigade could battalia whose soldiers were dressed in red, blue,
grey, green and civilian clothing!

The exception to this chaos seems to be the Scots, who issued their soldiers with a sim-
ple "four tailed" coat of hodden grey, but even here, there were various red coated regi-
ments.

It is worth noting that the issues of clothing to the Oxford army regiments consisted
of coat, breeches and Montero - a full suit, presumably all of the same colour. There is
no similar issue of breeches in Essex's army, and it is only possibly in 1644 and cer-
tainly in 1645 and the New Model contracts that we see Parliament providing a full set
of clothing to its soldiers.

Finally, the plates are based on established source material. I have not indulged in sec-
ond hand supposition, although this may be a valid tactic if you ever want to get an
army painted.

Where an area is shown as white, it is because there is no information available. A light

grey is used to indicate where white linings are used.
ESSEX'S ARMY 1642-1644
This was the main Parliamentarian field army of the first English Civil War. It has re-
ceived the most intense study, yet despite this details remain sketchy after 1642.
In general, soldiers were issued with shoes, hose, shirts, snapsacks, and coats. Knitted
monmouth caps were the most likely form of headwear.

1642

The initial outfitting of the main army was comprehensive, and it is the one for which
we have the most complete records. Many of these regiments did not survive intact
into the second year of the war, so this nice complete picture must be treated with
great caution.

Robartes Constables Saye and Seles Charles Essex’s Cholmlies

Earl of Essex Ballards Brooks Holles Peterboroughs

 Rochfords Stamfords Merricks Hampdens Granthams

1643
The orderly picture of 1642 now disappears. The troops campaigned in their 1642 issue
coats, but there was large-scale amalgamation of regiments, and no heed was taken to
the coat colours of the constituent units. There was an issue of new coats made to the
army in Autumn 1643. However, the coats issued did not tally with the previous year's,
nor were they issued uniformly to regiments. The foot of 1643 were dressed in a range
of motley colours, mostly red and grey, and coats were not of a uniform colour within
regiments. A reference of the time refers to 'Parliament Grey' - a reflection of the
much more sober appearance of Parliament's main army.

Coats issued to Essex’s Foot in Autumn 1643

1644

Further reductions and amalgamations prior to the Lostwithiel Campaign plus new re-
cruits meant that the army would have taken on an even less harmonious appearance.
The West Country campaign was a disaster and the Foot needed to be re-equipped and
re-clothed. This was done in a remarkable effort of mobilising resources in Portsmouth
in September 1644. While we have details of the numbers involved, unfortunately we
have no indication of the colours of the new coats. Peachey and Turton suggest that
they would have been a uniform colour with either red or grey being favourites.
The Foot were able to take part in the second battle of Newbury, but this was their last
campaign. In April 1645 the regiments were disbanded and the men re-enlisted into the
units of the New Model Army.

Possible clothing issued at Portsmouth refit

THE OXFORD ARMY
1642

It would seem that Charles was considering clothing at least part of his army in March
1643, and Thomas Bushell equipped the, "..liefe Guard and three regiments more, with
suites, stockings, shoes and mounteroes...". The colours of the uniforms and the regi-
ments receiving the issue remains unclear. Red is traditionally the colour attributed to
the Lifeguards, and a reference is made to that colour when describing them at Edge-
hill, although it is unclear as to whether this refers to the coats or the regimental colours
However, these four regiments notwithstanding, it is highly likely that large part of the
Royalist Foot at Edgehill served in their civilian clothing.

1643

In July suits of clothing consisting of coats, breeches and monteroes were issued to
troops in Oxford. These suits were blue or red, but unfortunately we cannot attribute
them to specific regiments. We can determine that Darcy's, Charles Gerrard's and
Lunsford's/Rupert's wore blue, and that the King's Lifeguard wore red. It is also highly
probable that the regiments of Percy, Pinchbeck, Dyves and Pennyman were dressed in
grey/whitecoats, as befitted their Northern origin.

Earl of Essex Ballards Brooks Holles Peterboroughs

1644

Much of the confusion of the previous year becomes clearer, as more references enable
us to identify more coat colours. However, there is one group of regiments who re-
ceived an issue of clothing in either red or blue, but we cannot accurately define which.

King’ Kifeguard C.Gerrad Appleyard Percy

Queen’s Lifeguard Hopton Talbot Pinchbeck/Bard
Dyve
B.Astley

The following may have been issued either red or blue clothing: J. Astleys, Pennymans,
Lisles, Thelwells.

1645
The most important point to note is that in its final campaigns, the Oxford Foot was a
composite body of old regiments, garrisons and new-levied men, formed into battalia
and brigades to make viable battlefield units. These brigades could not have presented
anything like a uniform appearance. Apart from a reference to Rupert's regiment being
bluecoats, we have no further information to add to what is outlined below. Given that
I would suggest that red and blue uniforms would have dominated with a sprinkling of
white/grey and the odd yellow coat.