Unknown Crimean soldier - 11th Hussars uniform???

[Stuart_Bates]

If the image were reversed that would mean his sword was to the right.

Stuart

[Frogsmile]

If the image were reversed that would mean his sword was to the right.

Stuart

Yes I just realised that and thus edited to remove it .....thereby going firm with my inadvertent ignorance theory.

[Stuart_Bates]

Frogsmile,

then why has he also a leather pouch on his hip with the belt passing through and under it?

Stuart

[Frogsmile]

Frogsmile,

then why has he also a leather pouch on his hip with the belt passing through and under it?

Stuart

That is the black leather 'expense pouch' that contained his ammunition (waxed cartridges). Just beneath it was a spring clip to which his carbine would be attached, when mounted, via a ring on the offside of its lock. Hence the nomenclature as 'pouch and carbine belt'. It appears to be the 1850 pattern, to which the cap pocket was added in 1857. He is, as you have pointed out, wearing it slung across the wrong shoulder. The correct position is shown on the coloured image of the regular Hussar.

[Riahen]

I think your surmise is quite likely. The most likely reason a blacksmith would pose for a photo with his wife wearing the uniform would presumably be when he was most proud to wear it - when it was first received. I wondered what the "splodge" was.

1857 fits well within (at the upper end of) estimate of both their ages. John would be 40 in 1857 and his wife Mary would be 31. These ages seem reasonably in keeping with the apparent ages of the couple in the photo. The only wrinkle is the lists I have found for the Knaresborough Troop are dated 1853 and John is listed. Is it possible this item was in use earlier than 1857?

[jf42]

I though this might be of interest from the distaff side. For some reason the cut of the lady's bodice struck a chord. This is a photo of Pauline Cushman celebrated Union spy during American Civil War. I am not sure of the date date but ca 1865 would be a fair guide. Obvious adjustments necessaryfor class, geography etc. I imagine she would probably be more in fashion than Yorkshire Yeomanry wife.

Civil-War-spies-Pauline-Cushman-2.jpg (33.34 KiB) Viewed 875 times

[Riahen]

Hi

Thanks for that - though I am fairly confident in a 1850s date for this photo. The style and the film used are quite primitive - more so than some 1860s photos in the album that are much clearer and show greater contrast. I have been doing some research on the studio, and, while not definitive, it does support an earlier date.

It occured to me - what if this image is reversed. He may simply have swapped the side his sword was on so it ould be clearly seen in all its glory instead of hidden behind his wife - though that does beg the question - why not just stand on the other side of her?

[Frogsmile]

I think your surmise is quite likely. The most likely reason a blacksmith would pose for a photo with his wife wearing the uniform would presumably be when he was most proud to wear it - when it was first received. I wondered what the "splodge" was.

1857 fits well within (at the upper end of) estimate of both their ages. John would be 40 in 1857 and his wife Mary would be 31. These ages seem reasonably in keeping with the apparent ages of the couple in the photo. The only wrinkle is the lists I have found for the Knaresborough Troop are dated 1853 and John is listed. Is it possible this item was in use earlier than 1857?

The 'splodge' obscuring the hilt of his sabre is I think a pair of leather gloves or gauntlets, clutched in his hand and which would have been a part of his uniform.

The information I have regarding the introduction of the cap pocket is from a reliable source so I am confident that it could not have been an earlier date. Before 1857 a leather-lined 'cap pocket' was sewn into the jackets/tunics of the men. It was after 1857 that the buff leather pocket was retrofitted to all equipments for infantry, cavalry and artillery, each of which had their own pattern of belt and straps, whereas the pocket's design was standard. The pocket was associated with the 'Minie and Enfield patterns of rifle (for infantry) and carbine (for cavalry and artillery), the pattern used previously had been a flint lock.

Could he have still been a member of the Troop at a later date, it is after all only four more years?

I did for a moment think it might be a reversed image, but the likelihood of him wearing his sword on the wrong side is far more remote than having the pouch misplaced, as the former had been a distinct feature of military dress and thus within common knowledge of a countryman for many centuries.

[jf42]

As an addition to my note on the lady's costume, dresses with that design of bodice were appearing in Berlin fashion plates for 1858- which would seem to tally with the evidence of the carbine expense pouch. I can't find a digital image but my reference is the 1930's reference book by Bruhn & Tilke. A very general and rather dated book but it does work from period sources.

[Riahen]

Frogsmile - Oh no - I'm quite sure he was still in the regiment in the late 50s and beyond - I was just running with your idea this could be when he first signed up. I know he was in in 1853 so that's not the answer but it is curious why he wore his uniform a little differently from the standard.

JF42 - thanks for the pointer - I'll look into that. It'll be a huge help as I have album full of fashionable ladies that I haven't identified - or even dated yet so it'll come in handy

[jf42]

Thinking about John Walker's pose: he couldn't have stood on the other side of his wife and still been able to lean his hand on her chair while assuming a suitably martial pose with his sword. Looking at the cap pouch, he must have had to slide it round on the belt deliberately so that it still hung on his chest, not his back. If he had been serving for four years or so at the time of the photograph, he would have known that that he was not wearing his carbine belt correctly.

The likely conclusion would seem to be that there was some aesthetic reason proposed by the photographer, not apparent to the modern viewer, that prompted the switch of the belt from right shoulder to left; a reason, reinforced by the authority of the new-fangled medium, that trumped military correctness.

Meanwhile, don't expect too much from Bruhn and Tilke. As a source, it does peter out in the mid-19th century.

[Stuart_Bates]

Add to this that the cords on the barrel sash loop from the back around the right side of the body before attaching to the front of the jacket. For Regular Hussar regiments the cords were specified as passing through the front part of the sash with the ends then passed over to hang in front. Sashes for Regular Hussars were abolished in 1855. I have photographs of the Yorkshire Hussars that show this and also their passing under the sash to be looped on a jacket button or ball.

This is another indication that the photo is not reversed.

Stuart

[Frogsmile]

Ria: I see what you mean now about the date contradicting that it might be a first photo in uniform, perhaps there was some other, family reason, why it was taken when it was.

Jf42: I had not thought about the photographer interfering, that seems like a very sound theory and I can imagine that happening, as it still sometimes does now.

Stuart: The barrel sash aspect is interesting. The Hussards site states in relation to a Yorkshire Hussar - "The white and crimson Hussar barrel sash (yellow and crimson for NCOs) will have been abolished by 1895 for ranks below sergeant."