Comments on Uniform of 33rd Regiment of Foot.
HOME       UNIFORMS      

Comments on Uniform of 33rd Regiment of Foot

NOTE: These comments are discussion of this source by individual members of the history committee and do not represent consensus of the committee, nor necessarily the final conclusions of the member making the comments.

missing Grenadier:

  • John Robertson:
    All should note that missing this image is copyrighted. It is *not* on webspace, but is linked from another site.
  • John Maass, fusiliercolumbus.rr:
    In Troiani's book [Soldiers in America] is a picture of ... a missing grenadier of the 33rd.

  • Todd Braisted, IVBNNJV:
    That is indeed a missing 33rd Regiment Grenadier, based on the facing color (red) and the lace.

  • Jay Callaham, callaham:
    • That is definitely 33d Foot not the 23d. It's a Don Troiani painting - fairly recent.

    • [Would this uniform have been seen at BOC?]
      The short answer is: I don't know. We know what the uniform was "supposed" to look like via the Royal Warrants. We know that there were variations. We know that modifications were made during the war - - the problem is that we often do not know what those modifications were.

      It is highly unlikely that this particular uniform was seen at Camden. The reason is that General Clinton took most of the Grenadiers back to New York with him after Charleston fell. Very few were left in the Southern Army with Lord Cornwallis. Whether those were still in bearskin caps is also subject to question - - mainly because a lot of units had gone to hats or other types of caps by this stage of the war. The letter I sent the other day showing the 23d ordering "hats only" in 1780 indicates that at least one bearskin cap wearing unit was changing or had changed by this stage of the war. We don't know for whom the hats were ordered, what they looked like, or when they were worn, so any interpretation of that one note is purely speculative. The soldier in the image shown is a good "Boston Garrison" ca 1775 impression.

      We're going to have a lot of trouble finding detail documentation of just what the various troops were wearing by the time Camden was fought. It will be interesting, but often frustrating.

  • Bill Braham, billwbraham.demon:
    Further to Jays comments. The missing 33rd's Grenadiers were part of the 3rd Grenadier Battalion in 1776 but by (1777) the Philadelphia Campaign the company had become part of the 1st Grenadier Battalion. The army seems to have only had two composite Grenadier battalions from 1777 (it had 4 in the New York campaign). Clinton took both battalions with him to Charleston but they returned to New York after the siege. It seems highly unlikely therfore that the 33rd's Grenadiers were at Camden. The 33rd's Light Company had a similar 'history' being part of the 3rd Light Infantry Battalion in 1776 and the 1st LI Battalion in 1777.

    British practice on campaign in the mid-late C18th tended to group the elite (grenadier & light)companies in composite battalions somewhat to the chagrin of the parent unit's officer commanding.There are numerous examples in King George's War and the French and Indian War.

    Jay's frustration at the lack of detail in the Orderly Books is understandable. One reason that we probably have the information about the 23rd going into hats is that the whole regiment would have worn bearskin caps as it was a fusilier unit thus required a sizeable order for replacement headgear. With detached companies such as the grenadiers it becomes much more problematic.

    I agree that the illustration shows a grenadier in ful1 1768 Clothing Warrant rig but I doubt it looked like that in 1780 wherever it was serving!