Were Vivandieres combatants?

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
For the last week or so I've been discussing the subject of Zouaves in another thread. The subject has come up of French Mary Tepe of the 114th Pa, aka Collis' Zouaves. She was considered the regimental vivandiere. Below is a photo of her with what appears to be a sidearm. Does that necessarily make her a combatant? I kind of doubt it.


View attachment 45361

In my book if she is wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon she is a combatant.

Yes, a nice rig in fact.

15999555_1.jpg

Question: Were Vivandieres combatants? One school of thought is that if they wore uniforms and carried a weapon, they were combatants. Did Union or Confederate military people consider them to be combatants?

- Alan
 
Question: Were Vivandieres combatants? One school of thought is that if they wore uniforms and carried a weapon, they were combatants. Did Union or Confederate military people consider them to be combatants?

Foreverfree, the issue here is do you mean "combatants" in the modern uses of the word or in the 1860 usage? Some jobs which are now done by soldiers in 2014 were done by civilians in 1861. The currently Geneva Convention definition of "Prisoners of War, Retained Persons and the modern usage of Combatants" are not applicable in 1861. Just because a person carries a gun does not make them a Combatant. A person can still defend them self and not be a 'soldier' or a 'combatant'.
 
Foreverfree, the issue here is do you mean "combatants" in the modern uses of the word or in the 1860 usage? Some jobs which are now done by soldiers in 2014 were done by civilians in 1861. The currently Geneva Convention definition of "Prisoners of War, Retained Persons and the modern usage of Combatants" are not applicable in 1861. Just because a person carries a gun does not make them a Combatant. A person can still defend them self and not be a 'soldier' or a 'combatant'.

Major,

It was @101combatvet who posited that the Vivandiere in the photo was a combatant, based on her uniform and her gun.

I have always considered Vivandieres to be non-enlisted, non-commissioned, noncombat personnel, albeit, they are performing their jobs in a war zone. But I am not an expert on the subject. I was interested in others' views, and I am interested in knowing if Union or Confederate personnel considered them to be combatants.

- Alan
 
Foreverfree, the issue here is do you mean "combatants" in the modern uses of the word or in the 1860 usage? Some jobs which are now done by soldiers in 2014 were done by civilians in 1861. The currently Geneva Convention definition of "Prisoners of War, Retained Persons and the modern usage of Combatants" are not applicable in 1861. Just because a person carries a gun does not make them a Combatant. A person can still defend them self and not be a 'soldier' or a 'combatant'.

If in a military uniform she is not a civilian.
 
101 a military uniform is often worn by civilians. You must have worked with members of the American Red Cross. They wore American Army style uniforms and from any distance one would mistake them for soldiers. I can assure you that members of the American Red Cross do not believe they are American soldiers, just try giving them a direct order. The press in World War Two are another example of civilians wearing army uniforms.

My personal view is Civil War era Vivandieres were more or less soldiers, but not generally combatants. I am uncertain if they were under the command of Army officers or not. My thinking is that if you are obligated to follow the military chain of command, then you are a soldier or close to it. If you are under the command and control of a civilian agency, then you are not a soldier. For example JIF (Joint Intelligence Force) people at the prison camp where I worked at, wore army uniforms, but were employed by someone other than the U.S. Army. Our JIF personnel did not fall under the normal Army chain of command and were not obligate to follow Army officer's orders.
 
If in a military uniform she is not a civilian.

Question: do you think the US government committed gross and even criminal negligence by giving these women uniforms?

These women were not intended as combatants, as I understand it. They were non-enlisted, non-commissioned, noncombat personnel who performed a number of roles in some proximity to actual soldiers. If your view is taken to heart, then by allowing these women to wear uniforms that resembled those of soldiers - true combatants - the US government was irresponsible. They were irresponsible in that they made these women look like combatants, and thus put a target on these women's heads. Is that how you look at it?

- Alan
 
Question: do you think the US government committed gross and even criminal negligence by giving these women uniforms?

These women were not intended as combatants, as I understand it. They were non-enlisted, non-commissioned, noncombat personnel who performed a number of roles in some proximity to actual soldiers. If your view is taken to heart, then by allowing these women to wear uniforms that resembled those of soldiers - true combatants - the US government was irresponsible. They were irresponsible in that they made these women look like combatants, and thus put a target on these women's heads. Is that how you look at it?

- Alan

Once you don a uniform, how can I distinguish you from another enemy soldier in battle? Should I risk my life checking your status? No, you just get dead.
 
101 a military uniform is often worn by civilians. You must have worked with members of the American Red Cross. They wore American Army style uniforms and from any distance one would mistake them for soldiers. I can assure you that members of the American Red Cross do not believe they are American soldiers, just try giving them a direct order. The press in World War Two are another example of civilians wearing army uniforms.

My personal view is Civil War era Vivandieres were more or less soldiers, but not generally combatants. I am uncertain if they were under the command of Army officers or not. My thinking is that if you are obligated to follow the military chain of command, then you are a soldier or close to it. If you are under the command and control of a civilian agency, then you are not a soldier. For example JIF (Joint Intelligence Force) people at the prison camp where I worked at, wore army uniforms, but were employed by someone other than the U.S. Army. Our JIF personnel did not fall under the normal Army chain of command and were not obligate to follow Army officer's orders.

My understanding is that the Vivs were not commanded by any military officer, but I do not know that for a fact. I think they have more in common with, say, the Red Cross, than with a military contractor. But that is just speculation.

- Alan

EDIT: I think there were some Vivs who engaged in ad hoc combat or such, and I do want to recognize the sacrifice of such women.
 
Last edited:
Once you don a uniform, how can I distinguish you from another enemy soldier in battle? Should I risk my life checking your status? No, you just get dead.

So then, do you think the US government was irresponsible by allowing noncombatants to dress like combatants, and then be exposed to all resulting risks?

- Alan
 
If you had you might understand why a person in uniform and or carrying a firearm would be considered a combatant.

I'm sorry 101, but I don't buy it. I think these women would be the first to say that they were not combatants, and that they had the utmost respect and admiration for the men who were combatants. The soldiers, in turn, no doubt had the utmost respect and admiration for these women who, while not combatants, put themselves in harm's way to support their fighting men.

- Alan
 
I'm sorry 101, but I don't buy it. I think these women would be the first to say that they were not combatants, and that they had the utmost respect and admiration for the men who were combatants. The soldiers, in turn, no doubt had the utmost respect and admiration for these women who, while not combatants, put themselves in harm's way to support their fighting men.

- Alan

You don't buy it because you have an agenda, right?

"I will leave it at that."
 
Myths and Misconceptions about vivandieres.

"...In the last few years, several sources have been written about vivandieres during the Civil War containing a number of myths and anecdotal stories of vivandieres, which have not been adequately documented. Among these misconceptions is the tendency to equate vivandieres with women who served in the army disguised as soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Vivandieres or cantinieres made no effort to disguise their sex; nor were they "enlisted" as soldiers in their respective regiments. They were clearly and quite obviously women who adopted an obviously feminine role within a military organization.

A number of women in official or quasi-official capacities with the army adopted costumes similar to that of vivandieres; yet their function was not that of vivandiere. Dr. Mary Walker, Loretta Valesques, Madame Turchin, and others wore "uniforms" similar to that of vivandieres, with short skirts worn over trousers; however, these individuals performed different functions and cannot be classed as vivandieres in the strict sense of the term. Others, such as Belle Reynolds, were officially recognized as "daughters of the regiment" in recognition of their services to soldiers in the regiments commanded by their husbands, although their primary assistance was rendered after battles in hospitals.

Finally, the recent fascination with vivandieres has prompted a number of publications and commentaries which have incorrectly cited "the regulations of 1865" as proof that vivandieres were established military functionaries in the United States Army. The United States Army did not publish a set of regulations in 1865, and vivandieres were never given an established post in American armies..."

From the online article, The Daughter of the Regiment: A Bried History of Vivandieres and Cantinieres in the American Civil War.

To view all of the article, go to the following website:

http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/features/articles/0005/vivandieres.cfm

Unionblue
 
Back
Top