- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
He does have his chin strap under his chin.
The idea that the M1858 Forage cap was to be used as a bucket or even for forage is mainly a re-enactorism. Forage and fatigue were used interchangeably in the military and as such there were "forage" caps going back to the inception of the US Military. The M1858 forage cap was the idea of Major William H French who at the time was the artillery officer in command of Fort McHenry. During this period the M1839 forage cap (wheel cap) had been discontinued and the only real forage/fatigue cap the men had were either the M1851 or M1854 shako. The men, for comfort sake removed the stiffening of the shakos "to wear them on fatigue", this was not uncommon, the Utah Expedition photographs show most of the soldiers had done the same to their mixture of shakos.
French found this incredibly unsightly and looked for an alternative, many of his peers requested going back to the M1839 cap, while McClellan upon observing the Crimean War postulated:
"....a police cap, without visor and of such nature that it can be folded up and carried in the pouch, or wherever is convenient; the Scotch bonnet, Turkish fez, a Greek cap of knit or woven wool, a flexible cap of the shape of the old forage cap---any of these would answer." Report of the Secretary of War, Communicating the Report of Captain George B McClellan.
Due to the above, French advocated for a "light, comfortable, military" cap that was also cheap to produce. He had 4 samples made, one for artillery, cavalry, infantry and staff, with the appropriate color trim. He did not go through proper military channels, but when the samples reached the secretary of war, were approved and forwarded to the quartermaster general. General Order No 13, War Department, November 30, 1858:
"For fatigue purposes, Forage caps, of the pattern in the Quartermaster General's Office, will be issued, in addition to hats, at the rate of one per year. Dark blue cloth, with a cord or welt around the crown of the colors used to distinguish the several branches, and yellow metal letters in front to designate companies. For unassigned recruits dark blue cord or welt around the crown and without distinctive badge."
If soldiers were to truly forage in the field, the haversack holds 4 times the amount of a forage cap, in addition, the chinstrap would not hold much in regards to weight before either the strap or button thread would part. The forage cap chin strap is a two piece adjusting strap with loosely sewn leather guides and a strap buckle that would not bear much weight.
One could see a soldier stuffing eggs in the cap for a short trip back to camp, but this was not its designed purpose or intent, it was for the comfort of the soldier on fatigue or field duty. Below is a shako of the 6th Massachusetts, Co G and a very early M1858 Forage cap of a soldier in the 9th PA Co E, as you can see the M1858 has the regulation brass in the correct positioning of an early war regiment. View attachment 200113
I think the point here is that just about every reenactor at some juncture was told the myth of the forage cap...
It should also be noted that the RAF continued to use the term forage cap into WWII:This is the first cap that the Army referred to as a "forage cap".
View attachment 200137
It came out in 1825 and does not appear to have been designed to be use to carry forage or for use as a bucket. Over the next 40 years other style of forage caps were issued.
It is apparent that you confuse verbs and nounsIn French "le fourrage,"means feed, fodder, forage ("search widely for food or provisions"), provender ("dry food; fodder, food, provisions").
Funny that a cap that was not intended for such would be called that.
It is apparent that you confuse verbs and nouns
The Africa Corps also called their soft baseball like caps, forage caps, I think it apparent that they were called so due to their utilitarian and comfort in lieu of a dress cap and not for foraging...
The current Russian Army call their “garrison” or peaked caps, forage caps, I think it obvious that the name has followed those caps through history and that they are not intended to contain forage...Major French, the inventor of the M1858 forage cap, in his description, said that it was intended for fatigue duty in lieu of the M1854 Shako which was then the required headgear for fatigue duty. The men were looking for comfort as stated by McClellan and the result was the M1858 cap. There is no mention of the cap being intended for foraging or are there any documented episodes as such....
The cap itself would not hold much as previously stated...The haversack holds over 4 times what a forage cap holds regardless...The advent of the M1839 Forage cap was basically for the same reason, the ,tar buckets of the day were very unwieldy and the army was looking for a utilitarian piece of headgear for field duty. The end of the Mexican War brought about a desire to dress up he Army once more and the forage cap was replaced by the M1851 and subsequently the M1854 Shakos....From what I have been able to gather, the earliest forage caps were made from old uniform sleeves for stable and field duty (France), these were similar to the Corsican cap.
...and the idea of it being used like a bucket is ludicrous, as the strap would not bear the weight since it is two piece and held by only two single cross cotton strands
Reproduction caps are very often made with synthetic thread which is far more resilient than the cotton thread of an original. I have three spools of original uniform thread and it is very easy to pull apart. The chin strap will not support such use and why would it when a haversack is available to do so....and after all that (btw just as impressive as the first time it was posted) isn't it funny that a cap that was not intended for forage would be called that.
Not so ludicrous. It's often demonstrated with an authentic repro forage cap/bummer how it easily can survive a long carry with apples, potatoes or eggs --cotton stitches intact (soldiers had a housewife in their haversack anyway to easily repair stitch failures). So intended purpose aside, it's in the interest of authenticity that the more experienced reenactors behave more as real soldiers did (people, humans) - variably and inventively. It's called immersion. A forage cap/bummer with forage in it is no big deal, no great violation of some sort of supposed historical master truth.
Reproduction caps are very often made with synthetic thread which is far more resilient than the cotton thread of an original.
I have three spools of original uniform thread and it is very easy to pull apart.
...not to mention a true forage party would have wagons and not wool hats for foraging.
Well I just finished a little test of my own, utilizing a repro forage cap made by Joel Bohy...I took a repro that he made of one of my originals and placed a 2-1/2 lb weight in it and then carried it by the chinstrap. I made it approximately a block before one of the buttons pulled off the side, there is nothing securing the button but thread...I next took a William Wickham repro, otherwise known as "Dirty Billy"...and made it 1/2 block before a button pulled off...Both of these caps, made by two of the most highly respected in their business, were in virtually new condition
If it's a staff cap it's an officer's and privately purchased, not issued by the army. In any case, since foraging was not one of the duties normally expected of a staff officer, it's not likely the button attachments were especially strong so he could do a better job of it than enlisted men...anyway, the 1858 forage cap / bummer pattern construction details varied between suppliers. Here's an excerpt from a detailed description of an artifact currently listed for sale "...The chinstrap is held to the cap by two staff eagle cuff buttons whose maker’s marks are not visible. The buttons are fastened to the cap’s interior with coiled brass lock rings." Not cotton thread.