Author: George Robartes

Orders of the day, Volume 31, Issue 4, 1999

There are a number of fundamental differences that distinguish dragoons from other arms of service, and these should be emphasised when aiming to recreate a 17th century dragoon unit. In this issue the clothing, equipment and weapons are covered; a further article will deal with organisation, drill and tactics. All the material is from primary sources, as I have found that several prominent writers have included errors in their works, e.g. by the ‘Chinese whisper’ and/or failing to check the ‘errata’ contained within the original source material.

My conclusions are drawn from descriptions given by various writers, and from a number of contemporary prints (woodcuts) that form the frontispieces of articles, broadsheets, drill manuals, etc. all published in the 17th century. (Although those posing for such may have been wearing their ‘Sunday best’, not all are!)

From the sources it appears that the wide-brimmed ‘felt hat’ was not in common use for dragoons, rather the ‘labourer’s cap’ - the one commonly and incorrectly called the ‘Monmouth cap’, and the montero. Randle Holme (in The Academy of Armoury) states that the ‘montero’ and the ‘Monmouth cap’ are one and the same and provides a printed page illustrating all the hats, complete with their descriptions, worn during our period. Can you imagine Monmouth being famous for a simple knitted hat that probably everyone’s wife or sister made during the period throughout the country? The commonly quoted description of the Monmouth cap from Symmond’s Diary includes the process known as ‘blocking’ - shaping on a block whilst wet - something that is not needed for a simple knitted garment such as this. Also the quoted price of 4s (a week’s wages!) would also reflect a more refined type of headwear than the simple woolly hat knitted by women at 2d a piece!

These two types are more often shown for the rank and file, with open ‘pott’ types for officers (although two of Col. Okey’s junior officers, one being Cornet Okey, were ‘shot through their hats’ without injury, suggesting they too were wearing soft headgear, probably Monmouth caps (monteros). ‘Knit’ or ‘mild’ caps (falconers/foresters hats), fully felted and treated to keep out the wet may also have been worn. The ‘felt hat’ does appear towards the end of the period we portray, but is still not common. Incidentally, Randle Holme shows the brim folded and pinned - common-sense confirms the practicality of this, given the duties of a dragoon. Officers of course may have chosen the ‘felt hat’ for style and ‘galantarie’ (the fashion of the gallants - ‘brave’ men of high fashion).

A number of sources (both verbal and pictorial) describe several coat styles. It is difficult to ascertain from woodcuts the material of which they are made, but most seem to be in agreement that the type of coat appears as a ‘soldiers’ coat, complete with shoulder rolls/epaulettes, either long or short in the skirt (26”-31” in length), faced and bound in a contrasting material (the ‘regimental colours’). ‘Buff’ may have been worn by officers, as shown in a number of woodcuts and paintings, but it is likely that a leather ‘coat’ may have been worn by other ranks also, and cannot be entirely dismissed (see my letter in “Orders” (Vol 30. No. 6) on the subject). The rank and file would have worn woollen coats of simple fabrication, and to aid recognition.

Although the Scots had buttoned coats and breeches, there is no evidence that the English were similarly equipped as not enough money was allowed for the suits. A pennyworth of hooks and buttons would buy only 6 hooks and 8 buttons, but a whole lot more tape - used to bind and probably tie the coat. Tape or ‘ribbon’ ties would be a much cheaper fashion statement, and any metal (pewter? - tin) would have been better used in the manufacture of bronze cannon than ‘dressing up a few coats’. The hooks and buttons were for breeches only.

Only two styles are shown - the common ‘full’ type, and a style using obviously less material. The unconfined ‘open’ style is not shown and would have been less practical, offering less protection. Existing examples are interlined and padded, which must be a consideration for riding. The hooks and buttons mentioned above were the sole means of holding up the breeches. There is no evidence that ‘eyes’ were used in conjunction with hooks, and these would be impractical anyway. There is a nice French woodcut of a chap (and quite a well-to-do chap at that) with his breeches supported by a tied ribbon or tape; this would slot neatly under the hooks fitted to the breeches. This may explain why there was no mention of eyes. I wear a belt in conjunction with hooks and it is a very effective means of breeches support.

Most woodcuts show that even humble breeches had at least half a dozen buttons at the opening, and 8 buttons would allow every other one to be fired at the enemy without embarrassing consequences! The cuffs of the legs would have been bound (like existing examples and perhaps like the coat) and tied with more tape or ribbon. ‘Shambo’ (chamois) or sheepskin pockets are likely, and two are known to be fitted.

One source shows ‘bucket tops’, but the majority are shown wearing close fitting styles and shoes with ‘cockers’ for lower leg protection in rough conditions and riding. Practicality and common-sense says stick to shoes and ‘cockers’ (gaiters) and let the officers have the expense of boots! This single item of clothing alone will differentiate dragoons from shot, etc. There are no descriptions of dragoons wearing just shoes and I presume that any shoes worn would be the ‘close’ type described by Randle Holme - a sort of ‘brogan’ for protection, etc.

The duties of a dragoon were varied and very much more ‘dirty’ and dangerous than those of the cavalry, and this is reflected in their considered importance at the beginning and during conflict, from contemporary accounts. They were most certainly the ‘elite’ of the 17th century mobile army, and this would have been reflected in their equipment.

From the descriptions given, the horse would have been sound, serviceable and bred from ‘home grown’ stock, i.e. ‘Ripon colts’, northern builders’, ‘Scotch and Welsh nags’, ‘English steeds’ or ‘hackneys’, and may have been less fancy than those of ‘Spanish jennet’, ‘Barbary courser’, or ‘Turk’ derivation, and probably much shorter than the ‘great horses’ used by heavier cavalry (harquebusiers and curassiers).

A simple ‘pad’ (or even ‘pilch’) saddle, i.e. a saddle without a tree, for easier mounting/dismounting, supplied with a crupper and martingale to restrict its movement. There was no need for the great saddle, an item provided to cavalry to withstand the shock of the charge. A simple unreinforced bridle and either a plain, snaffle or curb bit. Descriptions include two straps for equipment at the rear of the pad.

An item shown in every woodcut, but of the short rowel type with and without ‘butterfly’ leathers - probably unnecessary for the rank-and-file but ‘de rigeur’ for the officer, as silvered spurs were the height of fashion.

Not shown or described, but common-sense states that this must have been used for personal belongings, extra kit, etc., and the convenience of the leather or canvas ‘duffel’ type for mounting at the rear of the saddle suggests this is the one. The other type of bag used by many re-enactors (the ‘over the shoulder’ number) was known as a ‘palmer’s scrip’ or ‘pilgrim’s bag’, and is also often shown attached to a waist belt. The snapsack would have remained strapped to the horse and not be carried onto the field. It may have contained all sorts of things including licorice and sulphur to cure horsy ailments, caltrops or tanternails to cause horsy ailments, hemp twine, spare flints, etc. - use your own imagination.

The Firearm

There are numerous descriptions, again both pictorial and verbal, and all seem to be quite clear on at least one point: the firearm was not a full-length musket. Apart from an old description by Markham, it is absolutely clear that the barrel length varied from 31” - approx. 36”, the exceptions being the ‘dragons’ of around 21”-22”. (Current legislation dictates a barrel in excess of 24” length.) (The Littlecote carbines are actually dragons - the carving on the stock is, in the art and style of the period, a ‘dragon’ and not a ‘face’), and apart from one or two descriptions, were approximately 10 bore, the other being 24 bore. All were fitted with firelocks and all types are shown or described. There are no matchlocks described or shown.

The firearm (commonly known as a musketoon) would have been carried by means of a sling. At least three definite styles are shown and described: the ‘carbine sling’ (very clumsy on horseback), the carbine sling with two snaphooks, and the full length sling fastened at the muzzle and butt of the musketoon (much preferred, I think). One engraving even has a musket holster mounted in front of the saddle - even better! Later, the purchases for the New Model Army confirm issue and usage. By this time they were called carbines. 1502 carbines were issued, 7650 pairs of pistols and 1200 cartridge boxes. There were 1000 dragoons, 500 firelocks/guards (dragoons without horses) and 6600 cavalry - it is clear from these figures who got what!

I have found no reference to bandoliers ever being issued to dragoon units, and all the evidence seems to point to flask and ball bag, or cartridges in bags or boxes. When one considers the alternatives, either having 12 lumps of wood thumping the rider or not, the argument against bandoliers is a clear winner. The idea of a cartridge box (or ‘patron’ - a metal-cased wooden cartridge box with drillings to accept ready-made cartridges) is not a new one (about 100 years old by this time), and they were issued later made of tin, etc. It is probably the fact that the earlier types have not survived, being made of wood, leather and nails, that they have remained unrecorded or discussed. The materials required to make one are far cheaper and little skill would be required - no turning, shaping, boring, cutting or stitching! It is likely that dragoon officers would have received pistols as well for self-defence, which would account for some of the over-issue of pistols to the N.M.A. The wood cut of John Okey shows this to be so.

For re-enactment the flask used must comply with the current SK safety standards - and always measure your charge accurately.

The musketoon and associated equipment easily distinguishes dragoons from Shot and harquebusiers.

This was the least important part of dragoon arming and many woodcuts do not even include one. The descriptions given are for ‘backswords’, ‘tucks’ and ‘hangers’, all of which are quite short and stiff - the sort that would not get in the way when mounting, dismounting or firing, and would be more useful for chopping firewood or cutting away hedges or dense cover ... or spit-roasting the occasional captured fowl or bunny! Continental dragoons of the period were issued a hatchet in addition to the sword for these activities. Both baldrics and sword belts are shown or described.

Other offensive/defensive arms may have included tanternails (caltrops), a dagger of some kind (it is hard to imagine anyone without one of these in the 17th century), and possibly hand grenadoes.

As with all things during the period, the quality of unissued items would vary considerably with the size of one’s purse and/or rank.

Patterns for clothing and kit manufacture available on request. Send an s.a.e. to George Robartes, 11 Netherfield Gardens, Barking, Essex IG11 9TC.

• The Military Garden, J Achesone (1629)
• The Art of War, Davies (1619)
• Pallas Armata, Kellie (1627)
• Military Antiquities, Grose (1801)
• Military Instructions, J Cruso (1632)
• Principle of the Art Militaire, H Hexham (1637)
• The Compleat Gunner, W.T. (1649) - (a brief treatise)
• Militarie Instructions, N Burt (1644)
• Souldiers Accidence, G Markham (1625)
• Ancient Dragoon (engraving), N C Goodnight
• Young Horseman, Vernon (1644)
• Academy of Armoury, R Holme (before 1688) Harley MSS 2026-35
• Compleat Body of the Art Military, Sgt Major R Elton (1659 and 1650)
• Military Discipline, W Bariffe (yes, Bariffe!) 1661 edition
• The Gunners Glasse, W Eldred (1646)
• A Treatise of the Art of War, Roger Earl of Orrery (1677)
• Pallas Armata, Sir J Turner (1683)
• Anglia Rediviva, J Sprigge (1647)
• A Brief of Such Commissions, 1642, B M Add MSS 18980 f.20
• The Complete Soldier, Thomas (1628) 1399.c.2
• The Art of Gunnery, Smith (1643) 57.b.25(1)
• An Abridgement of the English Military Discipline (1682)
• The Whole Art of Dyeing, London 1705 - reprint of earlier French work (1666)
• Letter Books of Samuel Luke
• ‘The Faithful Scout’
• And a never-ending list of Thomason Tracts: E-99 (25), 127 (35), 245 (16), 288(28, 38), 348 (1), 360 (1), 415 (35), 441 (36), 615 (7), 786 (3, 20), 787 (7, 29, 32)
• A variety of drill manuals by Lesley, Warwick, Newcastle and lots of other stuff in between including SP28, etc.