A Short History of the Uniform - Part 1 - Basic Concepts and Sociological Background

Clothing has always served not only to protect people but also to adorn them. These two motives find a particularly clear expression in the history of military dress and the uniform.

The development of folk costume and of military dress or uniform is a part of European cultural history and - even in its sociological references - revealing and worthy of special consideration. ¹

The history of the military uniform is younger than that of folk costume or military dress. A tracht is understood as clothing largely standardized by ecological and sociological factors that characterizes its wearers as members of regional or functional groups - e.g. a social class or an occupational group. Kriegstracht is the collective term for the clothing of the soldier (warrior, knight, Landsknecht, mercenary, etc.) before the emergence of standing armies, in other words essentially from antiquity up to the early 17th century.

The term uniform in the sense of standardized clothing, however, was already used in the 14th century. In the 18th century the term came from France to Germany.

Originally the terms Libereyen, Livreen or Montierung were used for this.

In the modern sense, a uniform (Latin uniformis = of one form) is understood to be clothing precisely specified by regulation or similar provisions (in cut, fabric and color) that indicates the relationship of belonging to a particular unit or branch of service.

The uniform is also open to a sociological interpretation. Human beings, as small-group creatures, tend toward uniformity, i.e. the soldierly class also necessarily exhibits a tendency toward similar appearance. The aims here are to visually distinguish themselves from the citizen or civilian, but also the desire for prestige or recognition. Matching attire or uniforming is meant to promote the wearers' self-confidence and sense of belonging.

On the one hand it is about marking a particular profession or a particular branch of service or a unit/formation, but also about a delight in color and ornament. In addition to the factual and traditional justification for certain items of clothing and equipment, uniforming was often influenced by other motives as well; tall grenadier caps or broad shoulder pieces also catered to a person's desire to impress. They were therefore intended to make the wearer appear larger and more powerful.

Moreover, the history of the uniform is in particular guided by traditional motives. This has the consequence that certain elements of dress remain in use even when they have long since lost their original function. Furthermore, military clothing was subject to international influences, since some formations served worldwide or on the same theater of war alongside troops of different - including foreign - armies.

Different troops reciprocally adopted what seemed practical and worth imitating. Above all, the victor or the dominant military power was also taken as a model in clothing and equipment, e.g. the old Prussian army victorious in the Silesian Wars or the French army in the Napoleonic Wars.

On this Philipp Haythornthwaite (Uniforms and Battles 1815 - 1850, Munich 1976, p. 7) writes: "The first signs of rapid change in military clothing already emerged immediately after the Battle of Waterloo, when the troops of the four larger allied nations - England, Russia, Austria, Prussia - as an occupying army in France came into close contact with members of the French royalist forces. The development of uniform systems has always depended on mutual exchange of ideas - individual uniform items were often consciously or unconsciously adopted from other peoples and other armies; but for the first time in history the European great powers were pressed by the course of events into the melting pot of Parisian society, where the English nobility with its customs dating from the 18th century mingled with Cossacks and Bashkirs from the steppes, where the faded splendor of the French court vied with the arrogance of Russian guardsmen. While the armies no longer had a significant task to perform, the offices responsible for uniforms were busily occupied copying, modifying and adapting the uniform and equipment items of other armies to their own needs, in order perhaps to outdo the others in splendor."

In wartime, impractical or disadvantageous items of clothing and equipment were quickly discarded, i.e. adaptations to the conditions of field operations occurred without regard to the stipulations of regulations. Therefore, knowledge of the relevant uniform regulations does not necessarily tell you what was actually worn. For that one needs supplementary contemporary reports and pictorial evidence (e.g. drawings or photographs).