Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: miniTAX

I believe your rudeness outdoes your point.

Soldiers are strong and resilient, but the reason that uniforms change and boots are redefined is that officers want their soldiers in the best condition and that means the older uniforms and boots were not the most conducive to soldier health. If this parade valued authenticity, then we have a great research opportunity to learn just how tough our soldiers of the Revolution and Civil War had it.


64 posted on 06/15/2025 1:18:03 PM PDT by mairdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: mairdie

I would very much expect the uniforms from the 1800s were modernized when it comes to boots etc. Probably light years better than authentic brogans from the 1860s, while appearing the same.


68 posted on 06/15/2025 1:30:14 PM PDT by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2025... RETURN OF THE JEDI….)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: mairdie

Marching is the infantryman’s lot. A recruit gets winded and his feet blisters on a march in his new boots. New boots give you blisters because they do not give as your feet works inside them. A young soldier gains endurance and tough soles and cares for his boot. Boots broken in and maintained do not blister a soldier experienced in marching. Poor boots fall apart before a veteran does. Well-made boots last and were sought after on the battlefield from the feet of the fallen from the Civil War and going back.

Uniforms from any era should be well-made to be long-lasting, too. They should fit, not be snug, but offer full freedom of movement. They should be smart, easy to care for in the field, and tough enough to last in the field.

Armies of Ancient Greece and Rome had none of the advances in boots, backpacks, webbing, and uniforms that today’s soldiers benefit from. (It’s become a serious field of study.) But even those ancient soldiers were expected to carry heavy packs and march long distances. Perhaps not as heavy nor as far, but comparable. And their boots were, roughly, hobnailed leather sandles. They wore coarse garments under chainmail shirts or (for the Greeks) stiff cuirasses made of layers of glued canvas.

In short, soldiers learned to bear up under whatever gear they had, good or bad. The fancy uniforms of the 18th and 19th century weren’t necessarily the ones they marched or did their day-to-day camp chores. Those were the ones they fought in in the belief it would give them pride and intimidate the enemy.

It’s a fascinating topic and you’re right to ask about it.


76 posted on 06/15/2025 1:55:04 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: mairdie

“that officers want their soldiers in the best condition and that means the older uniforms and boots were not the most conducive to soldier health”


That’s a very common misconception.
Officers want their soldiers in the best conditions only when in combat. Otherwise, they want their soldiers in the worst conditions to harden the troops and weed out the weaklings. That’s the basic tenet of any military worth its salt.
Btw, sorry to be rude but I hate when a conservative talks like a concerned snowflake, and most of all, like Max Boot.


121 posted on 06/16/2025 11:36:03 AM PDT by miniTAX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson