View Full Version : marking equipment
01-25-2012, 01:07 PM
I have done a search and found the general information regarding marking equipment for regular federal trrops but have not found the answer I was looking for. In the regs there is no set placement of the marking of the regt. or soldier number or company on the equipment. Does this mean it was up to the regiment? Thanks.
01-26-2012, 04:43 PM
Sometimes soldiers would paint their regement on their knapsack or haversack. You will most likely see this on militia style hardpacks or some federal Double Bags. ACW knapsacks.com will pait it on for you if you like. Please ask your unit if this is OK. This usually appeared in the early stage of the war. I would research this further.
01-26-2012, 05:49 PM
I always try to stay away from marking any piece of equipment. Not because of period correctness, mostly it's because if I mark a bag the 222nd Hawthorn, what do I use when I portray the 888 Jamican. It looks out of place. I stick with the plain jane stuff. You can portray a wider range of characters, units this way. The only markings I have on any of my stuff is a personal ID, so I can find my haversack,canteen, or musket when others are involved. You don't need to place your full name address on it just some kind of identifying mark. A small number, or a couple of letters, or even some weird sign, hidden in a discrete place.
01-26-2012, 05:55 PM
Moderator note: Please avoid speculation or what you do as a reenactor, unless it is based on actual period practices. The original post is asking about what they did in the period, and not what we do. Please provide research, not conjecture...
01-27-2012, 12:24 PM
Moderator note: Please avoid speculation or what you do as a reenactor, unless it is based on actual period practices. The original post is asking about what they did in the period, and not what we do. Please provide research, not conjecture...And the answer is that the Regulations did specify how the knapsack and haversack were to be marked:
110. All knapsacks are to be painted black. Those for the artillery will be marked in the centre of the cover with the number of the regiment only, in figures of' one inch and a half in length, of the character called full face, with yellow paint. Those for the infantry will be marked in the same way, in white paint. Those for the ordnance will be marked with two cannon, crossing; the cannon to be seven and a half inches in length, in yellow paint, to resemble those on the cap. The knapsack straps will be black.
111. The knapsacks will also be marked upon the inner side with the letter of the company and the number of the soldier, on such part as may be readily observed at inspections.
112. Haversacks will be marked upon the flap with the number and name of the regiment, the letter of the company, and number of the soldier, in black letters and figures. (I've always liked this one, since it doesn't take into account that the Army was no longer using white haversacks by 1861)
Keep in mind that many Regulations were honored more in the breach than in the observance: How many surviving originals do we have that are so marked? If they were they'd be way valuable, as you could determine at least one of its owners through the regimental number and company letter & number.
01-27-2012, 01:21 PM
In brief and to over generalize...
Personalized or ID marked clothing and kit is complicated. Complicated because there are the scant regulations, and partly because surviving original items of clothing and gear will show no markings as well as inked, painted, stitched, or scratched versions of ID such as name, and "unit" in various locations on the item.
IMHO, there are two "considerations."
One, if or when one gets into varied impressions or impressions with "personae du jour" that might vary event to event- one gets "trapped" with one's modern name or one's first unit(s). (Plus, historically it gets tricky with men not allowed to, versus men who ID'd government owned property as their own.)
Two, if one does decide to "ID" clothing or gear, look to original examples to copy the "style' and the "location." Let the surviving originals speak for themselves.
And last, be careful or wary of "commemoratives" that were added by a veteran after the War, or by family a generation or two later. While these can be tricky, one NUG giveaway is the "Heinrich Schmidt, Company A 1st U.S.S.S. 1861-1865" type commorative remembrances.
Others' mileage will vary.
Who once took up a persona and carved that name on a CS wooden canteen. Only to find out later from bis actual records that while his name was on the roster I used, he was transfered to the Nitre and Mining Corps and did not serve with the regiment. I had to make a bad stretch, and create a Fiction that he gave me his canteen before he left.
01-27-2012, 06:57 PM
Yes. I would stay away from marking. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my last post. You brought up a good question though.
There existed stencil kits for soldiers to mark their equipment. Knapsacks often had unit identification painted on the exteriors (see page 212-13 in Echoes of Glory, Arms and Equipment of the Union Army). Photographs allow for a good visual of what was used and how it appeared. I painted many of the knapsacks of the unit I belonged to and I refered to photo references to do it. The same can be said for canteens and haversacks. Despite army regulations, there was room for individual identity amongst the soldiers.B
01-29-2012, 12:51 AM
I would stay away from marking, as others mentioned, you'll be able to portray a larger range of impressions.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.3 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.