History of the French Military Uniform

[GotMojo]

A long time ago, Britain and France were at war. During one battle, The French captured an English major. Taking the major to their headquarters, the French general began to question him. The French general asked, "Why do you English officers all wear red coats? Don't you know the red material makes you easier targets for us to shoot at?" In his bland English way, the major informed the general that the reason English officers wear red coats is so that if they are shot, the blood won't show and the men they are leading won't panic.

And that is why from that day to now all French Army officers wear brown pants

[Illbay]

Emails are verboten. But that was pretty funny.

[expatpat]

Terrific. ROTFLMAO!

[CatoRenasci]

Actually, the tradition French uniform was a blue coat with red trousers. This clearly made the French great targets as well. In fact, after the South African War and the Balkan Wars, the various other European armies adopted less conspicuous uniforms -- British Khakhi, German Field Grey, etc. -- but the French did not.

When asked why the French did not adopt a suitable field uniform, in the early 'teens, the French defense minister, then Clemenceau, is reported to have said "les pantaloons roughe c'est la France!" [the red trousers ARE France]

The French Army actually went to war in 1914 wearing the famous red trousers, the cavalry wearing steel breastplates, helmets and sabers little changed since the Napoleonic wars, convinced that elan would carry them through the German fortifications. They were mowed down like wheat.

[Grand Old Partisan]

British troups fighting in Afghanistam in the 19th century invented khaki, by boiling their conspicuous white uniforms in tea.

BTW, the French Army lost more men killed in six weeks of fighting the Nazis in 1940 than did the U.S. Army in Europe during all of WWII. There's plenty to criticize the French about withoout making stuff up.

In 1814, the U.S. Army defending Washington, DC barely fired a shot before letting a mere 5,000 British troops capture the city and burn the Capitol Building.

[2timothy3.16]

brown pants, ho ho he he ha ha.

Thanks

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

lol!!!

[CatoRenasci]

I beg your pardon? I'm not making anything up. While British troops in Afghanistan in the 1880s may have invented khaki, it was adopted by the British army as a result of experiences in South Africa according to the main history of the British Army, which I read as a graduate student some 35 years ago.

And I don't understand the relevance of French casualties in WWII to what sort of uniforms the French Army wore in 1914.

My source for the pantaloons rouge comment is Roger Williams, who was a distinguished historian of the Second Empire and Third Republic. He made a point of mentioning it in a class I took with him on modern France. I have seen it in print somewhere, but I don't recall where.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

...the French Army lost more men killed in six weeks of fighting the Nazis in 1940 than did the U.S. Army in Europe during all of WWII.

Let's tell the entire story, shall we? The U.S. suffered about 300,000 battle deaths during WWII (European and Pacific Theaters combined). France suffered about 200,000 battle deaths. Many of the U.S. battle deaths occurred during the liberation of France. Some occurred at the hands of the French military during our invasion of North Africa. After surrendering to the Germans, the French became notorious Nazi collaborators.

In short, the U.S. has paid back France for it's critical, but relatively low-cost, support during the Revolutionary War many fold. Furthermore, American culture openly and appreciatively acknowledges France's role is securing our independence. America's thankfulness is not reciprocated. Feck the Frunch.

[Grand Old Partisan]

My point about French casualties had nothing to do with red pants but with the overall tone of mocking the French military.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Yes, that's all true, but I was trying to refute the aseertion by many FReepers that the French Army did not put up much of a fight in WWII. Again, they fought much harder than the U.S. Army did in the War of 1812, so much so that they suffered more soldiers killed in six weeks than did the U.S. Army in Europe during the entire war.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

The French military did not put up much of an effective fight in WWII. I'm not aware of anyone ever seriously disputing this fact. The highlight of the six week campaign was holding the Krauts back from Dunkirk They may have lost a lot of lives in six weeks, but they didn't win much for the price paid. On the other hand, the U.S. military, at a high price, fought very effectively on, over, and offshore from French soil.

While the U.S. military may not have fought very effectively near D.C. during the War of 1812, I seem to recall a contingent commanded by Andy Jackson soundly kicking mega Brit butt down in New Orleans.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The French Army was defeated by the Nazis mainly because of bad generalship, not cowardly troops. On the contrary, prior to the armistice there were virtually no instances of French troops surrendering or running away.

Yes, Andrew Jackson's men fought well, but the U.S. troops in Canada and Washington, DC did not.