cavalry recruits

[joerookery]

As a sort of picture punctuation to what the book says about cavalry regiments.... here is a group of recruits reporting into what appears to be the third Hussar regiment. Based on the way they are dressed, these guys are not exactly the dregs of society.

 

[Liongules]

True, Joe, but remember, back in those days even poor men wouldn't have been caught dead outside the house without a coat, tie and hat (unlike today where just about anything goes).

 

[Pierre Grande Guerre]

I thought in these times in Europe caps were generally for blue collar workers (the third class), and hats were for white collars workers, the middle class, and for people with higher positions.

 

[joerookery]

I don't know if there was a hard and fast rule about headwear. I think Mike's comment has some very good value to think about. In addition, it seems as if people wore their Sunday best for their indoctrination into the military and the party leading up to it. One of the big problems is that there are not a lot of pictures of lower-class that can be readily identified. The vast majority of pictures are of middle-class individuals, because the lower-class could not afford to have them taken. This really is way out of proportion with the percentages of the population. For instance, look at all the pictures of one year volunteers--the number is incredibly out of proportion with the number of volunteers. That is the same problem that we have with newspapers and memoirs. The people who wrote these were not the lowest class. I do not have a picture similar to the print below, but this is another Knötel print that I'm sure is quite representative. These guys have a more shabby appearance. There is also the problem of picking a point in time and showing a single picture trying to represent a period of about 40 years.

 

[Pierre Grande Guerre]

There was no law, Joe and Mike, for which classes had to wear any headwear. But it was a cultural thing, to show off that you were better than those in the third class or the proletariat, a statement of status or of at least the intention of ambition to promote oneself from the third class to the second. Besides, I know from my own experience of a hat wearer that even nowadays hats are way more expensive than caps.

In many cases there are similarities to the society and social structure of Imperial Germany, Joe, like you describe in your impressive handbook, and the small neighbouring country of the Netherlands, which was heavily depending on German economics and before the war widely admiring highly German culture. (Many of the male members of our monarchy were of German nobility!)

Let me speak in all modesty only for my own post stamp size country on this matter of wearing caps by the blue collar workers and hats for the white collars.
If I am allowed, Mike and Joe, I go a little off topic perhaps with showing you as an example of my line of thinking this 1914 period picture of the workers of the Artillery Factory (“Artillerie Inrichting”) at Zaandam, just north of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The blue collar production workers are wearing caps, the administrative managers are wearing hats.

If you are interested, I do have more period pictures of the Dutch blue collar working class, for instance protesting at the shortage of potatoes, our national basic food, in 1916, affected by the same food shortages as neighbouring giant, Imperial Germany.
Unless I could prove it with one or German period pictures, you may still hold against me, I am speculating about this civilian headwear phenomenon. But I will try and look into my image archive to add more German samples or perhaps better not, as I am digressing too much of this topic. :?

 

[Gustaf]

I agree with Pierre on the cap vs hat rule, it is not written, but it was one that was generally followed due to the cost of a hat compaired to the cost of a cap, if a man of lesser means was able to acquire a hat, then he would wear it on special occasions, even though it may be rather worn. A felt hat is fairly durable, but will only last so long if worn every day (I usually go through one hat each year, with two available, one for going to town, and the other for work, after about a year, the town hat becomes a work hat and a new hat is used to dress up)
Best wishes
Gus

 

[Pierre Grande Guerre]

if a man of lesser means was able to acquire a hat, then he would wear it on special occasions, even though it may be rather worn.

There you make quite a point, Gustaf. My Dutch grandfather for instance, who used to be a forest worker in the 1920's in the gardens of Huis Doorn, the exile of the Kaiser. In the early thirties he started to wear a hat, first on sundays, and next daily, when he was then promoted from being a blue collar forest labourer to the white collar post services. So, he jumped socially from the third class to the second or middleclass of white collars.
I am of the third generation of hat wearers in my family ; one hat for special occassions like funerals, one for the summer, one for the autumn storms, one for the winter, and one for strolling in spring over the battlefields and in nature.
I agree with Gustaf: A felt hat worn in average every day of the year is quite worn down after a year.

 

[Robert]

I´d like to add that caps were a fashion strongly related to the cities and large industries. In a rural area you would not see many caps, folks wearing more traditional type clothing would have corresponding hats even if they were simple farm laborers.

 

[joerookery]

If I am allowed, Mike and Joe, I go a little off topic

You are right online if you ask me! This has really been different. Robert brings up a good point. I wonder, and I don't have a clue how frequently "tracht" was actually worn? You see it sometimes, especially in women's pictures.

 

[Pierre Grande Guerre]

Robert is right. This theory works only for urban industrialised regions. In the country people used to wear traditional Kleidertracht, like you sometimes still see in Bavaria, guys with Lederhose (a leather shorts) and a green hunters hat. Bavarian women still wear on festive occasions their Drndol-dress.
Joe wrote:

One of the big problems is that there are not a lot of pictures of lower-class that can be readily identified. The vast majority of pictures are of middle-class individuals, because the lower-class could not afford to have them taken

That is true. And if you look at the photo’s of the period during the mobilization and the start of the Great War, you see German masses wearing hats. As it was summer, many of these wear those straw hats in “Harold Lloyd style”, which of course were cheaper , and more comfortable to wear with warm, sunny weather.

I don’t want you to agree with me at all or provoke a “Historikerstreit” about this cap and hat phenomenon, but this topic does interest me and I really do appreciate all your comments here. So , I dare to continue.
I promised to look for some examples of German period pictures of blue collar and white collar workers. I think I found some pictures to illustrate my point in the Grosser Bilderatlas des Welkrieges.

A detail, cap wearers don't seem to wear ties.

Another one at hte Fieldpost service:

another detail:

Any comments on my social cap-and-hat-theory are welcome.

 

[joerookery]

What nice pictures! I really have to dive back into Grosser Bilderatlas des Welkrieges. Considering that it is online.

 

[Pierre Grande Guerre]

Thanks, Joe. When ever do you sleep?
The Grosser Bilderatlas links are to be found here in this topic:
http://pickelhaubes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4518 .

 

[Gustaf]

Hey Pierre,
Joe does not need to sleep, he is the Bionic Man (6 million dollar man has lost its meaning)
This is a very interesting discussion, as it helps us to read the photos of the time, even if a photo has a caption, we can not trust it, but the more we learn how to read the photos, the better we can understand the history (also remembering that some photos are like the captions, that is posed)
Hey Pierre, I also notice that the cap wearers also have fewer collars, the photo on the bridge is very interesting, but we need to remember that when we see hats of different conditions, we need to be careful about ranking the wearer, as we do not know the point in the life span of any given hat, also, some people will wear a hat to "death" if it is their favorite, because it fits well, or because it was the one the were wearing when something special happened (Their "lucky" hat).
All of these small points help to extract a little more history form the photos we see.
Best wishes
Gus

 

[b.loree]

Interesting discussion gentlemen. As a student of history I have always believed that head dress indicated social status during these times. Caps for the working class and felt hats of various styles for the middle and upper. The top hat of course was for special people and meant for special occaisions. Brian

 

[feldgrau1418]

I agree, Brian, it is a great discussion on the class heritage of the cavalry recruits.

My father-in-law was born in Oberjettigen (now Jettigen) in Württemberg in 1904 and came to the US in the late 20's with his older brother, who was in I.R.180 in '17-'18. I had many discussions with my in-law about the war. I recall him distinctly telling me that farm boy acquaintances of his were actively recruited by cavalry units because they were accomplished riders, as well as stablemen and groomers, skills that made them readily adaptable to cavalry life. As far as the social structure, I can see farm hands making up the basis of the EM's in these units, along with the privileged ones for the upper ranks.

Bob

 

[Robert]

Of course wheather and which traditional clothing would be worn strongly depended on the region. But I am quite shure in our area a cap would have branded you as an outsider. Country folks were conservative and wary about people from the city.

Here are two family photographs. Our theory is that the boy in the middle is my great grandfather and that the other picture shows the family of his uncle.

 

[Pierre Grande Guerre]

Excellent Pictures, Robert! These family photo's form a real treasure.

 

[Gustaf]

Country folks were conservative and wary about people from the city.

This is still true, even on the other side of the world.
Gus

 

[b.loree]

My readings indicate that the farm boy was actively pursued by the military authorities. City folk were suspect, as they were thought to infected with socialism, less obedient, less physically fit. It makes sense really. In the book "Fritz" the author who was in the Field Arty as a OYV comments on how he had trouble harnessing and saddling the horses because of weakness whereas the farm boy recruits had the power to just give them a good kick and get on with it. Brian

 

[joerookery]

Rural Versus Urban
While clearly the requirement to recruit existed, there was a major controversy as to the source of the recruits. Reforms required recruits generally to follow the make-up of society. The prevailing thought was that soldiers from the countryside were healthier and less likely to be socialist. Recruits from an urban background were less likely to be healthy and more likely to be involved in socialism. But, the population pressures of internal immigration had its toll. Before 1850, most of the recruiting took place in rural areas but after the formation of the Empire, more and more recruits made their living as wage earners in factories. In the 1890s, the source of these recruits became a major subject of political debate. One economist, Lugo Brentano, made the case that two-thirds of the recruits came from an urban background. The very emotional other side of the argument claimed that two-thirds of the recruits were from rural areas. In 1911, just six percent came from the large cities. There is still disagreement as to whether this was the choice of the leadership or the result of poor health of the urban recruits. In 1904, the War Minister admitted that the aim was to avoid training members of the Social Democrats in weaponry and that the loyalty of soldiers was more important than their quality. There was a famous quote by von Einem, "I prefer a monarchist and religious soldier to a Social Democrat, even if he is not as good a shot.” The various methods used to control conscription and limit the influence of the Social Democrats took a major blow in 1892. Then Chancellor Caprivi agreed to shorten the three-year active service requirement to two years in order to gain Social Democrats support for his rearmament program. The physical number of individuals entering the army skyrocketed, requiring more to be drawn from the growing urban areas under Social Democrat influence.