https://www.facebook.com/groups/416339512823992/
Is that the way to argue seriously? If so, hard times lie ahead for serious researchers. Not because they would have to revise supposedly outdated views en masse, but because they would have to waste their precious time with endlessly checking what is spread by some present-day trendy "experts" (who may happen to be go-getting businessmen, too), in order to make sure that "persistent myths", allegedly created in the past by some gone experts (or "experts"), will not be dispelled by just creating new ones.
So, please, present us with the original documents. Otherwise, one must assume to be flooded with pure speculation. And surely we can safely do without that.
Let me quote here in what way our present-day "expert" justifies his claim that the 29e de ligne replaced its worn out felt hats with Austrian helmets:
"The document states, the 29e which were based in north italy, and likely had access to left behind Austrian equipment, that the regiment was wearing some form of leather helmet with an enormous copper front plate in 1803 and 1804. Replacing useless felt chapeau with a helmet made a lot of sense."
Ok. So, here we go:
"and likely had access": "likely", i.e. pure speculation.
"left behind Austrian equipment": where is the proof that the Austrians left behind such material (and in sufficient quantities)? And where exactly did they leave it behind, or where was it stored (place)?
"the document states ... the regiment was wearing some form of leather helmet with an enormous copper front plate": "some form of", etc. Where does it say that these were Austrian helmets? If that's not expressly said in the document, that's pure speculation. And what sort of "helmets" are we actually talking about? Caskets, or "classical style" helmets?
The French are said to have worn these Austrian helmets "in 1803 and 1804" (elsewhere in the same blog, our "expert" implies that those Austrian helmets were still worn even in 1807: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid =122165775356035435&set=p.122165775356035435&type=3 ).
Well, in 1803/04 the 2nd Italian Campaign was long over, the Peace of Lunéville had been in effect since 1801, and the Peace of Amiens had been in force since 1802. A pronounced period of peace that would have allowed France to produce new equipment of its own, calmly, and in sufficient quantities.
And precisely at this time - as our "expert" wants to make us believe - , the French would have resorted to Austrian helmets that would have been captured a few years ago and, allegedly, were still available, lying around somewhere in Italy?
Regarding this claim, another heretical question: by 1800, how many Austrian troops had adopted the new leather helmets of "classical" design instead of the old leather caskets? Not too many, as far as I know. Anyway, regardless of which type we are talking about, both had no "enormous copper fronts", but just plates with the Imperial monogram, which the French certainly would have removed.
Further: "some form of leather helmet with an enormous copper front plate". Well, under these circumstances, you could equally well speculate that the French wore French grenadier caps deprived of their fur, couldn't you? Just as speculative, but certainly no less credible than what claims our "expert", isn't it? Ok, just kidding.
However, on a less speculative level: to me it's conceivable that in 1803/04 some French may have been issued with helmets of a type that was certainly worn by the apprentis-canonniers of the artillerie de marine at exactly this time, around 1803, and even before.
A representation of this type of helmet by Valmont (not a contemporary but a French naval officer active in the first half of the 19th century), based on how the helmet was described in several regulations regarding the equipment of the apprentis-canonniers from 1797, 1800 and 1803, as well as links to these regulations can be found here:
https://sehri.forumactif.com/t4547-compagnies-d-apprentis-canonniers
So, if the document mentioned by our "expert" does not clearly state that the helmets worn by the 29e de ligne were Austrian helmets, then in my opinion it is much more likely that they were helmets of the type (or a type of similar construction) the apprentis -canonniers were equipped with, and which other units could also have been issued with - as an experiment, as a provisional measure, whatever. Why not? In any case, these helmets would have been blatantly French.
So, again: Please, present us with the original documents.
By the way, the reconstruction on that blog site linked on the very top, of a French infantryman wearing an Austrian helmet (of the new "classical" type) does indeed leave to be desired. As others have already mentioned elsewhere, the helmet would certainly no longer have been decorated with oak leaves, but with a French cockade, and the monogram "F II" would certainly have been hammered away, as was done with numerous other military metal objects decorated with symbols of enemy or bygone regimes. Definitely, there would have been plenty of leisure for such amendments during the period of peace between 1801/2 and 1804/5.
We have had quite a few episodes of this sort of thing over the years and it has been possible to establish the truth with Google Books, archive.org etc. providing the original texts. We have had interesting bibliographies and footnotes from secondary works presented as though they are primary references. A lot of this has died out as it is much easier now to find the secondary reference or establish that the primary source has not been consulted. However, the question must always be the same: where has this come from?
We would need the original document as things tend to get embellished through the prism of secondary sources and then translation - "enormous" could well be grande or even tres grande, but the French for enormous is enorme.
What are we talking about - a regular error (clearly on Google if you look up Kaskett) is that a Kaskett is not a helmet, but the 1769 hat with a frontispiece, which did get bigger over time.
The crested helmet was a Helm and didn't get into service in Italy during the Second Coalition. However, in the course of researching Marengo, I came across a document, (which I should have noted), which said that when Mantua was retaken in 1799, more than 5000 Kasketts were still sitting in the magazine. The Kaskett does have a large copper or brass plate, older ones being embossed with the Imperial eagle, not FII, which might have been worn down over time or just been replaced. The kaskett had a yellow/black pom-pom on the left side as the foliage was dded by the troops (fir in winter), which could easily be replaced with a cockade.
The 29e DB were at Mantua in 1799.
I am not an expert in French uniforms, but everyone was short of cash after the Second Coalition and French uniforms were presumably being redesigned for the new Imperial regime. I believe this started in late 1803.
So, I would not rule out the possibility that as a short-term economy, some French regiments were wearing Austrian kit - the original year XI guns were captured Austrian pieces after all. However, we would need the original document to be sure.
Daniel, I’m increasingly beginning to feel that ‘uniformology” today has about as much in common with what was actually worn as WWF has with sport.
I remember when Paul L Dawson debunked the Carabiniers Waterloo sky blue jackets. A noted ‘uniformologist’ held on to them, despite it being shown that they didn’t have the cloth to make them and none were recorded being in the store and no eye witness mentioned them. The same ‘uniformologists’ held on to a white bearskin theory, despite a memoir from one of the bandsmen specifically saying they wore hats. Just because some respected ‘authority’ painted one, forty years after the event.
I could go on, but many seem intent on feeding off each other. Before you know it, speculation and supposition becomes ‘fact.’