Highland Regiments footwear during the Great War

[Jacques]

I don’t have it in front of me but the book Those Bloody Kilts mentions highland units being sent to France with brogues and spats which ended up being unsuitable to the muddy conditions in the trenches (there were problems with brogues simply being pulled off and lost in the deep mud leaving soldiers bare footed). Eventually highland units were issued the same boots, puttees, and helmets issued to their trousered counterparts both to simplify supply lines and improve effectiveness.

Thank you FossilHunter, i too have the book and am presently going through it for the second time. Hoping this time around, i'll find the small morsel of information i seek. Either way, the book is still worth reading. But i have come to a few conclusions; Shoes issued to OR's in the highland regiments were likely polished black, boots issued to the British forces were initially brown with many being polished black for parade, smart dress, &c. Boots left in their original brown were mostly used for field/combat and merely kept clean and likely not polished (black). As an aside and further to your statement of the British Army attempting to simplify supply lines; i have read elsewhere that sometime in 1917 highland regiments began to be issued the exact same jacket/tunic as the rest of the army as replacement for worn out jackets with the cut out front. It was then left up to the individual regiments to use their own funds to have the jackets tailored. As most of these regiments were waist deep in a little fracas (or donnybrook?) called The Great War, with soldiers fighting across the Empire, most regiments chose to overlook this unsightly yet little detail until after 1918.

Your input is most welcome.

Jacques

[Bruce Scott]

. As an aside and further to your statement of the British Army attempting to simplify supply lines; i have read elsewhere that sometime in 1917 highland regiments began to be issued the exact same jacket/tunic as the rest of the army as replacement for worn out jackets with the cut out front. It was then left up to the individual regiments to use their own funds to have the jackets tailored. As most of these regiments were waist deep in a little fracas (or donnybrook?) called The Great War, with soldiers fighting across the Empire, most regiments chose to overlook this unsightly yet little detail until after 1918.

Your input is most welcome.

Jacques

As in this photo.

[Tobus]

As in this photo.

Here's another photo showing a mish-mash of different jacket styles. The two men in front have the proper style with the bottom cutaway. But in the 2nd row I see at least two men with the straight-cut jacket style. Since they dispensed with wearing sporrans at this point, I suppose it really didn't matter which style of jacket they were wearing.



As for footwear, I've seen a lot of reenactors wearing brown rough-out boots for WWI trench reenactments. Most WWI field photos are showing dirty/muddy boots, so it's impossible to tell what they were supposed to look like. Illustrations from the era seem to show both brown boots and black boots with varying lengths of puttees (the photo above shows long puttees). I think it varied greatly between regiments, as well as resupply during different points of the war. They were probably more interested in just keeping boots on their soldiers' feet rather than caring whether they all had the same thing. If I were reenacting a period uniform, though, I'd probably go with black boots and short puttees like this:

[Jacques]

Here's another photo showing a mish-mash of different jacket styles. The two men in front have the proper style with the bottom cutaway. But in the 2nd row I see at least two men with the straight-cut jacket style. Since they dispensed with wearing sporrans at this point, I suppose it really didn't matter which style of jacket they were wearing.



As for footwear, I've seen a lot of reenactors wearing brown rough-out boots for WWI trench reenactments. Most WWI field photos are showing dirty/muddy boots, so it's impossible to tell what they were supposed to look like. Illustrations from the era seem to show both brown boots and black boots with varying lengths of puttees (the photo above shows long puttees). I think it varied greatly between regiments, as well as resupply during different points of the war. They were probably more interested in just keeping boots on their soldiers' feet rather than caring whether they all had the same thing. If I were reenacting a period uniform, though, I'd probably go with black boots and short puttees like this:

Some more great examples and information. And i'm back on the fence again. Thanks Tobus. But as close as i can interpret from all the photos i've had access to, your comments bear merit. The darker (black?) seem to be the more prevalent colour. It's just so hard to tell from the all too often grainy black and white photos. But the black shoe polish/wax that was used may have provided some water proofing (possibly meaning more frequent use), not every soldier might have had two pairs of boots (black for parade and unpolished for work parties and combat), and the highland regiments did switch from from the longer putties to the short ones during the war. That is, if the information i discovered online is correct.
Then again, maybe the soldiers in the trenches were more concerned about clean weapons, ammunition, clean water, rations and could have cared less about the condition of their boots. Seems like there are so many possible answers for such a simple question.

*Note to Tobus: i owe you an apology Tobus, can't believe i got your name wrong on my first draft.

[Tobus]

But the black shoe polish/wax that was used may have provided some water proofing (possibly meaning more frequent use), not every soldier might have had two pairs of boots (black for parade and unpolished for work parties and combat), and the highland regiments did switch from from the longer putties to the short ones during the war. That is, if the information i discovered online is correct.
Then again, maybe the soldiers in the trenches were more concerned about clean weapons, ammunition, clean water, rations and could have cared less about the condition of their boots. Seems like there are so many possible answers for such a simple question.

I was having this conversation a few months ago with some very knowledgeable people as I was trying to decide on some ammo boots. While traditional finished leather, sealed at the seams with melted wax and polished all over the surface with wax, will provide plenty of waterproofing, the brown rough-out leather boots were also treated by soldiers to have equal protection. It involved brushing in "shoe grease" to the leather tops, over and over again, whilst breaking them in. The end result was likely a softer and more pliable boot with the leather empregnated with grease. Scuffs and scrapes would not be as much of a concern with this method as a boot that's only treated on the outer surface with wax. In a wartime environment, nobody is going to keep trying to repair lost wax protection on a topcoat when the boot gets gouged.

Of course, the regiments eventually did away with puttees altogether, as they were mostly useless for keeping water out of one's boots once they get saturated.

At any rate, I still haven't worn my ammo boots enough to break them in. Mine are more modern era parade boots with a high polish and super-chunky soles. I wear them with the later ankle puttees (shorter than WWI versions) and plain khaki hose tops. I'm told these boots will become really comfortable at some point, but I haven't found it yet! The hobnailed soled are not conducive to everyday wear.

[Bruce Scott]

This discussion on the Great War Forum may be of interest: https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/100959-boots-boots-boots/

[Jacques]

This discussion on the Great War Forum may be of interest: https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/100959-boots-boots-boots/

Thanks again Bruce. i've been on The Great War Forum but haven't come across this yet.

Jacques

[Jacques]

I was having this conversation a few months ago with some very knowledgeable people as I was trying to decide on some ammo boots. While traditional finished leather, sealed at the seams with melted wax and polished all over the surface with wax, will provide plenty of waterproofing, the brown rough-out leather boots were also treated by soldiers to have equal protection. It involved brushing in "shoe grease" to the leather tops, over and over again, whilst breaking them in. The end result was likely a softer and more pliable boot with the leather empregnated with grease. Scuffs and scrapes would not be as much of a concern with this method as a boot that's only treated on the outer surface with wax. In a wartime environment, nobody is going to keep trying to repair lost wax protection on a topcoat when the boot gets gouged.

Of course, the regiments eventually did away with puttees altogether, as they were mostly useless for keeping water out of one's boots once they get saturated.

At any rate, I still haven't worn my ammo boots enough to break them in. Mine are more modern era parade boots with a high polish and super-chunky soles. I wear them with the later ankle puttees (shorter than WWI versions) and plain khaki hose tops. I'm told these boots will become really comfortable at some point, but I haven't found it yet! The hobnailed soled are not conducive to everyday wear.

Tobus,
Any idea what they meant by "shoe grease"? The only thing that comes to mind is Dubbin.

[Tobus]

Tobus,
Any idea what they meant by "shoe grease"? The only thing that comes to mind is Dubbin.

I'm told that a modern equivalent is Huberd's Shoe Grease. That company has been around since 1921 and claim that their product is still much the same as the original. It's primarily beeswax and pine tar, as their primary customer base was loggers.

[Ninehostages]

The original boots that were issued to the First Canadian Division at the beginning of the war were complete cr_p. They were of such inferior quality (another purchasing boondoggle by our infamous Minister of Militia, Sir Sam Hughes) that they fell apart as they camped on the Salisbury Plain during the winter of '14-'15. They were rubbish ... almost like cardboard and whatever the Canadian Corps wore after that is whatever the British could spare. My wife's great-grandfather served in Flanders/France with the Toronto Scottish (can't remember the Battalion number) and their kilt was a tawny brown solid colour. Brown makes sense but who knows when a million or so Imperial troops are scrambling for kit during a few short month.