Talk:Red coat (military uniform)/Archive 1

March 2006
I'm not sure that I'd say that the term is "particularly associated with the British military which were fighting the American colonists during the American Revolution". In America, maybe but it wouldn't be the first context which would occur to me. Epeeist smudge 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I've added in the 'thanks to the American media' part for. To Americans this is what comes to mind first thing and with the poor quality of history teaching in today's Britain with a complete overlook of the Napoleonic wars the influence of American TV shows is making it quite like that.--Josquius 13:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

POV
"Though by the standards of today it would be both incredibly foolish and a waste of good men to wear a bright scarlet coat on a battle field...Many people with little grasp of actual historical knowledge however (particularly young Americans talking of the American Revolution) continue to apply the standards of today to the era of bright uniforms of which the British red coat was part."

I think somewhere in this there is probably a valid point, red is easier to see in difficult conditions but it's wrapped in such pejorative language that it needs radical change before inclusion. At least a citation from a decent source giving that as a reason need to be found - i've certainly heard other 'better' explantions and I fancy you will have a hard time proving one over another.Alci12 23:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Where can I put this?
Where? Dfrg.msc 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC) thumb| A [[Lego Redcoat fully equipt.]]

Material
What were the coats made of?

Material
What was the material made of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherries 80 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Regular
In most sources they are called "Regulars". Could someone change the name.


 * British Regulars already exists - maybe this should be merged? --82.13.146.160 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Red Coat" article traces the history of the uniform rather than the men ("Regulars") who wore it. I think it would be confusing if the two articles were run together. In addition the uniform article has a wider scope, ranging across three centuries of British Army and British Empire useage. Indian sepoys (for example) in 1857 were not known as regulars but most wore the red coat. The British Regulars article could perhaps be developed further to cover the recruitment, organisation etc of the British soldier during the historical periods that he was likely to be referred to by this name.Buistr 04:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link around "lobsterbacks", as it only routed to the Red coat page (i.e. linked to what you're already reading). If there's a more appropriate page for it to link to, please feel free to reinstate the link and provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.163.198 (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mother, may I?
Since there is a speacialty article on british soldiers. Could I make a speacialty aricle on, and not limited to, French or say German (Confederation of the Rhine, Confederation of Germany etc.). would that be OK? On second thought its wiki., I will anyway.Philippe Auguste 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stroudwater Scarlet reference required
The article on Stroud mentions the production of Stroudwater Scarlet cloth for military uniforms. Although it is mentioned in this article it does not seem to be widely referenced and is not mentioned in the Red coat article. Does anyone have any further information/references or opinions on the status of Stroudwater Scarlet cloth. Thanks. Lame Name (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Colonial units in Spaniard service
The black and perhaps the Indian units raised in the Spanish Main in the 18th century were red-coated. The white and Spaniard units used to be white-coated, at least the line infantry.
 * See Siege of Pensacola, Spanish grenadiers (white coats) and black colonial militia men (red coats).

The Riflemen's Song at Bennington
Removed:

However an isolated earlier use of this term relating to the American War of Independence appears in "The Riflemen's Song at Bennington", an old folk song that supposedly goes back to the 1770s.

Which does indeed refer to the 1777 Bennington Battle but there is nothing to date the song, particularly the Red Coat version. Possibly the original lyric was: "Why come ye hither, stranger? Your mind what madness fills? In our valleys there is danger, And danger on the hills" which seems to have become "Why come ye hither, Redcoats, your mind what madness fills? In our valleys there is danger, and there's danger on our hills." for the Burl Ives collection Historical America in Song from 1950.

But without definite sources it reads like WP:OR Lame Name (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

origin of the red
isn't the origin of the red, the colors of the Coat of Arms of Cross of St. George. After all, the Tudor uniforms mentioned in this article are gold and red like the English coat of arms, as well as being common practice. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No the choice goes back to the cheapest plentiful dye available to the NMA. On that line I think these sentences

":However, the uniforms of the Yeoman of the Guard (formed 1485) and the Yeomen Warders (also formed 1485) have traditionally been in Tudor red and gold and indicate that the tradition of English Infantry wearing red coats may long predate the formation of the New Model Army. At Edgehill, the first battle of the Civil War, the King's lifeguard had worn red coats, as had at least two Parliamentary regiments."


 * And? Because in the English civil wars in the 1640s on both sides and depending on the regiment there were red coats, white coats (grey), russet coats, tawny orange coats, green coats, and blue coats. All the gentlemen donned a buffcoat -buff in colour, needless to say-, and the Scottish covenanters were issued with grey garments and a beret-like blue bonnet (I forgot it: the Highlanders's shirt was saffron)(and one Scottish regiment was clad in black).

should be removed unless there are reliable sources to support them. The comment on Edgehill just goes to show that each regiment, if it dressed in a common colour it was chosen by its colonel. That is the reason one reads of sashes and ribbons being used to identify friend from foe. -- PBS (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish infantry in French and Spanish Service
They were a sort of British legitimist army in exile. By 1800 the Spanish regiments that were on paper Irish -and the Naples Regiment- were issued with light blue coats with yellow facings.
 * "http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Irlanda_Infantry"
 * "http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Bulkeley_Infanterie"

Dress Uniform in Ertzaintza (Basque Police Force)
Hardly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Coldstream Guardsman 2006
A small point, perhaps, but the Guardsman in this photo looks terrible. I am surprised he was allowed on parade. His tunic is ill fitting. His trousers are too long. He appears to be undersized. Is he a civilian dressed up for some reason?

Surely a more suitable image of the last surviving example of the red coat in use could be found? JF42 (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hanover, 18th century
The Elector of Hanover happened to be king of Great Britain_"http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Scheither_Infantry" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Tudor colours_red and gold?
So far as I know, the Tudor livery colours were green and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Red coat usage in Britain
I have removed: "It is not until the 1880s that the term "redcoat" as a common vernacular expression for the British soldier appears in literary sources, such as Kipling's poem "Tommy", indicating some degree of popular usage in Britain itself. Source:"Rudyard Kipling's Verse" p398, Hodder and Stoughton 1960"

AFAICT the source given is not to back up the statement in this paragraph is to the poem not for the statement. A Google books search of books publishd before 1880 shows that the term was in common usage (If not the term Thin Red Line would be meaningless).

See for example this quote

Taken from: -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

From my talk page:
 * You have made some valid improvements to the above article (including removal of my addition made several years ago suggesting that as a colloquial expression in Britain "redcoat" dates only from the 1880s - Walter Scott clearly predates Kipling). However I think that the Cromwell quote (put in by another editor) that you removed is still more relevant to the actual subject of the article than the overview of the Battle of the Dunes substituted. I propose to restore the former and remove some of the latter, while leaving the sentence flagging this battle as the first occasion that English redcoats were seen on the Continent in place. I agree with your point about a photograph of modern army drummers being a better lead illustration than that of Napoleonic War re-enactors that you deleted. However it did serve a purpose - in illustrating the difference referred to in the article between the scarlet worn by officers' and the duller red of the other ranks' uniform. Accordingly I will restore it further down the text.Buistr (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Cromwell quote has nothing to do with redcoats, it is a description of the civilian garb of the men Cromwell thought made better officers than vain glorious cavaliers. The first action on the continent by British (the Protectorate was the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland) soldiers in red uniforms is far more relevant. As for the picture please see this edit (coincidently done the same day as mine). -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Points taken re Cromwell quote and use of a reenactment photo (though others appear in Wikipedia and possibly a wider purge is called for) . However I wonder if an actual description of the Battle of the Dunes is warranted - beyond noting that this was the first occasion that English red was seen on the Continent. The focus of the present article is on the development and modern survival of an item of military dress. It does not attempt to be a history of the men who wore it or of the battles that they fought in.Buistr (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why I think it important is the start of a tradition it set associating British redcoated soldiers with the best in Europe. If the Protectorate regiments had arrived at the battle of the Dunes and fled at the first whiff of powder, then I doubt if the English and later the British army would have settled on red as their colour. After all the small standing army which was left shortly after the Restoration had very few former Roundhead formation within it and they could have gone with any -- or all colours (as had been common in Royalist ranks during the civil). The new (English) army may have chosen red because they had a huge stock of it already purchased under the old regime but give the chaos of 1659 I doubt that, or because it was cheap (but for a royal bodyguard that was unlikely to the the reason). It would be interesting to know what colours the coats of the the Royalist regiments were who fought at the Dunes and what colour Douglas's Regiment wore before the were requited to decamp to the British Isles -- if they wore red coats in France,  or donned them after they returned.  -- PBS (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement on the English Civil War article page that justified removal of reenactment photographs "per Milhist policy" was referred to the Military History Wikiproject discussion page for confirmation. The response there was that (i) there is no knowledge of such a policy and (ii) the use of reenactment images can be justified where they are credible and serve a purpose which cannot be filled by available photographs of surviving items or contemporary photos. Since the 33rd Foot group present an unusually authentic appearance by reenactment standard and the difference between the officer's scarlet and the madder red of the other ranks is made apparent, I have put this illustration back into the article - though not as part of the introductory paragraph. Buistr (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

Arrangement of the tunic buttons
You can tell which regiment a soldier belongs to by looking at the buttons on the tunic. Each regiment has its own arrangement of buttons, one for one, groups of three. For example the Irish gurds have buttons in groups of four. Anyone feel clever enough to know what is what and add it? (grenadier guards are evenly spaced..)82.134.165.68 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)dutchdavey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.165.68 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

???
what relevance does any of this have apart from the British Army wore red coats and fought in the american revolution? it seems a very long winded explanation for stating some seemingly irrelevant facts

" By November 19th of 1776, the British Army and Royal Navy had succeeded in capturing the entrance to the Hudson Valley, Manhattan  and Long Island.   By the succeeding New Year's Day, however, temperatures had plummeted to -2°C and lower in daylight with New York Harbor having chunks of ice in it.  Standard issue of the period for non-officers excluded cloaks, gloves, or stockings warm enough to insulate the inside of the tall boots men were expected to wear. Medical records of the era demonstrate many British soldiers suffered from pneumonia, frostbite, and hypothermia, especially those with orders to guard prison ships and patrol the  fortified walls in New York during the winters of 1776-1784. As the war turned south the following year in 1777 the opposite problem prevailed. May-September temperatures would soar to 30° C with high humidity, well beyond what was typical for the UK in the late 18th century. This took the average British non-officer by surprise, as born out by hundreds of letters of complaint sent home. Soldiers sent to chase the Americans in the swamps of the Carolinas and Georgia suffered from jungle rot, malaria, cholera, and dysentery in part because the wool uniform, though durable, was very absorbent of contaminated water. Those sent to the mountain frontiers found their bright red uniforms were a perfect contrast against the green forest cover and made them easily seen and shot by hiding guerilla fighters, very different to a European battlefield. Until the end of the conflict, British soldiers fighting in the South were at very high risk for heatstroke and dehydration, several dying from it." (Fdsdh1 (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

The Thin Red Line
that should probably be in this article, so should the Napoleonic wars (Fdsdh1 (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

Keeping this article focused
Some good material has just been added to this article relating to the American War of Independence. The problem is that it ranges far further afield than the subject of Red coat (British army) - which is to say the specific history of an iconic item of British military uniform over a three hundred year period. It is not a general account of the historic British soldier or of the campaigns in which he fought. If an already lengthy article is to be kept focused then some of the new information will need to be relocated. Specifically the history of gorgets has an existing article of its own and is not particularly relevant to this one. The detailed analysis of tactics in the AWI is interesting but should be incorporated in the American Revolutionary War article. Any comments? Buistr (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote that section. There are a few reasons why I have it there as it is. First, that particular red uniform has a very different meaning to Americans than to the UK or the Commonwealth. It's a snapshot in time, yes, but a uniform from the approx. period of 1750-1785 is iconic for other more sinister reasons. To say the least it brings back memories-on the Fourth of July many little towns and hamlets on the East Coast hold parades and little kids get carried on the shoulders of their Dads and he's keeping time to the music, beer in one hand, flag in the other. Beer is being carried along in little coolers pulled by the handle and the ice cream man is selling his snowcones; teenage boys are rubbing their hands since their uncles have brought cherry bombs and m80s and sparklers for later. The usual suspects form the parade: the local Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts behind them, veterans in uniform, acrobats, local citizens dressed as clowns, and a high school marching band. But there are two particular traditions that stand out like a sore thumb: a fife and drum band dressed as colonial regulars, and just in front of them the redcoats, some with muskets that fire. The redcoats usually get booed, since behind them one knows the good guys are coming to play Yankee Doodle and give them the well earned kick up the backside by rubbing the insult of "Mind the music and the step/And with the girls be handy" in their faces once more. Bear in mind the king gave the go ahead to invade Boston in 1770 and put the city under martial law. The British Army repeated the stunt again and again throughout the war. The regulars, often using the cities as their bases,  I am afraid are not fondly remembered. Many of them had the manners of apes: at the time the reputation of American women was that they were easy, and the soldiers were all too eager to try their luck (this was why "And with the girls be handy" was so insulting and cruel-it reminded many a colonial solider about chilling stories he was hearing from home in letters.) What often happened was that the average citizen would be forced to harbor a soldier or even a few soldiers in his house and the soldier would eat the man out of house and home, but not before turning his attentions on fondling the breasts of the man's frightened wife and daughter for a little sport. Legally there was nothing you could do with this abuse of power. You had to shut up and take it. And it wore a tricorn hat and a bright red coat. It's boss wore a sash and gorget and drank claret while your daughter curled up in a ball, crying herself to sleep.
 * Second, most accounts I have read show that the coat was a liability in this war, unlike most of the others. The premise implies that the red coat was not a liability at all and the fact that it was standard issue until 1914 is proof of this. I know for a fact that it just isn't true: in America and (much later) India the same traits that made it great in battle in Europe backfired. At the Battle of Blenheim, for example, that bright red coat was needed in misty grey weather on an open smoky field because you could barely see your own feet let alone where your enemy was. A gentleman (meaning an officer) could afford to wear that expensive curly wig and the feathers in his hat since it reminded his subordinates who was their lord and master; such ornament dividing class had been a tradition of warfare since the Middle Ages.
 * The Revolution was an unusual case. It turned a lot of the conventional wisdom on its head. Look at a map of the Eastern US, using the spine of the Appalachian Mountains as a the westernmost frontier. Still quite a bit of it is green (yes, it is mostly second growth, but it isn't like all the trees decided to grow in different spots once their ancestors were felled.) Burgoyne and Howe's plan was to cut the colonies in two by severing access to the Hudson River. They failed. All hell broke loose on Burgoyne's end; one of the sources I gave were his remarks before Parliament, especially his designs to march down from Canada. Daniel Morgan and his mountain men could see the British troops from up to 200 yards away, sometimes three (we know this because in the hand of an experienced marksman the Kentucky rifle can make that distance, and many colonists fit that description: in peacetime the rifle was used for hunting deer, their favorite lunch.)  Burgoyne's command was huge-to give a modern equivalent, it was like watching a very long line of Santa Clauses ten men thick by hundreds long marching down a very very narrow main street. The fact that they were surrounded by a green forest bigger than England itself didn't help things: get out 2 pieces of construction paper, and place the red atop the green: The green color amplifies the brightness of the red, and the green, not the red, recedes.  On open fields like the Battle of Monmouth the British usually won, but away from the coast it made the soldiers sitting ducks since there was no way in heaven or hell they could hide.  That gorget you mentioned actually did lead the British Army to ruin: it is how Timothy Murphy knew from a distance which of the men on horseback was Simon Fraser, which one to shoot (the gorget was an accompaniment to the red coat if and only if you were an officer. It wasn't used for much longer after this war and I believe was out of fashion by 1840 so it is difficult to associate it with anything other than a British officer of the period.) Dressing up in finery on this battlefield was an idiotic move: the ideology of the rebel forces despised the very notion of aristocracy and the belief that nobility was inborn with title. Dressing the part, and dressing up the uniform as befitting one's station marked a man for death.
 * The same problem struck again in the South, with Francis Marion, aka "The Swamp Fox". Marion liked to use the Santee River as his base.  I've been there. That whole basin is a big green swamp, and what isn't green is brown.  It was filled with bugs, snakes, gators, and leeches. In fact, today, it STILL is filled with bugs, snakes, gators and leeches: most hunters down there I've met if they are staying out overnight cover themselves in mud to create instant bug repellant and it is very wise to watch where you step.  The storied uniform you suggest was a big problem here as well. It was made of wool, mostly. Summer temperatures in South Carolina and pretty much any point south of present day Washington DC easily hit 38 C, plus humidity. A redcoat would have been sick from heatstroke: the deep red absorbs sunlight, and wool absorbs everything in the swamp, including waterborne bacteria. Many surgeon's accounts prove that there were many deaths from this, and as for Marion, an overheated, tired squadron scratching itself from mosquito bites and stupid enough to wander around a swamp in red jackets (faded pink or no) was easy pickings (Marion's men also had the long rifle, and another known import from Native Americans: tomahawks.) A gentleman officer too genteel to take off his overcoat, strip to his shirt, 86 the powdered wig, and roll around in the mud to get rid of the bugs because "he had to represent His Majesty at all times" was even more likely to be picked off by the likes of Marion. He was easily seen, probably making himself sick, and never learned a sword is useless against a very sharp throwing axe and one has exactly 2 seconds to duck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.181.13 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is all genuinely interesting and I appreciate the point that "redcoat" has a different emotional significance in the USA than it does in Britain and much of its former empire. However this is Wikipedia and this article is devoted to an aspect of British military history where the AWI was simply one of many campaigns in many countries over a long period of time, where a distinctively coloured coat served as a symbol of the British army. It is not an article concerned with the tactics or abuses of those men who wore it. You will note from the top of this "talk" column that an earlier attempt to turn this article into a wider coverage of the War of Independence met with a bemused response and quick deletion. I am afraid that this is likely to happen again. At the very least some tidying up is called for - the picture of Banastre Tarleton is notable mainly for his not having a red coat and gorgets have a perfectly good article already. The issue of how dangerous the red coat was to its wearers is covered in the existing article - it was not excessively conspicuous until the introduction of smokeless powder and thereafter it quickly became a parade and off-duty item. Give the British army credit for some professionalism - they were on active service somewhere for most of their history :).Could I suggest that the elements of your well composed material that are directly relevant to the present subject be incorporated into the existing Red Coat (British Army) article - I will be glad to do the editing involved - and the remainder used to create a new article. This could be entitled something like "The British redcoat in the American War of Independence". While there are many existing WP articles dealing with the war this would fill an information gap, would be of wide interest and would probably expand rapidly.I would again stress that I think your section is well written and should be in Wikipedia. It is just that it is not appropriate for the differently focused article that it has initially fetched up in. Buistr (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That is fine by me. But I would like to ask you to set it up as I have zero experience with the whole thing. I am definitely going to need a partner to get it off the ground. OTT, I put up the painting of Tarleton to prove that during the late 18th century the cavalry wasn't all dressed in red. Every time I tried to edit the information it was shot down, and since I didn't want to start an editing war I simply put up the painting as proof.   As for the rest, my only defense is that the AWI was the only time marching in formation and using a bright red coat was a bad idea-it's the same reason modern soldiers don't wear day glo vests in forested areas and hunters do: the former don't want to be seen!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.181.13 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good comparison with glo vests in forests! The Tarleton picture is an eye-catching one and hopefully can be posted in one or more AWI articles. The coat is of course that of his British Legion which like many of the loyalist provincial corps wore green, at least until 1778 when many went into red. Glad to help out with the creation of a new article but it is a while since I have done so and I would need to check on the steps to be followed. No need to offer a "defense" for your contribution - it is good work and should sit there for a while while other editors with an interest in military history have a chance to comment. Finally, could I suggest that you register with WP and create a username and talk page. That way you can post as a recognized individual rather than an anonymous number, while still preserving your privacy. RegardsBuistr (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Article misleading and somewhat useless
I did some edits, but I'm not very good at this. I need a page which specifies "Lobsterbacks," as "Redcoat" would be an anachronism for 18th Century New England. The term "redcoat" (one word, not two) came along much later.2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest that you create a separate article for "Lobsterbacks" if you think it warranted. This article is concerned with the history of an iconic item of uniform which characterized the British Army over more than two hundred years, not a nickname used briefly in New England during one of the dozens of wars in which red coats (two words not one) were worn. Buistr (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2016

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Red coat (military uniform), by far the solution with the most agreement in this discussion. bd2412 T 19:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Red coat (British Army and Royal Marines) → Redcoat – 1st the article is not only about Britain, as it shows itself. 2nd the "Redcoat" is used as the military uniform instead of a simple coat painted red, which is the case. And 3rd it's a primary topic without any real contestant, as a google search can attest, with far more views than the disambiguation page: and  Bertdrunk (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  KSF  T C 18:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article when created dealt solely with the iconic item of military dress which characterized the British Army for over two hundred years. Since then a number of editors have added brief passages to record instances where soldiers in other national armies wore or still wear red coats. A case can certainly be made for renaming the article "Red coat (military uniform)" to accommodate this wider coverage. However "Redcoat" or "Red coat" also has several non-military meanings, as listed on the disambiguation page. Retention of the existing title is probably the best way to prevent confusion. Buistr (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (but disagree with the rationale). The article is still focused on the topic of the British troops identified by this uniform, which is the primary topic of redcoat. The target has never been anything more than a redirect to many various pages. Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose but propose Red coat (military uniform) as a title that would accurately reflect the actual content of this article as it has evolved. Buistr (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Red coat is by far more used as a simple coat painted red, while redcoat is by far used as a military uniform . And there are just three more page with "redcoat" in its title: Georgia Redcoat Marching Band, Sir John Cass Redcoat School and Redcoat Air Cargo. At least in my opinion they aren't that relevant at all. Bertdrunk (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but would support Red coat (military uniform) proposed above, Alansplodge (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense. By far the commonest meaning for "redcoat" and the single word is far commoner than the two word term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 A person whose uniform includes or is distinguished by a red coat.  An English soldier; (later) a soldier of the British army. Now hist. In the English Civil War commonly applied to the Parliamentary troops or certain regiments of them, although there were red-coated soldiers on both sides. In the United States the term is particularly associated with British troops in the War of Independence (1775–83) and the British-American War of 1812. An attendant or servant. ''Obs. rare.'' Canad. A member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Brit. A steward at a Butlin's holiday camp. Brit. With capital initial. (The title of) the attendant at the door of the House of Lords. Redcoat is the only attendant dressed in red in the House, a reminder that his was a royal appointment of Charles II's originally. The King, visiting the Lords and finding no one to greet him, made his own appointment on the spot.  <li>J. Lindley's name for: any plant of the genus Erythrochiton (family Rutaceae), comprising tropical American pachycaul treelets typically having white flowers with bright red calyces. ''Obs. rare.''</li> </ol> <p style="margin-left:4em">Compounds C1. General attrib., esp. with the sense of ‘wearing or characterized by a red coat’, as redcoat bully, redcoat guard, redcoat soldier, redcoat type, etc. C2. red-coat mite ''n. Obs. rare'' a bright red velvet mite (family Trombidiidae).
 * Oppose rename to Redcoat which should be, as it is now, redirected to the disambiguation page Red coat which shows some of the several uses of the term. Support rename to "Redcoat (military)" or similar. The article cites the Concise Oxford Dictionary which simply says "hist. British soldier", but I think that for purposes of this discussion it's fair use to quote the OED itself (© Oxford University Press), which says:
 * — Stanning'Bold text' (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but would support Red coat (military uniform) proposed above, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per primary topic. The disambiguation page can remain where it is.. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Would support Redcoat (military uniform) - it wasn't just members of the British Army and Royal Marines who wore red coats, even in the 18th & 19th century, the private India-recruited armies of the East India Company wore red coats - the focus should be on accuracy, not just on primary usage. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * However, our policy on primary usage does allow this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But isn't the issue here the actual content and purpose of the article? It is not an history of the British soldier of the 17th to 20th centuries - this subject is covered in several other Wikipedia articles. It is not an account of the British soldier of the American War of Independence - who may (the issue is disputed) have acquired the contemporary nickname of "redcoat". The subject of the present article is the history of an item of military clothing widely, though not exclusively worn, by most regiments of the British Army from the 17th to the 20th centuries. Other armies also have or had uniform coats of this distinctive color and the article has been expanded by a number of contributors to include them. Accordingly Redcoat would be a misleading title and "Red coat (British Army and Royal Marines) has become an only partially correct one. I suggest again that Red coat (military uniform) be substituted. Buistr (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Color-> Colour
I think we should have British spelling, as the article is called Red Coat (British Army) also why is there so much about the American Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess we're actually talking about different usages. The term is always spelled "redcoat" in the US, but was never even used during the 18th century. During the American Revolution, British soldiers and Hessian mercenaries were grouped together as "lobsterbacks."2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI the British chose the colour red for its uniforms becasue the French had a tendency to favour blue clothing, and the men of the respective armies needed to be easily distinguished from each other in battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not really. Until the Revolution of 1792 only a few French regiments wore blue - white was the dominant colour. The reasons (mainly cost and chance) for the British adopting red a hundred years before are spelt out in the article. Buistr (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing Information
Please add an actual description of the uniform/uniforms discussed. The article currently relies on only a general description combined with a few pictures. This is not enough - the article needs to go through the uniform in detail and describe its looks, fabrics, parts, belts, accessories and so on.

As is, the reader is left with a wonky feeling the author(s) forgot to actually specify what exactly the article is about. CapnZapp (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not feasible I'm afraid. The article covers over three hundred years and probably several thousand different uniforms in the British section alone. The gallery of illustrations is the best that can be done. (Buistr (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC))

Royal Marines as Redcoats
Can someone provide specific evidence of Royal Marines being referred to as Redcoats? The nearest word that I am aware of would be "lobsters", but "bootnecks" seems to have been a more popular term, and one that was mimicked with the "leatherneck" term Keith H99 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They were probably seldom referred to as "Redcoats" (though the sailors of the Royal Navy doubtless had unflattering nicknames for them). However the Royal Marine Light Infantry wore scarlet tunics until they were merged with the blue-coated Royal Marine Artillery after World War I. I presume this is why a section on red-coated Royal Marines was included in this article. Buistr (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)