As well as why in army the form appeared?Probably, at the majority of us army are associated with order. In a broad sense, as with orderliness in everything, uniformity. And historically the army became such not so long ago and not at once. It will be a question of Europe and only of it. Region the most advanced and the most inclined to evolution.
We, of course, know the Roman legions, uniform on equipment and training. But also they were such not always and not at once. The army evolved together with Rome. And it existed somewhere 1300! And rebels of times of the republic were equipped not so monotonously as the state standing army of imperial Rome!
And then the Roman order was safely forgotten. And again arose as something quite independent.
The requirement of uniformity and an opportunity to achieve it directly depend on state of the economy and psychology of society. For knights, individual fighters, difference of an armor and the weapon did not play a role. The irregular militia of all times could not is simple to be equipped equally. Unless the prosperous people making the main fighting force had to get how many - that uniform equipment. Especially if they battled a dense system.
And during an era of mass armies “stroyevye“ fighters, of course, were armed probably. The same Swisses, the first winners of knights, it seems, undertook to be with peep. And the uniform as idea of clothes of an identical style and coloring, appeared in 17 century. Such things are dictated by either practical need, or fashion. And influence of fashion is not weaker at all!
In practice a uniform:
- disciplines and rallies army;
- allows to distinguish the in fight;
- allocating soldiers, complicates a robbery and desertion;
- facilitates an opportunity to equip big armies;
- at supply with the state (but not individuals) uniformity reduces the price of the centralized supply;
- at private recruitment when hiring it is more favorable to look better than competitors; the type of a company benefits from monotony.
Probably, the livery was the first uniform of Europe. But it and remained clothes of “service personnel“, it seems, without having exerted noticeable impact on army. The historical and social gap between the medieval servant / court and the soldier of Modern times is too big. The army form was generated absolutely by other reasons!
In England in 15 century some parts (for example, protection of the king) wore a red uniform.
In armies of new type, it seems, the first Cromwell dressed the parts in red caftans. In general the beginning of unification is connected from 17 century. The firm government could enter standards and reserve the weapon. Armies grew. Recruitment went beyond a circle of professional mercenaries. The recruits who do not have own weapon were required to be armed and dressed.
It is difficult to unify equipment when the soldier is equipped at own expense. Evolution went gradually. Not having the weapon it the captain (the commander of private group) gave out, subtracting cost from a salary. There was a following link supplying captains with the weapon “wholesale“. Then the state began to release it from arsenals at purchase prices. In parallel it monopolized production of firearms; entered standards of calibers.
Ahead of all Europe (so, and planets) there was France. In the beginning the state supplied with clothes of the mercenaries who were not earning a salary, and ““ - militia, a militia. Before they were equipped with “world“. In the beginning the state helped. Gradually the share of its participation increased, and the community gave only additional equipment.
And army affairs the state undertook gradually. In 17 century it controlled equipment, delivery of a salary, proficiency. Armies grew, “material“ of recruitment worsened. Now hired not only professionals, the weapon and preparation were required for beginners. The organization and supply were undertaken more and more by the state. The set and partly command were in private hands for a long time.
In the beginning the cost of equipment was subtracted from a salary. In fact, the soldier bought clothes and the weapon from the recruiter. With growth of armies the salary decreased, the equipment began to be given. The soldier passed to the state contents more and more.
There is and still a factor. Subjective, but one of defining. It is fashion. Authorized - that there is no form! Here were also in the fashion., It seems, at Louis XIV (again France ahead of all!) Labe - companies put on in monophonic raincoats. The king`s company - in blue... That company of d`Artagnan!
That is the uniform was favorable to all. At the same time the industry was stimulated textile, generally cloth. There were countries - large exporters of cloth. And importers... Russia, having the cloth industry, in the first half of 18 century imported its large parties from Prussia and England. That is and trade was stimulated. Having appeared in the middle of 17 century, in 18 - m the uniform was standard. “Without form there is no discipline!“ - Frederick the Great believed. And he - that understood both in discipline, and in economy!
Of course, a uniform - only one of sides of nationalization of army. And it, in turn, accompanies strengthening of the central power and economic growth. This main thing, and the speech - about it. The uniform, standardization went about a hand with growth of armies, with transition from hired army to a constant.
And in end the interesting fact.
We found out that the centralized supply costs cheaper. And guess: how still it is possible to save? No, to truncate and refine clothes - it is too simple. And the soldier will suffer, and it is value.
But in Prussia the compromise was found. To give an overcoat only on winter quarters. Campaigns are conducted on heat and why in the summer an overcoat? Also wears out less, and in fight it will not be lost. Even if the soldier will die...
For the night there are tents, on march without overcoat it is easier to go and is not cold. In fight it “disturbs“! There is such economy...
And ahead we have a conversation on one more military subject: provisioning.