Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Advantage of Redcoats?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Advantage of Redcoats?

    I've been delving into game theory recently, and some of the insights it provides can be quite fascinating. While this particular riddle may not have had anything to do (and I'd love it if anyone could confirm or deny it) with the actual decision for the British to wear red uniforms, I think that the insight it gives is still valid (i.e., it would still hold as an unintended consequence). So here's the riddle:

    While the thought of wearing a bright, visible uniform (a red coat with shiny buttons) seems silly and provides a disadvantage, in fact, it provides a strong advantage for a unit fighting in the age of muskets and linear formations. Why?
    Last edited by Shek; 13 Dec 07,, 14:04.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    From what I recall it had 2 reasons

    1. Easier to see in in smoke of battle

    2 Hides blood

    But I also seem to recall that red tunics or coverings were worn by some lord's troops back in the darkness of time and it migrated to the Redcoats

    I believe one of friends from across the water will have to answer this one.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #3
      There is no basis for the historical myth that red coats were favoured because they "did not show blood stains." Blood does in fact show on red clothing as a black stain.

      Reason for the red is because the dyes were cheaper. I was taught this in Middle School history class. ;)

      Scarlet cloth requires expensive cochineal dye. :)

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, I didn't go to middle school so I guess that is why I didn't learn it!

        Damn Catholic education!
        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
        Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Julie View Post
          There is no basis for the historical myth that red coats were favoured because they "did not show blood stains." Blood does in fact show on red clothing as a black stain.
          Very true, due my non-functional balance system I often fall down stairs or crash against wall and therefor my clothes are often covered in blood. I started wearing mostly complete black clothes because the blood (when its dry) is less visible on them and even if one sees them, one does not realize that it is blood at once. I allmost got kicked out of school because my clothes were full of (my own) blood..

          Comment


          • #6
            Before and upto the 1st World War the vast majority of Europian Armies wore all shades of Red Uniforms. Today, you can see lots of Red tunics worn by the British Army, especially the Guards Regiments (and the Monarchy every year, on Horse Guards Parade)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Shek
              But this doesn't explain the battlefield advantage that it provides.
              Their visibility makes it easier for the higher command to see, and to control their movements. The word 'uniform' is a bit of a misnomer as different regiments had their own distinctive uniforms.
              Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

              Comment


              • #8
                Some of you are close to what I'm looking for. My hint is that it served a similar purpose as political officers in units often do (once again, I'm not claiming that this was intentional, although maybe it was).
                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Shek View Post
                  Some of you are close to what I'm looking for. My hint is that it served a similar purpose as political officers in units often do (once again, I'm not claiming that this was intentional, although maybe it was).
                  Yes, it is hard to go AWOL in a bright red coat... but it a very easy thing to defect if the other side is also wearing a red coat. It was particularly true for East India Company's conflicts with some native Indian principalities it itself had trained and equipped prior to conflict. In the early wars the lal paltaans (Red Battalions) switched sides both ways, but by late 1700s it was almost always towards the EEICs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Shek Reply

                    Discourage retreat by shaming forces/men easily viewed as withdrawing from battle?
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      whoops!

                      Seems Cactus has a similar idea. Sorry.:)
                      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Cactus is on it.

                        The intuition here is that as an individual in all the smoke and confusion, you can up your chances of survival by running away or pretending to go down and fall out of line.

                        However, as soon as individuals start acting on this, you then increase the chances of rout, which in reality will give you lower odds of surviving. This is the "prisoner's dilemma" in game theory where without full coordination, individual incentives that lead to the "best" outcome in reality leave you worse off from the group perspective.

                        The visibility of red coats act as a "commitment device" that help with the coordination/cooperation problem - a bright red coat makes it easier to be seen as a deserter or malingering, wearing out your welcome when you "miraculously" link back up with the unit after the battle, and makes you an easier target for the enemy as you desert during the battle. In other words, it reduces your chance of survival acting as an individual and shapes the cost-benefit decision of deserting in favor of remaining with your unit.

                        I've attached a document that goes more in depth on the game theory. For further discussion is what are some other ways in which you can put the odds in favor of a person deciding to stay instead of run. SLAM, even with his questionable research methods, provides some good insight here.

                        P.S. You'll see that I reference the book The Hidden Order as the source of this particular example - this was one of three nuggets from it that I found intriguing. Beyond that, it is a cumbersome book and unless you like sticking pencils in your eye, don't buy it or read it.
                        Attached Files
                        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          in old russian army way before ww1, you,d be cosidered a traitor and coward, if you ducked or used anything as a cover, you had to stand tall. and look death in the eyes, concept of camoflage wasn,t even known.
                          i,ve read that in a history book long ago.
                          "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            OK Shek, I remain wholly unconvinced at the explanation given in the book you quote. I need proof.
                            Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by glyn View Post
                              OK Shek, I remain wholly unconvinced at the explanation given in the book you quote. I need proof.
                              Proof of what?
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X