Hallo Steve,i try to keep to the Ottoman term of understanding .The Ottoman Army contained armies composed from Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia.

Also Regiments recruited from Algeria Cyracussan kurdish ETC. So I stick to uniforms of 1853-4.But in that period there was older uniforms still perhaps in issue from 1840's. I go no further here than 1856.

Be advised that the Egyptians and Turkey/Anatolia had their own armies, uniforms ,factories, and armories .Similar colors different styles.Eg Egyptian s wore blue egyptian waist jacket no tail,drain pipe trouser.bigger fez more tassels(most at rear 180 degree) as opposed to the CW Strelets type european uniform.

This really takes a book to explain to the level you seek.I dont have time yet but It is very intricate.
If you check For instance teh mamaluks(they like red pants traditionally... so remember i want you to remember this in back of your mind mind ) still in 1850's mamaluks had major military persuasion of power in high places in the Egyptian army.

yellow, was the only variant for the 2 designated Turkish talles battalions, that was not an official guideline.From what i gather from the sources,it was french officers wanting to be able to see where there elite troops were so they could deter and identify the elite troops as soon as possible in action etc
you could say teh same about red baggy pants/zouave style when the rig de jour was white.Jackets always blue except turk marines red/brown jackets red pants.

The Talles(yellow)That is teh sort of war practical issue/local decision that many modern students/people cannot agree with... saying that the regulation uniform was xyz .Those books were guidelines and took several years to be delivered to all the ottoman outposts around one of the biggest empires in teh world at teh time.Remember rules are NOT regulations.I have worked with militias many year ago and is amazing teh large number Of variance that appears down to the smallest object.if it made soldier work better that is good..

yes baggy pants, white(summer) blue(winter) and i say red baggy for elite/special artillerie depending on which country the but many will not agree with this despite very many contemporary artists from different countries using red coloring).

but we must discuss ,I think teh baggy pants were more barrack dress option than using expensive parade dress.But we could be here all day on that issue.Be wary, is the unit turkish?"or do they mean Ottoman and which of those outside turkey.

Check teh order of march of the battles you are interested in and then lok at teh nationality style of the uniforms .Are they Nizam (regular) or redif(reserve)will show other true unifrom depreciations that makes a regiment look almost like a bashi bazouk ensemble depending on where geographically the unit came from.IF Turkish they are usually Anatolian ,IF Eygptian ,2 of 10battalions could be sudanese regular .

1853 White uniform ,maybe in remote outpost under local command substitution order but very very unlikely.

1853 white baggy pants blue baggy pants red baggy pants (artillerie grenadiers pioneers)
will provoke an issue.But they were all in tehre.If you add teh old Rumelia uniiforms you will see what i mean to just who whic part of the Ottoman army do you
enquire or try to identify.Todays coalition force in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a standardized army with soldiers from ll over the wrld brining many different accouttrements in uniforms and equipment.War has not changed much just teh clock it go forward.

There are many sources,i go by contemporary pictures,lithograph and contemporary books.That includes Turkish ones where i can.

Uwe Wild AND I still have "the red baggy pant debate which we do not agree on", but it is friendly desicussion. If you ask him kindly He has a large collection of Ottoman Turkish ,Egyptian Tunisian etc Uniforms, it take him less time than me to deliver on dial up,.Good luck .You already have vinkussen so tehre is much better than that which you dont have yet.

good luck hope it was a little bit to help you

mr rowland some reference for you

http://1815-1918.blogspot.com/search/label/Turkey

http://www.archive.org/stream/osmanlitekitatve00mahmuoft#page/n9/mode/2up

see this webpage one of Uwe friends is in your english

OMG - great thread Hank...

Thanks Hank for that detailed response and for those great links: there's clearly a lot more variety to the Ottoman armies than my rather limited sources have indicated so far.

Still, the more variety the better from my point of view, as, as far as possible, i always like to paint a different unit, never the same one twice.

All the best, steve

Is a pleasure. It took me much time to get to that leveL of understanding from scrapes of information pasting together.

offline It was kindly pointed out to me that i should have described better this way that..

Rules are not Regulations.
Regulations are not Rules.
Thats why they say "Rules AND Regulations"

Also another point was if soldiers had not been typically paid for several month.so how can they buy new jacket ? this was often the case in this era.so
that enters the infrastructure of administration and logistics.

a good book for you is a "Feshane" book many color full page plates 50 plus many many photos and illustrations.Feshane (still exists as conference centre)it was teh main Turkish/Istanboul uniform factory .is all in Turkish but would be a great story in any language. Modern Loom Machinery imported form Belgique and operators in 1840's provided to dress the war chest of the porte. I see this book only a few times on ebay approx $120 and mail is excellent descriptive is fair price.

Some s-r complimenting things will formulate here in this link, just as others have, and will help answer you mr rowland soon in more useful dimensions, just as "ottoman" is described above !....

http://historyin172.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html

look liek it updates typically day 1 of each month.

Dear Hank

Uwe's Turks look very good and they are nicely proportioned. Maybe Strelets could follow the link and look?

The Victorian Military Society has some good info did you give Steve the link?

http://victorianmilitarysociety.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:turkish-uniforms-of-the-crimean-era-as-depicted-by-general-vanson&catid=10:articles&Itemid=9
"Turkish Uniforms of the Crimean Era by C A Norman"
part 1-4 based on Vanson's sketches one of which figures on the blogspot link.

David

Professori,
Vansons pictures are late Crimean War 1854-55 most drawings done in the Crimea peninsula.

My problem with vanson images is that teh esteemed VMS should update the images but in teh specific colors that they believe emile was trying to show.

Describing a black and white picture these days is not the way to go. We have the color technology to fill those sketches in.Some have beenvery successfully as you know. But Keep teh original sketch copies in archive and available. They VMS need to take a step up the ladder.

As mr rowland say there is currently no reputable ottoman source on teh market or available.I do look at teh ILN sketches by various 1853/4 artistes and all of these need to be lined up somehow.

Vanson if i am correct was not in the 1853 Danube campaign in teh capacity where he was drawing .
most of his pictures were done later 1854 thru 1855
passing time in the crimea peninsula but yes there he saw ottoman army of danube 1855 ,danube turkish chasseurs 1855 to draw so that is LATE for teh ottoman uniform of this battle era.(1853-56)..it is a litle mixed up to explain also.i like to start at the begining and tahti s why i stated that my friend.

I hope the esteemed VMS show intent to display the earlier uniforms out side vanson from the ILN SKETCHES ETC 1853-JUNE 1854 etc.Before CRIMEA PENISNULA.Then tie teh projects together etc.

The Ottoman troops in the Crimea Peninsula is anothe r subjetc to again sub divide between those Ottomans at Eupatoria under Turk control, and Those ottomans at Balaclava under British control.It is easy to see where the best employment was result was but tahts another debate.hahah

Ideally we do at some point need the Ottoman armies deconstructed in detail and then also represented by then geographically sub divided into their 3 areas of operation.Danube/Crimea/Kars.

Hi Steve,

This is one of my Favourite websites go to the bottom of the page, select Turkey and the year you want and away you go for the next couple of hours.

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgtitle_tree.cfm?level=1&title_id=269277

Hank outstanding Knowledge as always looking forward to your next diorama masterpiece.

Dear Hank
Re Vanson
"The material is extensive enough to at least provide a sort of basic framework, though many questions remain unanswered, and much of the following is necessarily speculative. Vanson did few colour sketches of the Turks, though he did provide a fair number of colour notes. Unfortunately, his handwriting is not always of the best, so his extensive notes can often be difficult to decipher, not helped by his frequent use of a sort of personal 'shorthand' which can often be quite obscure. Nevertheless, he stands head and shoulders above any other source"

C A Norman

For the purposes of modelling and painting figures of Ottoman troops of the period 1853-56 I agree with C A Norman. They provide a basic framework and he did take the time and trouble to view the sketches and notes in the Musée de l'Armée. I suppose if the illustrations in C A Norman's article were coloured he would be criticised for more speculation.
Vanson sketches and notes were from life and together with a few photos of Turkish soldiers provide evidence that would be hard to dismiss unless a better alternative has emerged. ILN pictures were based on sketches but engraved in the UK with a fair amount of artistic license. All evidence has caveats.
In the end we end up with the best guess for Kalafat or any other battle based on the paltry evidence available. Your dioramas speak for themselves and show an immersion in the subject which is creditable and fascinating.

David

Hi Professori, no i disagree in a friendly way.The Vanson work is too late here, it would omit teh original uniforms.

I prefer to stand by teh lithographers sketches.The mass of early 1853 war artisits(Danube) portary a style of unifrom that Vanson has not captured,(more common use of baggy pants etc ).I stick my neck out here.Maybe he too was ovewhlemed by teh ottoman composition.perhaps he tries to solve the puzzle himslef.

Simialr thing to ww1 soft hats being skipped and just jump straight into helmet era.So It is important to start at teh begining.Not halfway thru when uniform productions were stepped up by teh portes war chest.
I think stating at Vanson is misleading.

However it is good to debate as more evidence is usually procured when these debate happen.SO tehre should be no loser if something else is found.It is good Vanson remains teh midddle /crimean peninsula war period.It should not ty to precede hard evidence of earleir years.

It is fun to try and shoulder weight but everything apaert, oitting emotions to the side, teh Lithographs of 1853 are factual documentation/observations by several artistes not just one person.

I stand my ground my friend ,time wil tell as it usually does but we can still shake teh hands and laugh aboiut it .Okay have fun

Thanks everybody for these further references and words of wisdome: i shall have no excuse for not getting down to some painting now.

all the best, steve

Author is Émile Vanson
Title is Crimée, Italie, Mexique: Lettres De Campagnes, 1854-1867,


as i say 1854 is later for me.plus he was in crimean peninsula not danube