Unknown Civil War Officer?????

Your response is "I know you are but what am I " ?

Seriously ???

Oh no . . . i don't give a rat's ass what you "think" i am (i find it difficult to use that verb when addressing you).

You never, absolutely never provide any substantiation for the drivel you post. Then, you come into a thread in which Americans are discussing the American civil war, and attempt to pass off your ipse dixit bullshit (by the way, ipse dixit isn't "legal Latin," it's just good, old fashioned Latin). It's just hilariously hypocritical of you to accuse anyone else of making statements from authority--that's all you ever do. And there is no good reason for anyone to assume that you possess any authority, especially not with regard to the American civil war.

I am aware that an old crusty fart like you hide during the Civil War but how much can you see from a cupboard ? So no-one but an American can know about the Civil War ? What about the Napoleonic Wars ? Only Europeans know about that ? Perhaps only fish know about the War in the Pacific ?

You are right to feel inferior and frightened. Your posts are full of superfluous fluff in a desperate attempt to show off. You see a post on history and cant stay with the subject but have to introduce the biggest load of unnecessary garbage that you can google. You think you are an original source and anyone who disagrees with you is handing you the ultimate insult. No wonder you like dogs, they dont try to understand the rubbish you come up with. If only people would realise you are God...how dare they...

This is typical...the only way you can win an argument is to create the other side, soundly defeat it and retire to masturbate whilst you still have a warm glow. You are a fool living in a fool's world.

You should think seriously about taking a refresher course in English! And, spelling.

Oh, and by the way, how does it feel to be "alone"?

I go bed now.

No, anyone could develop expertise on historical topics--however, when someone who is not an American makes statements for which they provide no substantiation, it is reasonable to challenge them. And your response to such challenges to is to indulge in hysterical, scatological vilification of whoever has had the temerity to question you. It's good to know one's limitations, but it appears that you don't believe you have any. Just today, a Swedish member challenged a remark i had made about Sweden. I didn't object because it is a reasonable assumption that the member is better informed about Swedish history than i am. Additionally, the long history of this member's posts here have demonstrated that he is well-informed on the subject.

There is no reason to assume that about you, and furthermore, you have made many questionable assertions about the American civil war. When challenged, you just resort to you puerile insults. That's just par for the course with you, though.

If you only type with one finger than you will probably mostly hit one key at a time. Most of us hit the wrong key on occasion..something you would understand if you could think fast enough to type.

Oh, and according to **** for brains, you cant know anything about it as an American because they language is English. Keep checking my spelling..I know your capabilities dont extend much further than that ...

I dont think you care...but what sort of dickhead brags about going to shoot someone ? Clearly you are just another little dick hoping one day to benefit from a penis transplant.

You are a clown...only Americans know what they are talking about ? Who invented the aircraft carrier, the landing light system for carriers, the vertical takeoff aircraft...who invented your dipsi dickit saying you are so fond off ? And who ever left a dictionary open for you to assimilate that statement should be hung. You spray things around with no understanding as to what is really going on...your friend the clown wants to shoot people...your dog is the only one who likes you (because you feed it and its a living)...you are doing really well. Which came first ? Your being disliked by everyone or your considerable personality disorders.

I've learnt here a lot ... about early photographs (well, I've only a small collection of photographic plates), history ...

No, danon, I don't think it's fun since I don't really like this kind 'consolidated half knowledge' Ionus is spreading here authoritarianly.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give me an example...

The Louisiana Volunteers had a Garibaldi Legion which converted to standard uniforms after the War started. Is it possible that uniform is red with dark blue trim ? This would mean the star is a rank badge.

Have you told us yet what state you are in ? That would help a great deal.

Why?

Is it the very first time you try to do historical researches? Not to bad but you've to learn quite a bit.
(The source/origin of the photo, that would be a help, not where a person is living now.)

The photo has been in the house for sometime. A local historical society may know more, or there may be state resources that we could tap into. In the past, farms have belonged to the one family far more than in modern times. All this may be helpful, it may not but it wont hurt.

No. Is it your's ?

Well, if it is not your first than why do act like it was?
Making some fun here? Forgot what was taught in auxiliary sciences of history seminars?

Assuming you are right in your critque, exactly how have I been authoritative but without knowledge and exactly how am I acting like this is my first piece of research ?

No. I assume you arent either...

Does that mean something in German because it is very vague in English.

According to wikipedia "Auxiliary sciences of history are acedemic disciplines which help evaluate and use historical sources and are seen as auxiliary for historical research."

It's taught here in Germany (and the UK).

And by tacking seminar on the end of it you think you have covered everything, that by being vague I can know exactly what you are talking about ? If you dont know, say so...but if you wish to point out a particular error, do so...

This will be my final, definitive guess on this subject:

The subject of the photo is an Italian Bersagliere from the time period of the early twentieth century, up to around 1916 or 1917. From photographic evidence I've been able to find on the net and in my library, including a photo of a member of the Alpini wearing the same tunic, I'm guessing that the single-breasted tunic with hidden buttons and no pockets was of a type used in the early part of World War I by the Italian military. This would correspond to the hat, which was used before the widespread adoption of the French-style "Adrian" helmet in late 1916-early 1917. Most photographs (such as the one that Walter posted) showing a tunic with breast pockets are from the later period of the war, which suggests that there was a redesign of uniforms (not uncommon - pretty much every army in WWI underwent a significant uniform redesign during the war).

Tunics from an earlier period, such as the American Civil War, would often have no breast pockets, but they wouldn't have hidden buttons. There's a good reason for that: there was no need to hide them. Camouflage for line troops (as opposed to specialty units, such as light infantry and snipers) was simply non-existent in the black-powder era. Hiding buttons only became an issue when armies were experimenting with ways to make their soldiers less conspicuous on the battlefield (other countries at that time would hide the buttons behind cloth coverings).

Et finalement, on trouve dans le site du Musée royal de l’Armée (Belgique) le photo suivant:



Note the collar distinctions, the tunic, the hat, and the fingers on the mannequin. I rest my case.

I suspect the glum expression on the mannequin's face is a direct result of having lost his fingers . . .

I'd say Joe has clinched it--Italian Bersagliere, lonesome and a long way from home. And a hell of a lot more rakish a hat-wearer than the mannequin. Anybody with pretensions to style in that period, up past WWII, wore their hats with a tilt, rather than square on their head.

Joe, I agree with you - here are a couple of interesting photos, especially the first one from WWI -----------



This one is from a magazine cover picture ----------





Here's another from WWI with an American soldier -----------



Thanks Joe - You've done a great job.