[Editor's Note: the following article consists of letters received from Daniel Schorr and Charles Sharp regarding the subject of suitable figures for the Dutch Army]

The subject of which figures to use is a difficult one. First of all there is little pictorial evidence. Second, the cut and appearance of the uniform was not regulated by the government until 1749/50. Prior to that time it was left to the whim and purse of the regimental colonel. It is my theory that the cut and appearance of Dutch uniforms were influenced by the states surrounding The Netherlands - France, Austria, England and North German states.

For my own Dutch infantry, I use French infantry figures with and without turnbacks ( there is some evidence that coat skirts were not always turned back); Austrian (German infantry because the figures have lapels, but I trim the puschel from the tricorne; I also use Russian line infantry figures because the coat is cut fuller and somewhat longer. In any case, one has to paint on additional details such as the shoulder knot or aiguillette, lapels, etc. Grenadier figures are more difficult mainly because of the rather "old fashioned" appearance of the grenadier cap. [Editor: see page 32 in this issue].

For grenadiers in the Swiss regiments and for Liller's regiment, I use French grenadier figures in the bearskin. The other grenadier caps are reminiscent of caps from the War of Spanish Succession. For van Dorth's regiment I used Edition Brokaw Swedish Grenadier figures from their Great Northern War range. These figures have turnbacks.

Cavalry and Dragoon figures are somewhat easier. I would recommend using Austrian and Prussian Dragoon figures for both types. These figures have lapels and shoulder knots ( aiguillettes). One could also use other cavalry figures such as French, but the shoulder board would have to be removed.

For artillerymen, I use primarily Austrian figures, although just about any other figure would do.

Please keep in mind that these are my preferences and I have no intention of dictating which figures to use. To my way of thinking the appearance of the Dutch Army was probably a decade or two behind that of the other major states of Europe. Thus, Prussian infantry figures in their tight uniforms would not be appropriate.

I hope this is of some help. The lack of specific detail information on cut and appearance, rather than limiting the possibilities, opens the door for the use of a greater variety of figures in one army. It makes for a unique army on the wargame table.

Additional comments from Charlie Sharp

Charlie references Daniel Schorr's articles on the Dutch Army in The Courtier magazine (No.s 59 and 63) and the Bunger/Allen article on Fontenoy that appeared in The Courtier (Vol VII No. 4).

Enclosed are some samples that might help you. In this transition period (1725-1745) the earlier uniforms sometimes linger. I suggest a lot of the Dutch foot may have looked more like the earlier style than the later, at least until the central authorities started reforming things in 1748-49. Dixon makes a Great Northern War line of Sweders wearing the coattails pinned, but otherwise in the older, " fuller " style coat and uniform; they could probably stand in for a lot of the transition armies. The regular Dixon line of 15mm Age of Marlborough has foot in the " loose " , collarless coat, with Imperial grenadier and the older Fusilier caps as well as tricorns. Dixon's Marlborough horse, also with the coattails loose, have figures with and without carbines, and brandishing either a pistol or sword. Their mounted officers (in Command Packs) are also useful for just about any command type right up to the middle of the century. I have lots of illustrations of officers of all nations ignoring uniform regulations right through the SYW!