Other Russian Matters

[OotKust]

Couple of quick questions.

I note “Yakov Otroshenko” – Staff Captain Otroshenko commanded a company in the 7th Jager Regiment.” mentioned this unit nearby:

“Uglitskii Musketeer Regiment”

Excerpt From: Alexander Mikaberidze. “Russian Eyewitness Accounts of the Campaign of 1807.” iBooks.

Can’t make a logical regiment we’d recognise (nor can Russian translators!).

Second- in doing said search this popped in- is the paint on front of mitre real or a later decorative addition?

https://www.pinterest.co.kr/pin/pattern-1797-mitre-hat-of-pavel-i-era-army-musketeer-regiments-grenadier–570901690237037003/

cheers d

[OotKust]

And perhaps even more impressive (with clear close range bullet holes):

-one I’d ascribe to a senior Grenadier regiment, perhaps the Ukraine Inspection if thats ‘rose’ red? A fusilier mitre or is that cloth just a bit too close, and its a Grenadier that lost its pompom?

Click on posters name and get a whole lot more mitres of vaious kinds, but not a few Russian niceties 🙂

~d

[OotKust]

And another subject: We’re somewhat customised [as gamers] to seeing or reading about Russian fleches; minor field works erected to protect forward positions and disrupt enemy attacks.

But really apart from Borodino- is there a count of how many and when/ where they were otherwised employed?

Too late, I’ve already started some modest terrain pieces, but I have to ask.

thanks davew

[OotKust]

OotKust wrote:

Couple of quick questions. I note “Yakov Otroshenko” – Staff Captain Otroshenko commanded a company in the 7th Jager Regiment.” mentioned this unit nearby: “Uglitskii Musketeer Regiment” Excerpt From: Alexander Mikaberidze. “Russian Eyewitness Accounts of the Campaign of 1807.” iBooks. Can’t make a logical regiment we’d recognise (nor can Russian translators!).

OK apart from reading I had time to go hunt an answer for myself. Care of  Diego_Bozzolan ‘Infantry 1800-1812; IMPERIAL RUSSIAN ARMY-‘ pdf copy I found under Paul I establishment Musketeer Regiments:

Gersdorfa [Gersdorf’s] (formerly the Uglitskii [Uglich].

Really interesting to read that a name/ title, temporarily changed back then under Paul, was still vernacular in 1807 to another units officer 5 years along the next regime!

cheers dave

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Yes, the Uglich regiment. Also known by their chief’s names junder Paul I:

с 12.03.1798 по 02.11.1798
–
г-м. Коновницын Петр Пет.

с 02.11.1798 по 20.02.1800
–
г-м. Корф Ник. Фед.
с 20.02.1800 по “22.09.1813”[1]
–
г-м. бар. Герздорф Карл Макс.

See Viskovatov and Podmazo.

Not sure what you are seeing regarding the miter plates, as the links don’t get there, but some were painted. Look at Viskovatov.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

I think that is a later years L-g. Pavlovsk miter. I forget when they started the practice of embossing the wearer’sname into the plate.

[OotKust]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

Yes, the Uglich regiment….. Not sure what you are seeing regarding the miter plates, as the links don’t get there, but some were painted. Look at Viskovatov.

 

OK sorry about that- I’ve never seen anything deleted from pintrest before: which however is why I usually capture images I want for reference: here it is with original posted title:

The second? With bullet and perhaps cannister damage (the irregular holes?):

Many thanks Jonathan for replying; I’ve been offline for 30 hours due to a much needed reconstruction of my Macbook!

cheers davew

[OotKust]

I’ll just add some modelling… the very centre of the Russian ‘advance’ at Austerlitz was one Heavy Battery-

CRM ‘Early Russian’ artillery in uniform and greatcoats. Shown with 6 pounders and not the heavier 12s yet available. Following others I’ve used a grey rather than pure black for shakoes, but didn’t like the ‘lines’ or splodges effect so made them wholly grey, with peaks retouched in black.

Of course the figures aren’t truly ‘early’ as they have 1808 styles fittings however as a style thats ok for me. I varied the costumes deliberately and applied not quite ‘regulation’ things like yellow cuffs on greatcoats etc. and mixed the placements of a ‘working’ company.

The snow effect I hope is reasonable as I’ve used a double layer of pure white aquarium sand for coverage at exorbitent expense [when compared to the ‘free’ sand] I’ve stolen from local beaches and ‘purified’ myself 🙂

Trust you like them, only my second ‘official’ full Russian unit supporting the Kaiserliks all around them, cheers

davew

[OotKust]

RUSSIAN GUARDS 1805 

Yet another research topic- this one appears an excellent article but needs a decent translation to English, as both the automated version of translator and an alternate, rather better usually, cant cope with the dialect or idiom of two centuries ago:

http://siberia-minis.7910.org/forum/showthread.php?fid=9&tid=74

I had already saved the pics on my first or earlier visit, but I need to create cross links and refs [one very good reason for keeping the obscure gibberish/ titles of online data].

My only serious interest here was the Jaeger Battalion,

thanks dave

[OotKust]

Reading Mikaberidzes’ fine authorship, I was interested to read about the beginnings of one famous Russian :

Davidov,  young hussar officer…  seconded to Aide to Prince Bagration (1807)

“But this very field offered another disgraceful sight that shattered my very soul. As I mentioned, we were on the site of the battle of Mohrungen … Driven by curiosity, I examined the field of battle. I first travelled along our position and then visited the enemy one. I could see where the gunfire and attacks were most intense based on the number of corpses that covered the ground in those areas. Colonel Alexsey Yermolov commanded the artillery of our advance guard and its fire had devastated, in the fullest sense of this word, infantry columns and lines of the enemy cavalry that lay in heaps near the village Pfaresfeldschen, lying stricken by cannonballs and canister in the same order as they advanced or stood during the battle.”

I had associated the name with being  THAT cossack officer… funny if not scary incident soon after…

“No longer expecting any help from the Cossacks, I was supremely confident in the prowess of my steed. Filled with anger against a total stranger who, God knows, was simply carrying out his duty and obligations just like myself, I drew closer to him, brandishing my sword and swearing at him in French as loudly and expressively as possible. I challenged him to leave his line and engage me unassisted in a combat. He swore back at me and offered the same conditions; but neither of us took up the challenge and we both stayed rooted to the spot. But it must be said that I had, in fact, strayed quite a distance from the Cossacks and was within only three or four horse bounds away from the French flanquers while the [enemy] officer was within the flanquers’ line itself. To be honest, I have done everything to deserve to be patted on the head but also yanked by the ears from my horse.
At that moment a Cossack uryadnik [non-commissioned officer] galloped over to me, exclaiming: ‘Why are you swearing, Your Honour? That’s a sin! Fighting is a sacred business and swearing in battle is like swearing “inside a church. God will punish you! You will perish and so will we. Please, better go back to where you came from!’ Only then did I realise the absurdity of my pretension to be a Trojan hero and rode back to Prince Bagration.”

Excerpt From: Alexander Mikaberidze. “Russian Eyewitness Accounts of the Campaign of 1807.” iBooks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Davydov

A very brief bio, and it misses any reference to his memoires, but explains why I thought he was Cossack, actually ennobled Tatar, if he ‘designed’ the resistance to N. invasion… quite interesting…

https://tinyurl.com/Denis-Davydov

cheers d

[OotKust]

A Review- Cossack Hurrah by S.Summerfield 2005 (Partisan Press)

I’ve not found any reference to it here, so I put forward my very tardy analysis as I’ve not been investing in gaming OR history books for twenty years, so am a bit behind the times!

Well Cossack Hurrah- what can i say? Almost a waste of $70. (current cost to purchase/ freight) given it fails its premise of “…During the Napoleonic War”.

The first paragraph largely places it_ “in 1812 the Cossacks…”

And so it contains mostly details of 1812+ period and passes over previous campaigns with 1-2 short, undetailled paragraphs. Sure there are later sections- luckily a broad scope of 1796-1815 where a single uniform will be described; a few attribute changes on later dates (again beyond my period of interest) in 1805-07 which would have been acceptable in a $30 book.

Illustrations are varied- massive fail on coloured plates that are both mislabelled, and while having legends, no key on the actual figures; and the Osprey-esque dysfunction of describing colours on b&w pics.

I guess the background history is the most significant and useful, if undocumented source material; while theres a big bibliography and I note he had every book in my library! despite criticising the ‘other’ common texts from Brit origins, yet cites quite a few himself anyway; anyway history going back to 1700-ish.

Dispels a few of the common misbeliefs (all cossacks were freemen- no; they governed themselves- no, both Atamans and officers were appointed/ vetted by Tsar/ Russian Army etc.). Yes there were a bunch of flags/ guidons but still not universal.

And that the new 1812 Ukraine Cossacks were one of the few ‘voiskos’ to employ lance pennants (whew).

Also through the long list of uniforms voisko by voisko there were more than a few ‘green’ uniforms; including among ‘christian bashkirs’- than English sources tell us were ‘avoided’ due to the colour being associated with Islam, ie traditional Arab-Turk enemies.

So overall, final word on CH… poor editing (what I’d expect from Caliver, not a PHd) of grammar, spelling and formatting. Still a bloody author who cites a city/ town and then doesnt put them on maps!!!

Concise and generous historically, if but poorly formatted, gets 3.5 / 5 from me. Thankfully some of the illustrations of more exotic nature (ie private collections it seems) make up for missing early campaign research. [It also doesn’t help when a slightly damaged cover comes direct from the publisher].

Regards dave

[OotKust]

Ok so the review crashed.

Interesting comments (a la translator) from a reenactment group in Russia. (I’ve corrected bad formatting__)

• In 1803, 2 squadrons were assigned from the regiment to form the proposed Odessa Hussar Regiment, which was named the Body Guards Uhlan Regiment after its formation.
• In 1810, it was decided that in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, from among the existing cavalry regiments, 2 squadrons (at the discretion of the commander) should remain at the place of their permanent quartering in the form of a reserve.

On the first- well we know that. Clarifying however that it was first formed as a regiment, THEN named as Uhlans under Konstantines personal control, (albeit without actual lances until 1806).

Secondly- what hostilities? Is that referring to external, or hostility within the regiments (ie mutiny)? Just read it that way…

Interesting site overall:- http://www.gusa.ru/organization.html

cheers d

[Heroy]

Denis Vasilyevich Davydov probably had less Tatar/Mongol heritage than most Russians.
A great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson (11 generations in the male line) of Genghis Khan was Khan Ulugh Mohammad of the Golden Horde and founder of the Kazan Khanate. His second son, Qasim Trehub (1417-1469), in an effort to steal the Kazan Khanate from his older brother, sided with Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily the Blind (1415-1462) who was attempting to free Moscovy from vassalage to the Mongols. Qasim’s second son, Minchak Kosai (~1435-1474) converted to Christianity as Boris Semeyon Kasayevich and married a Moscovy noblewoman. His great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson (10 generations in the male line, with some surname changes) was Denis Vasilyevich Davydov (1784-1839), who was thus about 1/10th of 1 percent Mongol/Tatar.

One of Davydov’s peers was, ethnically, 100% Chechen : Aleksandr Nikolayevich Chechenskiy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chechenskiy

================

“what hostilities?”
Any.
The idea for 1810-1812 was that 10 squadron (2 “batallion”) hussar and lancer regiments would have 8 “active” squadrons with 2 center squadrons (i.e., chosen from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the 7th, 8th and 9th squadrons) designated as “Replacement” squadrons. In case of going on campaign, the 2 “Replacement” squadrons would be used to fill up the active squadrons to full strength, and then remain in the caserne of the regiment. The “Replacement” squadrons would, in turn, be refilled by the 11th and 12th “Recruit” squadrons after their initial military and equestrian training was completed at a specified recruit depot.
However, due the French invasion, most of the “Replacement” squadrons were sent on campaign as part of temporary “Combined” regiments and the 1812 “Recruit” squadrons were typically sent wherever convenient/needed.
The system was conceptually similar in 1808-1809 and 1813-1816, but with differences in details.

[OotKust]

Hey that’s very interesting historical information- also as a family ‘amateur historian’ equally is pertinent. At least I know I’m 25% Danish! But isn’t it interesting how ‘facts’ get included on foreign language subjects that are simply, less plausable.

Thanks also for clarification on the reorganisation of the Russian cavalry. I know I hadn’t heard of any ‘rebellion’ among the regulars; but I wasn’t sure the way it had been translated that some other meaning wasn’t being suggested.

regards dave

 

[OotKust]

surging around the webnetts had this site saved but not completely explored…

No idea of knowing if its genuine, or a copy/ reproduction, but worth a close look and the excellence of the uniform manufacture…

Sorry cant tiny the url:

https://rybkabohunka.rajce.idnes.cz/122_Bitva_tri_cisaru,_Slavkov_29.11.2014_-_209.vyroci

cheers d

[OotKust]

You know, doing some searching/ research… reading some of JGs footnotes and among a backtrack I noted under his heading :
Guard Distinctions

the following statement…

In particular, center company privates of the light regiments were armed only with musket and bayonet, no swords.

Will come as a great surprise to wargamers- majority of Russian Garde light cavalry regiments- could not melee except with muskets! Certainly a WTH moment for me!

How do you feel? Gonna make the FOGN lads think…

cheers

[General Slade]

I assumed this only referred to light infantry regiments (or were you making a joke and I missed the point? – always a possibility).

[OotKust]

General Slade wrote:

I assumed this only referred to light infantry regiments (or were you making a joke and I missed the point? – always a possibility).

Unless its a disconnected paragraph, no, its under ‘Cavalry’…

humour-? No thats no fun…

d

 

[General Slade]

The previous heading (Leib-Uralsk Century) is about cavalry but it all comes under the main heading of ‘Leib-Garde’.  If you look at the next sub-heading –  ‘Metalwork’ – Pavlovsk miter plates are mentioned, which is clearly a reference to infantry.  Also, the cavalry were armed with carbines not muskets and, as far as I am aware, the cavalry regiments didn’t have centre and flank companies as such (though lancer regiments did have a small number of men on each flank who were armed with rifled carbines).

[OotKust]

Yes, and the previous major heading is “Cuirassiers [170]” that being a footnote marker.

The whole section is about their Cavalry. And lists the Regiments.

And the sentence prior to the one I quoted is about two cavalry regiments. A ‘change in tempo’ between sentences of a paragraph is not clear and if infantry is the subject, it should have been highlighted there.

So he needs to work on formatting and clarity a bit more- get to it Jonathan!

thanks d

[OotKust]

Jonathan! Jonathan! Wherefore art thou Sire….??

Just in a moment of distraction, things became clear… maybe…

1. Whilst most ‘Russian’ 1812 gamers think their Army only ever fielded two infantry battalions per regiment– it appears that the disasters of 1805 and some in 1806/07 must have contributed to the latter evolution of fielding only two- the post war ‘trauma’ of losses being such.
   After all about 5 or more complete 3 battalion regiments (ie ALL the regiment) were virtually annihilated or taken prisoner after these actions and couldn’t be reformed except by mass influx of conscripts back in Russia.
2. Whilst Tsar Alexander directly witnessed the routing of some of the Novgorod Musketeers regiment behind Pratze at Austerlitz, who refused to stop when challenged by himself and other staff officers, having met a force 5 times larger advancing against them- he took punitive official vengeance against the regiment despite it having campaigned on the back foot for 3 or so months and being the ‘veteran’ remnants of two converged (2nd and 3rd) battalions, approximately 400 men.
   This despite his own slinky withdrawl from the battelfield an hour or so later as his lackeys disappeared from his presence, an equally distasteful action.

This left the much maligned and slightly wounded (his third in the head) Kutuzov as defrocked C-in-C, alongside the senior Austrian Prince Liechtenstein and his own proxy-commander Konstantine as leaders of their respective ‘reserve’ corps; as the most adjacent commanders to continue the battle alone against the most unexpected French attacks.

Not quite separately as they seemed to communicate very well by orderlies if not in person. Konstantine who exhibited in other places the traits of a psychopath, seems to have been in control most of the time and held up to the battle better than expected in such conditions.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

d

[Heroy]

Oh dear, we are opening a “can of worms”, dear Colleague!

As with other powers, the Russians faced a “revolution in military affairs” :
— larger armies, longer campaigns, greater distances to the front
— infantry increasingly formed in column and l’ordre mixte
— the rise of light infantry, massed cavalry and more mobile field artillery
— increasingly industrial (vice artisanal) manufacturing

Russian Army & Guard Regular Infantry Infantry
— not included : garrison, invalid, educational, training, (military) settlement, territorial, irregular (“national”), police, internal security, border guard, marine, naval infantry, militia and (military) labor forces – nor included or attached artillery
— although not included, each of the above contributed to the manpower planning for the infantry – either directly or indirectly
— until late 1806, jäger companies were about 1/3 smaller than grenadier or musketeer companies
— the basic maneuver element was, during all the period covered below, a battalion of 8 platoons (2 per company), each platoon of 24 files and 3 ranks of soldiers – a few exceptions are noted
— the company and regiment were essentially administrative
— the “brigade” as a tactical formation was extremely variable until 1811, and somewhat variable thereafter
— the division (or inspection) evolved throughout the period from an essentiaaly administrative entity to become a key operational/tactical unt

1795 (Catherine)
— Guards : 1 grenadier battalion (of 4 companies) + 9 musketeer battalions (each of 4 companies) + 2 jäger companies
— 12x Grenadier regiment : 4 battalions (each 1 flank company * + 4 grenadier companies + 1 replacements company)
— 55x + 10x (being raised) Infantry regiment : 2 battalions (each 1 grenadier company *+ 4 musketeer companies + 1 replacements company)
— 10x Jäger corps : 4 battalions (each 6 jäger companies)
— 3x Separate Jäger battalions : each 6 companies
* forming combined grenadier battalions of 4 companies
1368 total companies : 374 grenadier companies + 556 musketeer companies + 178 replacements companies + 260 jäger companies

Paul tried to re-introduce the archaic 10-platoon battalion, along with a new “german-style” drill manual. Although they were being often re-organized, the Guards might have adopted this. The Army, especially Suvorov, apparently did not. Paul also intended that final training and induction of recruits be done in the regiments, with up to 144 “over-complement” billets in war-time. But recruiting and dispatch of replacements did not keep up with the losses campaigning far from Russia. This was not too much of a problem, as when forming in 8 platoons, there would still be 2 more platoons per battalion to act as a replacement company (as during the later part of Catherine’s reign).
Paul wanted only a few jäger, these carefully recruited from foresters and hunters, and rifle-armed (again German-style).

1797 (Paul)
— Guards : 4 grenadier battalions (of 5 companies) + 7 musketeer battalions (each of 5 companies) + 1 jäger battalion (of 3 companies)
— 1x Life-Grenadier regiment : 4 battalions (each 5 grenadier companies)
— 12x Grenadier regiment : 2 battalions (each 1 flank company * + 5 grenadier companies) + 144 replacements “over-complement”
— 62x Infantry regiment : 2 battalions (each 1 grenadier company * + 5 musketeer companies) + 144 replacements “over-complement”
— 20x Jäger regiment : 2 battalions (each 5 jäger companies)
* forming combined grenadier battalions of 4 companies
1270 total companies : 338 grenadier companies + 655 musketeer companies + 74 replacement companies equivalent + 203 jäger companies

Under Alexander, the organization per Catherine’s reign was largely recreated, especially the tactical organization.
The Paul-era practice of “hidden” replacements was institutionalized. Paul’s 5th companies and 144 “over-complement” war-time replacements per regiment became a regular company strength of 165 rankers – vs. 144 needed to form 2 full-strength platoons – 252 “extra” billets per regiment. Thus the new recruits could be trained in the companies, but kept out of the line of battle until losses were incurred. Or, put another way, a regiment could be 13% under-strength (for any number of reasons) and still form at full strength. Or, put yet another way, the first 15% of casualties to a formed unit could be almost instantly replaced, if the companies had their full complement of 165 rankers at the start. Any “extra” men could run messages, water or ammunition, or remove casualties, dig latrines and field improvements, guard the regiment’s wagons, help work assigned artillery pieces, etc.

1802 (Alexander)
— Guards : 10 grenadier battalions (each 4 grenadier companies) + 1 jäger battalion (of 4 jäger companies)
— 1x Life-Grenadier regiment : 3 battalions (each 4 grenadier companies)
— 12x Grenadier regiment : 3 battalions (1 of 4 grenadier companies, 2 of 4 fusilier companies each)
— 72x Infantry regiment : 3 battalions (1 of 4 grenadier companies, 2 of 4 musketeer companies each)
— 19x Jäger regiment : 3 battalions (each 4 jäger companies)
1374 total companies : 376 grenadier companies + 576 musketeer companies + 182 “internal” replacements companies equivalent + 240 jäger companies

The rapid expansion of the Army from 1805, the need to support “expeditionary” warfare increasingly far from Russia, and the adoption of divisions as maneuver elements led to repeated large-scale empire-wide conscriptions, as opposed to the more modest, mostly localized recruiting of the 18th century. This led to the creation of division recruit depots to collect and give initial training and equipment to the mass of new inductees.
Still, this was not enough to field trained men in the front lines sufficient to face a 600,000+ Grande Armée. So a strange organization was adopted in 1811 (not implemented fully for units on campaign on the Danube against the Turks and in the Caucasus) : the 1st and 3rd battalions and the grenadier company from the 2nd would be brought up to full strength, including the 21 “extra” men per company if possible, and sent on campaign. The remaining 3 center companies of the 2nd battalions would be detailed to second-line service, such as fortress garrisons, with a 4th recruit battalion at the division’s recruiting depot for training.

1811 compared to 1802 ….
Guard regiments : 18 battalions vs. 11
Grenadier regiments : 42 battalions vs. 39
Infantry regiments : 300 battalions (excluding recruits) vs. 216
Jäger regiments : 150 full-size battalions (excluding recruits) vs. 57 small
Total : 510 battalions (excluding recruits) vs. 313 : an increase rate of almost 22 new battalions per year for 9 years

1811 (Alexander)
— 4x Guards Heavy Infantry regiment : 3 “active” battalions (each 1 grenadier and 3 fusilier companies)
— 2x Guards Light Infantry regiment : 3 “active” battalions (each of 4 companies)
— 1x Life-Grenadier regiment : 3 battalions : 2 “active” battalions (each 4 grenadier companies) + 1 “replacement” battalion (1 grenadier * and 3 replacement grenadier companies)
— 13x Grenadier regiment : 3 battalions : 2 “active” battalions (each 1 grenadier and 3 fusilier companies) + 1 “replacement” battalion (1 grenadier * and 3 replacement fusilier companies)
— 100x Infantry regiment : 4 battalions : 2 “active” battalions (each 1 grenadier and 3 musketeer companies) + 1 “replacement” battalion (1 grenadier * and 3 replacement musketeer companies) + 1 “recruit” battalion (of 3 recruit companies)
— 50x Jäger regiment : 4 battalions : 2 “active” battalions (each 1 grenadier and 3 jäger companies) + 1 “replacement” battalion (1 grenadier * and 3 replacement jäger companies) + 1 “recruit” battalion (of 3 recruit companies)
* forming combined grenadier battalions of 3 companies (2 per division)

For 1812-1815 there were many war-time expedients : combined battalions, combined regiments, recruit battalions distributed willy-nilly (a few to front-line service), 1,000-man “long-march” battalions (start with upwards of 1,000 rankers hoping to reach the front with 660 fit for service), Finno-Swedish mercenaries, German POW’s, re-raised and re-re-raised 2nd battalions, incorporation of militiamen (including such exotics as upper-middle-class and international volunteers from downtown Petersburg & pagan-animist tribal hunters from the vasts of the North Urals : both actually quite effective), the odds & sods of the Guards, instructional and cadet detachments, etc., etc., etc.

A new system, based on divisional military settlements, was used from 1817. But that is not “our” period.

[OotKust]

Boy oh boy, are you a robot…???

Totally blown away by the detail… you could put Osprey out of business, hmm…  And such a succinct analysis and summary worthy of a great writer, where do you find the time?

All previous reading in ‘english’ resources seems to have none of the urgency and impact/ chaos you illustrate, which is why some things take a long time to percolate through my brain. Wonderful reading which I shall archive for my group

My sincere thanks monsieur A!

-d

[Heroy]

Thank you for your kind words.
I tried to make an overall summary of the interplay between the “revolution in military affairs”/recruiting/tactics and organization – but there are many (!!!) more details to the story. And of course each nation faced the challenge – and answered that challenge in its own way.

“great writer”
Hardly. I am equally poorly skilled, nearly illiterate, in both my mother’s Pompey-dialect English and my father’s Breton-inflected French. But I also picked up some Russian and a bit of German and Spanish over the years. So I can look things up in the works of real historians easily.

[OotKust]

🙇🏼‍♂️ ⚜︎

[Author]

Posts