Home Forums Horse and Musket Napoleonic Other Russian Matters

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)
  • Author
  • #177597
    Avatar photoOotKust

    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?


    cheers d

    Avatar photoOotKust

    And perhaps even more impressive (with clear close range bullet or canister?? 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 🙂


    Avatar photoOotKust

    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

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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

    Avatar photoJonathan 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.

    Avatar photoJonathan 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.

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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:

    Pattern 1797 mitre hat of Pavel 1 era Army musketeer regiment's

    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

    Avatar photoOotKust

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

    Col. Kudryatsev Battery 3rd Art Regt

    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


    Avatar photoOotKust


    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:


    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

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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.


    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…



    cheers d

    Avatar photoOotKust

    2023 Edit
    I’ll just add that in the nearly a year I’ve had the book now, it has usefully provided some information when I’ve had to look up obscure/ limited references from other sources.
    Certainly the Russian language translation (where given) have been useful.
    So I resile on the “almost a waste” comment and believe, despite its apparent late date line, actually has more early period information than I gave credit for.

    – – –

    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 4.5 / 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

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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

    Avatar photoHeroy

    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


    “what hostilities?”
    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.

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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


    Avatar photoOotKust

    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:


    cheers d

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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…


    Avatar photoGeneral Slade

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

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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…



    Avatar photoGeneral 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).

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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.


    Avatar photoHeroy

    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.

    Avatar photoOotKust

    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!


    Avatar photoHeroy

    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.

    Avatar photoOotKust

    🙇🏼‍♂️ ⚜︎

    Avatar photoSkip

    Eh, why not.

    Made a reproduction Russian shako, can do either for now a Artillery officer or 1st Battalion Musketeer

    Avatar photoHeroy

    That’s really super !

    I can’t see the stitching/construction details – but the result looks “right” proportionately.

    I don’t know if this was your intent, but it looks like you made the cords/tassels of white wool with some attempt at silver coloring. If so, this is ***perfect***. Instead of expensive metalic silver threads, a regulation of 1 January 1812 (likely formalizing existing practice) said that “officers in order to reduce their expenses, are permitted to have white shako cords, sashes, and swordknots instead of silver ones, and forged brass appointments on the epaulettes instead of gold”. I think your work shows exactly how these appeared.

    Here is a recreation of the этишкетъ/etishket from the leading Russian collector/museum supplier :


    Yours compares very well, I think.

    Your pompon (репеекъ/repeyek) is perhaps a bit incomplete and perhaps a tad tall. The regulation oval 1812 and later pompon for company-grade officers is 2nd from the right :


    However, a officer who could not afford silver cords might well have had a less “jewel-like” pompon.

    Assuming you used natural materials (no “MB Tex” or equivalent) a recreated officer’s shako of this quality would cost at least USD 1000  in Russia, even in current devalued rubles.

    Overall, very impressive work !


    Avatar photoSkip

    It is stitched are all around top band and bottom, not easy. Many things took 2 attempts until got it right. For instance tried to bend that top band being connected to top and it was a disaster so had to start over and do it in 2 pieces

    I know the cords were supposed to be silver, had white, didn’t work, bought expensive cotton and tried dye, that didn’t work, painted and was good for picture but not to use. Color cords are Shadow, not far off silver in live color, doing it I a Christmas use metallic cord would be a expensive.

    Both my Prussian Fusilier Officer and Artillery Officer pompom look to be real silver cords so did best to replicate that.

    Everything is a bit of guess on sizes, but assume at least from many pictures of Prussian Officers shakos have a lot of leeway in quality and materials.  Assuming officers are o their own and maybe if they have the means do what they want.

    Avatar photoSkip


    Here it is as a 1st Musketeer battalion. All medallions and cords can be removed. The Pompom I copied is from a picture, maybe will embossing it up with a A and orange

    Avatar photoHeroy

    “Here it is as a 1st Musketeer battalion”

    1st, 2nd or 3rd Musketeer or Jäger company.

    Wow ! Really great !


    Avatar photoSkip



    Looking for opinions and if not objections will glue it up.

    Decided to try all metal thinking a Colonel might have all silver

    Avatar photoHeroy

    You have made an excellent оберъ-офицерскiй репеекъ / ober-ofitserskiy repeyek / company-grade officer’s pompon – for an ensign, sub-lieutenant, lieutenant, staff-captain or captain. A major, lieutenant-colonel or colonel would be a штабъ-офицеръ / shtab-ofitser / staff-officer and have a pompon with spangles.

    Here are several models from a noted modern Russian studio. Note variations in overall prpportions, materials and so on. To my knowledge, few or no originals survive.

    Avatar photoSkip



    Now to work on Making a Grenadier mitre

    Avatar photoOotKust

    Not quite relevant to JGs post on cossacks, I’ve been humming and hahhing since getting one sample pack a year back, about whether to buy more similar SYW Cossacks as a nod to modelling their  ‘irregular’ status and look vs the very ‘uniform’ other models around. My one painted sample as per –


    This is a Wargames Foundry SYW ranges  Characters pack. https://tinyurl.com/sywcoss

    Whilst the Perry metals are nice, I’m not sure size wise that they haven’t gone too far!

    I also have the Eureka set as an expansion, that while not planned initially (ie outside the 1805 OB and general guideline/ plan) will make for a respectable ‘guerilla’ force when it comes to their ‘time’ in 1806/07 scenarios.

    Avatar photoOotKust

    As a kind of [delicately] “how we assumed that everyone did it…”

    Russian Uniforms and Military Conventions

    Despite the 170 years of  A.V. VISKOVATOV (1853)

    ruling the information on Russian matters, by publishing publicly the actual Imperial Decrees etc., it seems that not everything went that way. (Reasoned elsewhere*).

    Conrad gives two examples from above, since I needed the dragoon version-

    1. 16 December 1815— In Dragoon regiments, trumpeters are to have grey horses, and other ranks — dark colors (116).
    2. 16 December 1815— In Cuirassier regiments, trumpeters are to have grey horses, and other ranks — dark colors (51).


    The implication, being, that such greys were not commonplace, despite as revisionist folk point out- V. was in error in many places as he never checked reality, merely printed what he was given.

    Of course it may be that, perhaps somewhat like the French, such a decree was ‘establishing’ a convention already under way.

    *JGingerich discusses accuracy and highlights three names of modern authors who have minutely examined some of V. issues-

    126. Leonov, Popov, & Kibovsky include a photograph of a relic hussar shako with lace…

    The subject is not important, just the names. I’ve not followed up, and I don’t have a copy of JG actual pages about this either!
    – – –

    As I’ve raised ‘artillery’ elsewhere,

    I picked up from academia.com an abstract entitled ”

    Russian Field Artillery in the time of the Napoleonic Wars: Myths, Reality, Questions” – (The experience of historiographical inquiry) by Konstantin Igoshin.

    The abstract makes for a compelling read, but I don’t have the paper.

    Included is this commentary about ‘Araksheevs Model 1805’ origins.

    In 1904, in an attempt to fill the gaps in the understanding of the history of the development of Russian ordnance, Colonel (and later Lieutenant-General) A. A. Nilus (1858-1941), an instructor at the Mikhailov Artillery Academy, would publish a continuation of Strukov􏰑s text in the form of a two-volume textbook on the History of the Physical Elements of the Artillery.12 A scholar with considerable personal experience, and the author of a series of academic treatises and inventions, Nilus was one of the leading early 20th Century specialists on Russian ordnance.

    An interesting development in recent scholarship was a 2008 book by another amateur historian and model maker-collector, C. V. Voytsekhovich, entitled The Russian Field Artillery 1382-1917,31 and described by the publisher as a 􏰔short guide to the history of the development of Russian artillery systems􏰑. The book includes several illustrations and photographs of items in museum collections in Moscow, St Petersburg, Sofia, and Stockholm, as well as sketches and scale schematic diagrams, most of which were made by the author himself. The monograph contains a section dedicated to the artillery of the Napoleonic era.

    The body of sources and literature cited in that section cannot be described as complete by any means:…

    A study of the historiography, the body of published sources (including 19th Century periodical literature, statutory legislation, instruction manuals etc.), and archive material has revealed that perceptions of the organisation and equipment of Russian field artillery during the Napoleonic wars established in 20th Century and recent academic and popular-academic literature do not entirely correspond with reality.40 Indeed, it would be wrong to refer to these topics and this period as well-researched.

    The historiographical tradition has created an artificial break in the reformation of the artillery, propagating the unsubstantiated view that 1805 marked the introduction and application of a new system of artillery weaponry. As a result, there is almost no evidence in academic circulation today regarding the development and implementation of the new technical decisions, or the creation of a standardised system of artillery equipment. Accounts of the structural changes of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries have been brushed aside, including evidence relating to an event of such crucial importance as the abolition of regimental artillery. The transformation and renaming of artillery subdivisions during the reform of the organisational structure in 1802-1811 (and earlier) has also received insufficient attention. Reliable production figures are lacking, and information on the rearmament of the Russian artillery is fragmentary. The theory of deploying the artillery as combat troops, the development of manuals and instructions is still only in the early stages of research. The same can be said for the state of knowledge on personnel training, with the exception of the officer corps, which has been considered in a range of studies.42

    Source [42] is: 42 Krylov V. M., Kadetskie korpusa i rossiiskie kadety [The Cadet Corps and Russian Cadets] (St Petersburg, 1998); [The Officers of the Russian Army as Participants in the Battle of Borodino: a historical and sociological study] (Moscow, 2002) .

    Seems would be an interesting read, being ‘ultra-modern’ as current period nomenclature goes…



    Avatar photoOotKust

    Whilst I have been slack getting the other matters to bed, another mild inquiry comes to a head.

    Did cossacks actually drink alcohol? The spread of ‘religiousocity’ is lost on me I’m afraid.
    I realise there are plenty of depictions of cossacks with bottles, but I take my water from a wine bottle too, so a casual observer could be fooled.

    Only asking because I don’t want to add a falsehood to a my justifications as to a cossack ‘Marauders’ rule I’m adapting (and play test this weekend_).


    Avatar photoSkip

    Without a reference to post, I am positive Cossacks drank alcohol and bet like fish in water.

    Avatar photoGuy Farrish

    I suspect they drank like fish too.

    The Treaty of Zboriv 1649 between the Polish forces and Khmelnitsky (apart from banning Jews and the Polish Army from the Zaporozhian territory) laid down the right of cossacks to recruit an army up to 40,000 strong and to distil (but not sell) alcohol.

    This was obviously well before the Napoleonic period but the rights were maintained until the disbandment of the Sich in 1775 by Catherine the Great.

    This rather gives pause for thought to the (I suspect) self serving modern b*ll*cks that the Cossacks were a cross between Mother Theresa and Seal Team Six.

    For the first bit I give you:

    Mazepa’s Ukraine: Understanding Cossack Territorial Vistas

    Zenon E. Kohut

    Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1/4, POLTAVA 1709: THE BATTLE AND THE MYTH (2009-2010), pp. 1-28 (28 pages)



    For the second – look at any of the laughable PR posts online about how wonderful Cossacks were on Ukrainian nationalist sites – eg

    D. Yurchyshyn, Student V. Ukhach, PhD in Law, Prof., research advisor N. Rybina, PhD in Phil., As. Prof., language advisor West Ukrainian National University CRIMES AGAINST MORALITY UNDER COSSACK CUSTOMARY LAW


    Lots and lots of sites say they were prohibited from drinking during war – but then mention how they brought ‘medicinal vodka’ with them and how ‘drunkeness’ was ‘frowned’ on.

    These fantasies tend to be about late seventeenth and eighteenth century ‘free democratic’ Zaporozhians but the myths continue after the dissolution of the Sich and creation of the Don Cossacks.

    Wherever they were and however keen nationalist narratives are to paint them as selfless heroes one of the main rights they strove to maintain was the right to produce alcohol:

    The Ambiguities of Cossackdom: The Case of the Pontic Steppe 1775-1830s. Andriy Posun’ko. PhD Dissertation Central European University. Supervisor Alfred Joseph Rieber, Budapest Hungary. 2018 p.59

    If you’re making lots of laws to prohibit alcohol consumption during war while fighting to maintain the right to produce it, I reckon you have a serious alcohol problem going on.

    [Caveat – did I mention I’m not a fan of Cossacks?)

    Avatar photoOotKust

    [Caveat – did I mention I’m not a fan of Cossacks?)

    Thank you gents, that errs in a direction of validity for the topic.
    I accept you don’t have to like them, but their ‘isolated’ and marauding activities are self explanatory in several periods, so I seek to make some slight adjustments to add ‘their variety’ to otherwise stolid games…


    Avatar photoSkip

    Let the Thunder of Victory Rumble

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.