Spoiling your fun with Russians (v2)

[Heroy]

Lieven book :
It is really super. A “must read” if there is ever such a thing.
Dr. Lieven had at least one ancestor at Austerlitz : General-Major & General-Adjudant Graf Liven Christphor Andreyevich (Count Christoph Heinrich von Lieven,1774-1839), an aide-de-camp to the Emperor and awarded the Saint George III for the campaign.

https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_doc/46847/pub_5b3c5ac15209d500a962fd05_5b3c5bb308695100a8a06980/scale_2400

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NW4tmpUi9i0/Wv0EsinoQkI/AAAAAAAAhrk/__0I01bp2KgVS61SF6zte-HVG8UPdV4vwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%2B%25D1%2585%25D1%2580%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D1%2584%25D0%25BE%25D1%2580%2B%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D1%2580%25D0%25B5%25D0%25B5%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B8%25D1%2587.jpg

[Heroy]

Lieven book :
It is really super. A “must read” if there is ever such a thing.
Dr. Lieven had at least one ancestor at Austerlitz : General-Major & General-Adjudant Graf Liven Christphor Andreyevich (Count Christoph Heinrich von Lieven,1774-1839), an aide-de-camp to the Emperor and awarded the Saint George III for the campaign.

https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_doc/46847/pub_5b3c5ac15209d500a962fd05_5b3c5bb308695100a8a06980/scale_2400

[OotKust]

  🤝 

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

On this topic- linking https://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/dominic-lieven-napoelonic-lecture/ for the yootoob ‘lectures’…
Most elucidating, satisfies my period ‘social’ needs if not military ones directly_,

-d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

OotKust wrote:

I shall come back to the Russian strengths. I checked through ..

[ Edits Dec23] Some months down the track …
I [still] haven’t made a complete analysis, but I see enough different ‘states’ and numbers to be thoroughly confused by what I may represent.

And I’ve already purchased models on my original premise…
– d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Another sidebar- wanting to confirm some Russian uniform details, I cached this illustration in 2020- no info on where it is from, so can anyone identify the publication for me please?

The clear illustrations and the nice mix of units displayed, plus a good explanation of before/ after uniforms and variants makes me more confident to portray the small amount of Russian 28mms.

The colouration alone of basic greatcoats is what I’m following for a start… on my new Eureka models. Simply superb animations…
thanks -d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Notwithstanding the above, I’m wondering, as I have been forced to hastily consider a new order for Russian musketeers and fusiliers- did the 1800 change to uniforms by Paul I prior to his assassination, gain any impetus and garner a repeat of the infantry coat, with facing coloured lapels?

I’m not particularly convinced that they would survive till 1805, but certainly some perhaps were made and issued (they would not be made and not issued). Given that it appears mitres indeed survived in more than one regiment of Grenadiers, likewise surely some coats with lapels did also?

Neither Osprey, Nafziger et al give an end date to such, but repeat the oft-cited VISKOVATOV regulations. And there are only a few ‘period’ illustrations of 1800 that confirm their use.

Ditto Conrads, precise translations, the “30 April 1802— Confirmation is given to the new table of uniforms” is silent on lapels, neither confirming removal nor continuance. They just got ghosted! (https://marksrussianmilitaryhistory.info/V10BAll.htm)

It wouldn’t be until 1818 that lapels appeared officially again on an infantry uniform according to this script.

I will consider adding such to my regimental officers and specialist NCOs and musicians perhaps. As the number of likely candidates is small, as cited by the text above, I may avail myself of this distinction.

And given the long period of 1- academic reorganisation till July 1805, and 2- peace, I’m sure the ‘wear-by’ date may have extended beyond the norm (four years I think it was).

What do the cogniscenti think???
-d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

I am as positive as can get only the Guard at Borodino was up to full strength, and seems afterwards units got some new levies but the winter whittled them right down again. By spring many Regiments were down to 1 battalion.

Not all my units have exactly the same figures

[Guy Farrish]

Re your illustration Dave, Pretty sure it is from Military Illustrated Magazine No.16 1988, ‘Russian Infantry at Austerlitz’.

There is a copy available  from Paul Meekins for £4, although what postage to NZ is I hate to think!

[Edit: The page you have (+ a bit more) is at Fanteria Russa]

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

Not all my units have exactly the same figures

Indeed Skip, attrition was a greater loss than battle or disease in much of the period. That these issues are often overlooked, as unnecessary complications, is a whimsy of the gaming world.
Our own usage often saw reductions in strengths, or a ‘fatigue’ facet introduced to some or other troops.

I am going to, for the moment, NOT retain my ‘combined battalions’ stance but I have enough figures to flesh out two full battalions in both normal uniform and greatcoats as differentation within the regiment.

Guy Farrish wrote:

Magazine No.16 1988, ‘Russian Infantry at Austerlitz’.

Indeed and thank you. Now that I see by whom written, the source but for the excellent Gerry Embleton illustrations, I am less convinced of any variation of uniform amongst them.

However as a painting guide I am star-struck. His work wherever published (I’m thinking of the Almark series that I recently sold) were pieces of hobby excellence.

I won’t go for the mags anyway but thanks for highlighting. PM has been very rewarding in the past but I currently have nothing in sight.
-d

 

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

OotKust wrote:

Heroy wrote: (“For distinction at Shöngraben on 4 November 1805 in the battle of the corps of 5 t[housand] with an enemy consisting of 30 t[housand]”), I’d be interested to know what occurred there.

Ok, so it seems, according to the thorough description given by author Alexander Mikaberidze in his 2003 “The Lion of the Russian Army”: Life and Military Career of General Prince Peter Bagration 1765-1812**;-

“Emperor Francis awarded Prince Peter the Commander Cross of the Order of Maria Theresa, the first of this kind to be given to a Russian officer. Emperor Alexander was particularly delighted by the news of action at Schöngrabern. He awarded the Pavlograd Hussars and Chernigov Dragoons with St. George standards, while Kiev Grenadiers, Sysoev III’s and Khanzhekov I’s Cossack regiments received St. George colors. The 6th Jagers was first regiment in the Russian army to be awarded the silver trumpets of St. George. [160]

In addition, Kutuzov asked Alexander to send 300 Orders of St. Anna to decorate the rank-and-file distinguished at Schöngrabern. He praised Bagration’s leadership in this battle, called him “my best assistant” and recommended him for promotion to lieutenant general and award of Order of St. George (2nd class). [161]

On 20 November, Kutuzov congratulated Bagration with both promotion and award. [162]

This was an exceptional award, since it was the first order of this class awarded after Catherine the Great’s death. “

So whilst Bagration efforts were indeed exceptional and wholly motivating, it appears the blanket ‘awards’ offered by Alexander weren’t exactly precise- nothing given about the work of the cossack regiments present at all in this brief but precise analysis.

It would appear to me, that like medals and ‘promotions’ to a large degree, sometimes honours were based on ‘presence’ or proximity and very little else.

So I’m a little less awed by their ‘status’; there were only 2 men killed and 4 wounded in their ‘combat’- which for all intents may just have been long range fire or falling off horses in the dead of a blitzkreig night (ie the town was burned down…).

The greater euphoria of Bagration having saved Kutuzovs Army bacon (as was his expertise in defensive work) and the capture of one Eagle [ 40eme de ligne ] seems to have been the impetus to offer ‘congratulatory awards’ in haste.

This which I hadn’t noticed before, makes N’s so dismissive remarks to/ about the Major Biggaré and the 1/4eme de Ligne at Austerlitz all the more spiteful than rigorous.

regards
davew

---

** Found at- Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

[ Edits Dec23]

On the subject of strengths at Austerlitz, of the Apcheron and Novgorod Musketeer regiments.

It appears, upon re-reading Goetz et al, that I’d simply misunderstood an OB reference that gave two battalions and I’d mentally blocked them, and acted accordingly, that they had been ‘combined’ due to low strengths.

As mon frere Heroy has ably pointed out with his assistance and data, while suffering campaign losses of nearly 50% overall within the regiments, no amalgamations had been made.

That and the re-reading identified that these battalions were separated by a half kilometre or more in action, something I’d not realised before, and thus open to greater numbers of francais advancing  upon them.

So over the interim months due to actions of another gamer I have acquired more Eureka models (as I’d already made ‘spares’ for variation amongst them anyway) and thus will field separate battalions one day.

All the best, dave

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

Alexander Mikaberidze’s Liberation of Germany 1813 a continuing account of a Russian Artillery officer is available. I have it on ebook but haven’t started it yet.

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

Alexander Mikaberidze’s Liberation of Germany 1813

Thanks, it’s a period I have some interest with, having driven parts of it when I was in Europe, but mainly the 1814 campaign in France for obvious reasons. But I prefer my research to remain with the early periods- Suvorov through 1807…

And the legacy Hinchliffe (Allies 25/28mm) I possess have driven this to some extent as the later period being most popular among gamers.

But please do let us know about some of the content though!

I have been pushing my bookseller to obtain some Alexander Mikaberidze books for me, but am delighted to find his dissertation online-

2003 Alexander Mikaberidze

“The Lion of the Russian Army”: Life and Military Career of General Prince Peter Bagration 1765-1812.

Both this and his recent (2022) book on Kutusov I expect will fill a void sadly lacking in balanced material in English.

Available from this page and no need to sign in to obtain the pdF (but rename the file yourself- why smart people/organisations  do dumb things is beyond my comprehension!):

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=TPumLoIAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&citation_for_view=TPumLoIAAAAJ:O3NaXMp0MMsC

cheers dave

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Heroy wrote:

Other than the 4 instances of cancelled Saint-George flags and additional shaming meted out to Novgorod Musketeers, I don’t really see any particular ill treatment of the Russian infantry units that fought at Austerlitz ….

Well, it has been a while, and I admit I lost track of my discussions and sources over this time.

I found in ‘Alexander Mikaberidze, “Russian prisoners of war after the battle of Austerlitz”, Napoléonica. La Revue, n° 21, June 2015. ‘ the following- Page 16:

However, some returning prisoners faced grim prospects.
On 28 March 1806, Emperor Alexander issued a decree deploring actions of some regiments and determining specific punishments for them.
The imperial decree noted that some officers and rank-and-file “left the battle field without orders but were later found healthy [with the army].” [ 13 ]

The Novogorod Musketeer Regiment was singled out in the decree and accused of “fleeing in the face of the enemy and so spreading confusion in the rest of the army.”
Its officers were ordered to wear their swords without sword knots [temliak] while lower ranks were banned from wearing hangers [tesak]. The decree prohibited promotion of the officers listed in its annex, added five years of service for the rank-and-file and forbade them from receiving or wearing the Order of St. Anna.
– –

The proscription list contained 90 troops in the following regiments:

‒  Podolsk Musketeer Regiment – 3 sub-ensigns, 4 soldiers
‒  Pskov Musketeer Regiment – 1 musician, 3 drummers, 2 flutists and 37 soldiers
‒  New Ingermanland Musketeer Regiment – 6 soldiers
‒  Malorossiiskii [ie Little Russia ] Grenadier Regiment – 1 sub-ensign, 4 NCOs and 29 soldiers.

[ 13 ] Imperial Decree, 28 March 1806, RGVIA, op. 46, f. 946, d. 3117-1, l.81.

Some things to cover on Novgorod Musketeer Regiment.

“accused of “fleeing in the face of the enemy and so spreading confusion in the rest of the army.”

An exageration really- yes they broke, after standing for a firefight of which they got the worst end. ‘They’ were the detached 2nd and 3rd Musketeer battalions- separated it appears by about half a kilometre at least.

Far from being a cohesive formation, the ‘avant-garde’ of the 4th Column seemed to be immediately split apart with differing objectives very quickly. Approximate strengths each are about 400 men all up (as is cited above by Heroy).

The 3rd battalion hustled immediately forward- that is Westward, through Pratze village and across the road bridge that crossed the rivulet below it. They deployed into the escarpment and basically hid from the advancing St.Hilaires French Division.

At short range they stood and delivered a volley, immediately disconcerting the 1/ 14eme de ligne who broke at this surprise and ran, again past their generals, to the rear and safety.

The balance of the Brigade (GBD Thiébault) advanced to the attack with bayonets (probably still in their manoeuvre colonnes des divisions. All three cannot have contacted the Russians simultaneously.

Thus this battalion was attacked by between 4 and 6x its own strength. No wonder it broke. I am just confused as to how they could have escaped so easily in what was a minor piece of difficult terrain.

Whilst that was happening the 2nd Novgorod battalion had been despatched Southward from the Krenowitz-Pratze road along which they had advanced westerly.

Their objective was to reach and hold the 325m elevation  height known as the Pratzeberg- about 100m above the surrounding plain. This was undertaken as, according to the Russian accounts/ reports, French were seen rushing toward the height from below Pratze village.

These latter were the 2e bon/10eme Legere, who had been tasked with the same objective.

The 10eme Legere, another isolated unit, had the battalions in line in inverse order- the 1er Bon on the left. The 2eme Bon reached it first while according to Goetz maps, the 1er stood downhill adjacent to the plain and forming a contiguous line with Pratze and the 36eme de ligne on their left,  both had some minutes to reform and regain their composure.

When the Novgorod approached the 10e also held their fire and dealt a deadly blow on them.

It seems at least a few volleys were fired by both sides, before it was observed that their 3rd Battalion comrades were routing or at least rushing out of Pratze moving Eastward again. This was just after 0900.

According to Goetz Alexander had “established his HQ on Stare Vinhorady” by about 0830 and was observing the valley full of fog and distant enemy troops parading.

At some time, before 0900, he must have ridden the 2+ kilometres along the North-South route of the plateau to reach the Pratze roadway, where the ‘centre’ of the Armies and Commanding General Kutuzov, along with FML Miloradovic were holding ground and observing events.

This position was perhaps another 1km North from Pratzeberg to the South, so while open country, observation wasn’t that clear. It was, to be fair, in the open air above the fog line and the sun was breaking through the cloudy sky by now.

Thus, given his ‘horror’ Alexander suffered at seeing the 3/Novgorod break out of Pratze first, then the 2/Novgorod apparently making a brisk retirement from the Pratzeberg toward them as well.

And the records show that himself, all the Generals present and what Adjutants were available could not stop or persuade the ‘routing’ troops!

What of the other battalion of the avant-garde? The 1/Grenadier Battalion of the Apcheron Musketeer Regiment. They had been posted in the rear of Pratze village in line as a reserve, as the 3/Novgorod went forwards to the West to encounter the French.

Goetz again makes a comment that they were ordered forward to ‘rescue’ the 3/Novgorod. Did this mean completely across the bridge, requiring them to form column of route to do so? So it seems not.

When the 3/Novgorod broke they disordered the Apcheron Grenadiers line somewhat, but it reformed and apparently put up some resistance as St.Hilaires Division did not immediately attack them. In fact they did not leave (retire) until another French unit rounded the village outskirts from the North and was approaching obliquely their right flank.

At least that is what I infer from the commentary, which doesn’t detail much about this. A later comment that “the three battalions of the avant-garde routed” isn’t clear, as the timing doesn’t appear simultaneous in the actions that caused this.

Nevertheless to give the regiment credit the Novgorod Musketeers had been present the entire two months of campaigning with Kutuzov; they lost no flags/ banners at all and had casualties of about 100 men overall at Austerlitz battle. These numbers are rather meek, compared to other regiments of Russians who lost in killed and captured nearly 30% of their manpower.

Their condition must have been brittle beforehand- their regimental strength low and a number of officers missing all having an effect. The effective separation of the brigade at the critical moment of contact with the enemy did not help their situation.

Geotz comments that this must have been Lt.Colonel Monaktins decision, as Miloradovics force was “too far to the rear” (the Division still marching uphill from Krenowitz).

So was the Imperial censure deserved? In my opinion it wasn’t. But we’re allowed to draw our own conclusions.
I look forward to completing the modelling [of these Russians] for this most important theatre of the battle!
regards dave

[ Edits for spelling and clarifications- Mar24 ]

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

My attempt at a jaeger unit (III/5th)- scandalously I had failed to take WIP pics before now; shows you how haphazard my painting has become…

Just a mock-up pose to check basing and deployment of the mostly Eureka 1799’s…
-d

 

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

As a matter of update on research and reading, I have just completed a long drawn out read of Dominic Lievens book (the online version) : Russia Against Napoleon: The True Story of the Campaigns of War and Peace

and in deference to keeping the information solid, here I found JG’s missive on another:

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

Piqued by yet another outbreak of the “French victory of Berezina” nonsense on … I decided it was time to take Mikaberidze’s The Battle of the Berezina off the shelf and under the reading lamp.

Following my crawl through Lievens work, greatly appreciating his excellence, wisdom and prosaic continuity, not to mention clarity of descriptions and depth– super deep research at the highest level of Russian records bringing to light unseen gems of the greatest importance IMHO.

He only slipped a few times into melancholy ‘isms’ of hacknied wordsmanship, but I forgive him those slips. His enthusiasm for his own ancestors works I cannot blame him for. He seems to have given a good account of them (I think I read several names/ intials, but I didn’t make notes)!

Of all my reading, from books bought and borrowed, lifted from France and other places, I think I have not read such an immersive and thoroughly entertaining explanation of why and how one man, Alexander, could both motivate, cajole and control such a vast empire and coerce other leaders to follow his mindset.

Not without missteps of course, but the passage of places and time is impressive.

I still and always will consider 1805-07 my primary modelling interest, however even with that a ‘donated’ Allied army for 1813/14 has been in my hands for the same period, the Hinchlifee of the 70s, and I am still continuing in less authorative style, to bring that to life as well. Lieven has kindly gifted me confrmation of what I had chosen, but somehow lost track of as OOB that many years ago.
regards, davew

---

Addenda:
Probably an extension more useful than any other portion are the catalogue of English language books he’s used or supplemented his knowledge with:

https://erenow.org/ww/russia-against-napoleon-the-true-story-of-the-campaigns/22.php

‘Additional Reading in English’ .

Enjoy the book!

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Just adding the update as having based the majority of the III/ 5th Jaeger for 1805, using the bicorne wearing Eureka 1799 range; a couple of left over hat wearing Foundry figures in, but may be removed…

Conceptual planning, such a chore!
d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

I would leave them as is. Have a few 1807 Jager units in my basically 1812 army, did them years ago before decided to finish in 1812.

Have a couple later units as well.

Absolutely fantastic job on those jagers

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

I would leave them as is.

Thanks Skip- yes I spent a lot of time researching as you maybe can tell from my previous dialogs on here and buying a number of precious volumes that aided my knowledge.

I’ve adopted the approach that for what I model as ALL NATIONS, didn’t implement changes immediately except in a few rare instances. Whether by decree or Government costs, none were bursting with revenue.

None threw out clothing and equipment and thus the ‘wear out/ use by’ dates are much longer than ANY artists or commentating authors have generally suggested.

The reason for ditching the shako wearing pair is that with a mounted officer I count him as two figures. And with that, I have enough in bicornes.

The critical point, creation of several small units I said I never would, being the LG Jaeger Battalion, all there was in 1805, a unit with rifles no less!- who put up a reasonable resistance at the village of Blasowitz, supported by a re-jigged half battery of LG Artillery (Light) who also provided them with covering fire, dissuading the nonchalant Francaise of Lannes/ Caffarelli from walking over and taking the place. It took 5 infantry battalions not to mention the rather large force of three-quarters of a Dragoon Division outflanking the village to persuade the remnants to retire. All in all a very effective small action IMHO and putting on my Russian hat, I felt I could ‘expand’ my defence with them!

There was also a portion of one battalion of the ‘LG Semenovsky Regiment’ sent toward the end of the Jaegers resistance to support their retirement. Yes they reformed and fought again after the Guards cavalry actions!

regards -d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Just to throw the devil in to a ‘not painting’ period I have a little question some observers may be able to help with.

You can count on one hand the amount of painted elements I’ve purchased across Napoleonics and several decades of them. Here’s one that looked attractive as I bought a nicely painted Kutuzov for 1805 [not shown but is elsewhere] and two ADC-types, I presume.

Not knowing the figure manfrs or even the specifics of the Russian uniforms, I can’t quite pinpoint their accuracy. The chap on the right, all I can get from him is he’s sortof a cuirassier uniform- the pale blue indicating non-Garde HIM Cuirassier Regiment (of course they didn’t actually wear the cuirass at this time anyway). And the plumage- white over a pale green lower layer?

Secondly the man on left with telescope in another pale, almost sky-blue shaded ensemble, unusually both main garments the same colour with a scarlet/ red facing.

A totally white plume, but the chapeau ribbon is just white whereas I’d at least expect silver braid, and will change that. He has gold edged red shoulder strap, so that at least is correct at some level. I suspect both schabraques as ‘red’ and the cuirassier has unusual yellow and black sash, not so well defined or painted, which you could be forgiven as being Austrian?

Overall the horses were nicely done, though I had to remove the cast base and hooves of the cuirassier as it was just a ridiculously tall model next to everything else.

Why am I bothering now? Well that game in exactly a weeks time, I’ve not so many commanders on the block, so thought I’d better at least motivate these ones in that direction.

Suggestions anyone-
thanks -d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

The white coat officer by rights would fit as a His Majesty Cuirassier, but would use him wherever needed Guards have lots of super numeracy officers who could in a pinch go anywhere.  The Borodino OOB has lots of officers not where they should be.

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

The white coat officer by rights would fit as a His Majesty Cuirassier, but would use him wherever needed Guards have lots of supernumerary officers…

I don’t disagree Skip, yet that and other regiments [ Her Majesty’s Life Cuirassiers_] weren’t part of the LeibGard of Alexander.
[ Лейб-гвардия Leyb-gvardiya, from German Leib “body”; cf. Life Guards / Bodyguard)].

I used Summerfields edit version of ‘L’Armee Russe sous Alexandre…’ to confirm the uniforms.

I also reject the unfortunate Anglo-Francophone construct of calling them the [Russian] Imperial Guard. Whilst the person was so designated, the corps were not, by the Russians.

However, no matter the uniform, the role portrayed as an ADC or Headquarters officer, no doubt he can be assumed to have visited Kutuzov.

Other regiments, associated by brigading, but not part of the LG, would not join his august body until 1813, among them:

Constantines Uhlans (only light horse at Austerlitz)
Chevalier *‘Garde’
Horse *‘Garde’
Pavolovski Grenadiers etc.

The *‘Garde’ referenced above were [superficially] historical designations a century old, not related to Alexanders dynasty or his direct ancestors. Thus, history and N. erred when declaring ‘his Gardes’ had defeated Alexanders. Technically, they were not.

Perhaps ironic then that true Cossacks were admitted, and the special unit Black Sea Sotnia also were incredibly close security for Alexander. More so than actual ‘Russian’ Guards!
-d

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Imperial_Guard

**BTW- in trying to validate some data, I find that Mark Conrads translation of all matters Russian isn’t available directly. A page link does, but not the site??

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

On ‘Why’ at Austerlitz?

Not new perhaps, as I’ve read such in English volumes before. Not sure of their dates, but in reading Mikaberidzes ‘Kutuzov’ thesis* I find he quotes the same verbatim, without further explanation or controversy.

“The Allied headquarters, meanwhile, was divided over the strategy. General Kutusov and several of his senior officers, including Bagration, Miloradovich and Alexander Langeron, emphasized the importance of not engaging Napoleon and withdrawing towards Galicia. They argued that it was in Napoleon’s interests to engage the Allies as soon as possible. Instead of giving a battle, they proposed a delay until the reinforcements arrived from Italy and Prussia. Kutuzuv stated, “ only when we will be able to join [Levin] Bennigsen and the Prussians. [Meantime], the further we entice Napoleon, the weaker he will become and the greater will be the distance that separates him from his reserves. [Once this is achieved], I will bury the French bones in the heart of Galicia.”6

Now the latter quote sounds a bit grandiose and probably, if stated, was an afterthought or post-mortem treatise on his humour.

He follows with-

“ However, Alexander and Francis disregarded these arguments. According to Russian military regulations, the tsar assumed the command of the army while he stayed with the troops. Although Alexander officially kept Kutuzov in charge of the army, his presence limited this general’s actions. General Langeron recalled that Alexander’s entourage ignored and ridiculed commander-in-chief; when Kutuzov inquired about the plans, he was bluntly told, “That’s none of your business.”7 The situation was further complicated by Kutuzov’s “timorous character and courtier-like habits”8 as he tended to comply with the emperor’s wishes, even if they were wrong.
Finally, Alexander was surrounded by a group of young and arrogant noblemen, led by Prince Peter Dolgoruky, who urged him to lead the army against Napoleon notwithstanding the circumstances. These princes persuaded the emperor that he had the qualities for military command and his presence in the army would change the battle outcome.”

Well you don’t mess with the head of the syndicate do you? As Kutuzov will have witnessed under Paul I as well.

It was Alexander himself who provided the ultimate chiding remark about Kutuzov, but upon himself as well-

“Alexander later observed, “I was young and inexperienced; Kutuzov told me that we had to act differently, but he should have been more persistent in his arguments.” Shilder, Alexander, II, 134.

So there we have it, all the compulsion required at the time and place (Olmütz) to ‘go get ‘em’ without any further debate.

regards- d

*The Lion of the Russian Army: Life and Military Career of General Prince Peter Bagration 1765-1812.
2003 FSU.

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Another snippet I spotted today from Conrads

‘VISKOVATOV
Compiled by Highest direction
Saint Petersburg, Military Typography Office, 1851

[TRANSLATED BY MARK CONRAD, 1993]
VOLUME 10b
Grenadiers, Musketeers, Jägers, Marines, and Carabiniers 1801-1825′

All the way down to –
8 April 1809— There was issued the following order regarding the shoulder slings on muskets:

1.) The lower bracket on the stock, for the sling,…
2.) The button on the sling…
3.) A buckle with prong …
4.) The upper side, i.e. the side colored red, of the sling is to be lacquered so that it does not stain the pouch crossbelt (702).

I’d always thought that belts would be stained completely and dyed all over, but this clarification tells us they were NOT!

So on models, the inner sling would be natural leather colour, the outer (now downward side) would be the red/ madder colour.

Just a nitpick I guess, but larger figure modellers may need to take more care!
cheers d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

In an hysterical moment of I must paint something… last nite I roughed out the uniform for a unit I promised myself i’d never do… a Russian 1805 LeibGarde unit.

[IMG_7377fam_ Russian LeibGarde Jaeger_sample by DaveW, on Flickr

He was previously painted for the 5th Jaegers- from WF I trimmed his shako peaks down, added facing colours and lace etc.

Needs more work of course… pompom, rifle strap (others were red, LG had black); ditto sack was earlier linen cloth, LG however, like all its new uniforms, was black.

And clearly just using glasses aint a solution… photos are soo demoralising… still 20 minutes work…I think a unit of them will look mighty fine!
-d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Anyone spotted this?
Summerfields edit version of ‘L’Armee Russe sous Alexandre… 1805-15,

Page 58 purports to be about Cuirassiers– however it is both in the middle of the Dragoons text section , and all illustrations are in green, so  I presume that no-one will object to declaring it mislabelled?

Also, despite the key year of 1808, the reference to the Kiev Cuirassier, being the addition of award  ‘For Distinction’  “Za otlichie” -For Excellence” plate on the helmet, according to the text was in 1814. Edit- see below>>
regards -d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

Only in Kiev comes up Dragoons by 1812 and is dropped from the Cuirassiers well before then. Kiev as Cuirassiers should have yellow facings, well maybe never sure about anything

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

Only in Kiev comes up Dragoons by 1812 and is dropped from the Cuirassiers well before then. Kiev as Cuirassiers should have yellow facings, well maybe never sure about anything

Confused of ? Skip!!

Yeah I think we’ve both barked up the wrong tree- my quick flick research was too light it seems.

According the the almost ultimate source- Mark Conrads superb translations:-

30 August 1814— The Kiev Dragoon Regiment is ordered to have, on the helmet plate above the eagle, a brass shield with the inscription: “Za otlichie” [“For Excellence”], following the pattern for similar badges in the Army infantry (Illus. 1454) (112).

So, I find now that there was never a Kiev Cuirassier regiment after 1800? anyway.  Although listed under Catherine/ Paul there was, with yellow facings, later for any Kiev regiment, they were ‘Raspberry or Light Crimson’ as Gingerich cites them) facings– based on the Inspection/ Division classifications (see also Gingerich details- offline however).

So I’d go with a badly mistaken ‘Cuirassiers’ label and revert to Dragoons- as all the rest of the illustrations and data stack up neatly, I think (I got it right this time?).

Cheers for the input anyway- it made me do better research on a Sunday!
~dave

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

A cross referencing update as I lost this thread…

OotKust wrote:

Well,… I knew nothing about this thread! Tripped across musing about some 1799 unit… Have ordered both the ‘Flags’ and ‘Infantry’ books from Caliver, after seeing the examples given. May as well spend my pension on something more interesting… 🙂 Thanks for all your efforts and dedication Mr. Prince! regards davew

MY UPDATE is:-

Despite contact with publisher I did not receive the books after order and due payment, plus added ‘postage’ costs…

Well that was, until 4 months AFTER the attempted charge and despatch date. Seems the penguins got lost on their return journey to the South Pole.

However, having overcome my extreme disappointment in the interim, (noting no refund of post was offered even)!

Both books are amazing! The clean layout and structure of both the Infantry AND the Flags book are simply superb. Scholarly by scholars!

Clearly defined with quite a few sidebars for consideration, both authors explain the complexities and handicaps of their works. Given those warnings, one can better understand the notations made further along.

For the infantry we get the timelines before Alexander, since he took over a living organism, the Regiments by name and details of uniforms specifically. Not only notes on all regiments, but changes, swaps of Inspections or Divisions, penalties and punitive actions, as well as conversions to other types of infantry. All clearly based in single chapters and along timelines well understood. Also includes the basics and a few examples of ‘banners’.

Also clearly explained are the ‘proxy’ corps being established from 1810-1813 once a rupture with France was more than obvious (Alexander had spy’s in Napoleons government copying his orders!).

Thus the reorganisation of Garrison regiments into ‘line; redeployment of ‘depot’ companies and the ad-hoc situation of old regiments (Musketeer Regiment etc) and new (Infantry Regiment)- both using the same territorial designation.

Banners for all these are shown where possible.

For the flags/ banners again we get the timelines before Alexander- but importantly the entire 1797 issues under Paul I since he replaced every single item such was his hatred of his mothers efforts on the army!

The 3 types of primary issue- 1797, 1800/ 1803 and 1806/ 1813 are explained, additions and changes shown per regiment. Thus all incorporate up to 3 designated changes between 1801 and 1815 proper.

Annexes show the prior artwork under Catherine and compare in some instances the similarity with Crimean War artwork.

All in all I can now identify every standard I need to create for each regiment, for both 1805 AND 1813, and will perhaps do some 1799 versions as well for Suvorovs final campaign in Italy!

It appears the books still exist at the publishers, I just hope you don’t suffer the angst and inconvenience I had too…

regards
-dave

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

I try to scoop up any books on 1812 Russian Campaign,  maybe Bagration biology would be a good read next.

Working on Waterloo Casualties now.

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

I try to scoop up any books on 1812 Russian Campaign, maybe Bagration biography would be a good read next. Working on Waterloo Casualties now.

There fixed that for ya!
I admire your dedication, but I considered like 1815; 1812 is a singular construct of aberrant actions where practically both sides dont know anything about the presence of the other.

Literally like the flat plane board games that you enjoy- they wandered around in a space so vast, costing so many lives and for so little ‘decision’. Sure there were battles, but I don’t like the geo-politics that drove it from the start.

Yes I liked Mikaberidzes thesis on Bagration so no doubt allied material?
cheers dave

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

OotKust wrote:

So, I find now that there was never a Kiev Cuirassier regiment after 1800? anyway. Although listed under Catherine/ Paul there was, with yellow facings, later for any Kiev regiment, they were ‘Raspberry or Light Crimson’ as Gingerich cites them) facings– based on the Inspection/ Division classifications (see also Gingerich details- offline however).

Hi,

Continuing my sleuthing I found the definitive documents on the changes to formal designations of Russian forces. From _https://www.napoleon-series.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/A-Century-of-the-Russian-Minstry-of-War-Reform-during-the-period-1801-05-Part-2-5.pdf we get (selected texts):-

• 4. Disbandment of half of the Cuirassier Regiments.
  In the table in the preceding article, we notice that by October 1801, the number of cuirassier regiments had decreased from 13 to six, and the number of dragoon regiments had increased by seven, from 15 regiments to 22 regiments.
  Why did this increase in dragoons occur?
  An explanation of this issue is of particular interest to historians of Russian cavalry, and a quite definitive answer is given in one ‘memo’ and a ‘report’ by the Military Commission.
  The fact is that in order to supplement the original programme, the Commission dealt with various ‘memos,’ ‘arguments,’ and so on, related either to the 11 ‘main subjects’ of its activity, or in general regarding any other issue.
  Among such ‘memos,’ we highlight one dated 1 [13] July, 1801, Privy Councillor Troshchinsky forwarded the memo to the Military Commission by Supreme Command,15 “containing comments on arming the troops, maintaining and clothing them according to three fundamental principles, that is, use to the service, benefit to the troops and savings for the State Treasury.”[16]
  Of the ten articles that made up the note, the following articles should be taken into consideration:
•  1- “Although it is undeniable that cuirassier regiments are needed in the army; nevertheless, the calculation of their number and the type of armament should be consistent with the threat originating from neighbouring states; and while Russia in the past century has fought against  Turkey more than against its other neighbours, where infantry and lightly armed cavalry are more common; besides, their most difficult and costly maintenance must be mentioned, it would not be excessive to reduce the original 13 cuirassier regiments to five, while converting the remainder into dragoons, by which means the State Treasury could save 60,950 roubles, 8 kopeks annually.”
• 6. Regarding the ‘multiplication’ of horse artillery. [23] [-? Quite why this section ins headed like this, I do not understand…]
  “To what extent the sensible benefit that horse artillery brings in war has become known to the whole world from the ten-year war with the French, and therefore it seems it would not be excessive to multiply it in our army and form four battalions each of five companies, of which two battalions should be located on the Dniester, one in Volhynia and one in Lithuania.”Indeed, the Military Commission took note of the articles on cuirassiers and dragoons, and on 20 July [1 August], 1801, the report was granted Supreme approval,24 “in order to avert the excessive costs needed to maintain them to no particular advantage, 13 cuirassier regiments are to be reduced to just six, namely: the two Leib regiments, Military Order, Yekaterinoslav, Malorossia and Glukhov, regarding whose priority over the suitability of others in this arm of service, His Imperial Highness Sovereign Tsarevich Konstantin Palovich, as Inspector of the Cavalry, deigned to testify.”
  The remaining seven: Kazan, Riga, Starodub, Kiev, Chernigov, Tver and Kharkov were
  “amalgamated into the dragoons” (converted).25 Thus, in just ten days part of the ‘Memo’ had been realised; the rest of the ‘articles’ served as guidance.
• On 31 July [12 August] 1801, the following Statutes were granted Supreme approval:26
  1. For cuirassier regiments. etc…

So there we have definitive reason for dismantling the previous regiments, and redesignating from Cuirassier to Dragoons. Dated 1 [13] July, 1801,..

cheers d

 

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

As for real modelling, well I guess touching up isn’t really is it.
A few months off, then a ‘club’ game that saw a well stored ‘Allied Army’ brought out to play- because, you know, everyone else only has French in 20/25/28!

So apart from finding the broken off bits, scratches and some redressing of certain troops like moving my Prussian Fusiliers and Schutzen onto bases of ‘3’ figures- as per the standard I’ve set for all subsequent armies to differentiate from ‘line’ battalions).

So here’s a few oddballs that from the H2 (Hinchliffe #2) collection bought in February ’23 needed to be tidied up as well as setting the standard for the lead pile to aspire too (see above…)

1- 1812-14 Prussian Kürassier Regt Brandenberg.

IMG_7402_sm.

2- 1811-14 Russian Dragoons- Possibly Moscow Regiment.

IMG_7403_sm.

3- Sysoyev-1 Don Cossack Regiment.
As you can tell these were originally painted as HM Bodyguard Cossacks, a unit I have no desire to model myself.

IMG_7404_sm.

4- An Austrian general from another manfr- Wargames Foundry 28mm. He’s a delight and I’ve done a much brighter ensemble for him than most Austrian Generals to date. He certainly has charisma!
IMG_7407_sm
by DaveW on Flickr.

cheers
-d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

Why not the Guard Cossacks? If the cavalry wasn’t stripped out of the infantry corp before Borodino, the Guard Cossacks were the cavalry of the III Corp.

I usually set up battles using my Borodino OOB, sometimes I put the cavalry back into the infantry corp.

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

Why not the Guard Cossacks?

Simple really Skip- I’m not doing a ‘total’ Russian Army- merely elements of it from 1805 that were co-brigaded with or in support of my ‘main enemy’ – der KuK.

Thus Kienmayer (Avant-Garde) supported by Dokturov (1st Column); Kollowrath AND Miloradovic (Joint 4th Column- a Division each, nominally a ‘reserve’ but became centre-stage) in the centre/ Pratzen Plateau, and as  the necessary ‘heavies’ of Liechtenstein (5th Column and Army Grand Reserve).

Whilst this may appear illogical to some it works for me- and I see no less substance than all the hypothetical armies made on points, whims and players choice.

To do the Russian Bodyguard, you’d want and need to do several regiments- they were nicely Brigaded, and I have no desire too. Having decided [to break my rule] on the single exemplary example of the crack rifle unit the single Bodyguard Jäger battalion (Blasowitz) and its’ ‘supports’ is sufficient.

The small number of cossacks for my purpose are the two polk with Kienmayer and nowhere else. Those figures are slightly ‘upscale’ in the uniform and equipment than my other bases so I’ve toned down and changed the formal ‘orange’ attributes to a muted maroon shade.

I also had to repair the officer anyway, who because of the fragility of an otherwise superb flourishing sabre casting, always break off at the hilt (as do many other officers arms in ‘active’ roles across the range). So I filed out a notch into his hand, used some casting lead and a piece of twisted lead to give him a knout- which we understand was more likely to be seen in use by officers than sabres actually!

These pics were taken before part way through my recent changes. More to follow…

dave

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Skip]

I see, I made mine Borodino 1812 and while have a couple units not conforming, that’s what I made and play with it.

[OotKust]

Skip wrote:

I see, I made mine Borodino 1812 and while have a couple units not conforming, that’s what I made and play with it.

Yeah I broke out of the one-army mould a long time ago… not that you’d think so… but I have in French 1805 2/3rds of an infantry corps; a heavy cav division, a dragoon division, a light cav division and a reserve made from, we are told, the best troops in Europe… General Oudinots Reserve Grenadiers (one day will be 10 battalions) and a representative Garde Imperialé of 6 battalions (5 live…). Not to mention the ‘technical’ corps attached…

You need variety to make interesting gaming I found.
Doing the same with my ‘Allied’ opponents, just less so…  😉

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

So breaking out of the monotony of sameness, and breaking with a meme, I’ve changed mine to :

Rather taken with von Toll myself, as were some friends who saw him on the table for the first time, I thought to use his charisma for my little show…
cheers d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[OotKust]

Trawling the archives, because well, one day they’ll disappear…

A certain gentleman has been providing invaluable information for years, and this is no exception… So on with the parade- perhaps everyone here knows, but no-ones told the figure makers ! This is from 2014_

On ‘Coal Scuttle’ Shakoes.

The “different shako” (with the coal-scuttle shape for the crown) is a problem.
It has proven very hard (impossible?) to actually find an order or regulation changing the shako. Yet it does show up in contemporary drawings for 1813-1815. It is likely not right for 1812 or spring 1813, except for perhaps a few guards and staff officers.

A real order (with patterns for manufacture, purchasing records, etc. and backed up by contemporary images) shows that the new shako, virtually the same as the obr. 1808 (i.e., without coal-scuttle crown) was authorized after the return of the post-war occupation force from France.

Ever useful, Mr. Gingerich discusses the issue in some detail – see the above link. [NB- There is no valid link as Mr. Gingerich, as of 2023/24  time of posting this, yet to restore his invaluable site].
– Sasha [Original author/ researcher].

For gamers, this means using at a better bet, the likes of Perry 1809 uniformed figures and others with more ‘French’ style flat tops. Certainly some won’t look out of place in 1805-07 campaigns either!

cheers d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Author]

Posts