Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 299 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Well, that was odd #178409
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Hehe, perhaps I should check my mail more often, seems I did get a more detailed message:

    Your website has been suspended

    Hello jon.c.gingerich,

     

    We’ve noticed that your website kiver.000webhostapp.com has received an unusual amount of requests (visits) recently. To ensure our users get the best possible service we monitor server usage and websites with high traffic are being suspended.

     

    Currently, we only suspend websites that receive more than 15000 daily visits and 150 unique daily visits. Unfortunately, your website has been suspended as it received 273 requests of which 152 were unique.

     

    If you want to continue using your website send us an email to [email protected] and our team will gladly help you get back online!

     

    Alternatively, if you don’t want to worry about your website’s resource usage – upgrade to premium! Feel free to take a look at our paid plans on Hostinger and continue working on your great website!

    All paid plans include:

     

    Unlimited Website Traffic and Bandwidth
    99.9% Uptime Guarantee
    Automatic Backups
    Personal Email Account
    Exceptional Customer SupportI had
    Increased Disk Storage Space

    CHECK PAID PLANS

    If I understand this correctly, webhost is letting a visit average 100 gets, but only allowing 150 visits. Don’t know that much about web traffic, but it seems a bit restrictive. Looks like I need to find a real host service now.

    in reply to: Well, that was odd #178408
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Yeah, just saw this for myself. Claims a “third party” abuse report(!?!? like they aren’t in bed with it) says too many daily requests. Which if I understand it, is not something I can control and not likely due to hobbyist interest.

    They’ve been pretty good to me over the years, but this gentlemanly shake-down is not winning any friends. If I do elect to subscribe to a hosting service, I don’t think I’ll go for Cypriot servers. See if I can get it sorted. Otherwise, as I understand it, there is always the web archive.

    in reply to: Cavalier-gardes standards at Austerlitz #177679
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Been looking at the Vexillographia info about the L-g. Cossack. It is intriguing.

    Viskovatov says the white guidon had gold fringe and radiance and a crimson cross, while the 2d sqd. had crimson with silver and a white cross. The 3d sqd. received a “similar” standard. He cites the Chronical which simply says one white and one crimson with silver radiances and crimson crosses.

    The white standard was presumably lost in Finland.

    Agafanov claims the 3d sqd. had gold fringe and radiance with a crimson cross, but cites Nikolayev who actually just repeats what Viskovatov said.

    Finally, Vexillographia has a photo, apparently from the Hermitage Museum, that matches the Chronical’s colored flag description (with silver fringe).

    Charging a white cross on silver is a bit of the heraldic faux pas, and no other regiment had different colored flags.

    Putting it all together, I think the Chronical is right – silver metallics, crimson crosses, and white or crimson fields, with the same design for the 2d and 3d sqds.

    Viskovatov made mistakes, but was careful, so his “similar” hints he might have some doubts. And presumably nobody saw the white standard after the Finnish peasants seized it. The Chronical matches the presumed colored relic. Have to go with the earliest data…

    in reply to: Other Russian Matters #177677
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Other Russian Matters #177676
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Cavalier-gardes standards at Austerlitz #177519
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Let me correct the dimensions given by Gabayev. He said the staff of a cavalry standard was 3 a. 10 v. with the spearhead, which was 5 1/2 v. He also said 12 v. above the ferrule was a 4 v. narrowing of the shaft – i.e. a 7 inch hand grip area 21 inches from the bottom of the pole.

    ***

    The Cavalier-gardes had been a palace bodyguard for nearly a century. Paul dissolved them, reraised them, increased them to a 3 squadron regiment and then Alexander made them a full 5 squadron field regiment. Somehow, they were the most senior regiment of all, despite having been founded a few years after the Leib-garde Horse. The Horse was Constantine’s regiment and there was a rivalry between the two cuirassier regiments.

    ***

    The L-g. Cossacks had swallow-tail guidons, best info is here:

    http://www.vexillographia.ru/russia/rarmk001.htm

    in reply to: On Canister! #177346
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Tony that’s a fantastic video! Was there a paper written up on the results?

    in reply to: On Canister! #177345
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    This came up at the time Dawson and Kiley had both published. It was own-goal. Apparently, Dawson confused some contemporary analysis of the use of lead balls in canister. The heat of the propulsion would fuse the balls together into masses. That is why everyone ended up using iron balls in cannister. At least that’s how I remember the situation.

    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    They don’t seem to be offering the German High Seas Fleet destroyers as prints. Too bad as they filled a couple missing slots.

    in reply to: Spoiling your fun with Russians (v2) #176431
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Crap! looks like I made a mistake in overlooking the hat of the L-g Jaeger battalion. It was the brimmed “top hat” model and appears to have remained so in the early era.

    [Ok – my notes are a little disorganized. I looked again. Viskovatov says the top hat was replaced by the shako in 1804. LPK say the 1804 order specified the heavy L-g. foot regts. and there is no indication when they were replaced for the L-g. Jaeger although by the 1806 expansion into a 2 (and soon 3) batt. regiment. they probably were. So I guess it can be justified either way for Austerlitz.]

    in reply to: Spoiling your fun with Russians (v2) #176430
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Looking over my page at the info on adjutants, I think I left 0ut a footnote. LPK states that the aiguillette was not suppressed in 1807, and theb in early 1812 was it removed from only the common uniform, contradicting Viskovatov.

    in reply to: Spoiling your fun with Russians (v2) #176384
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    What I know about that is due to my OB work. Particularly Borodino thanks to Vasilyev and Yeliseyev. There were lots of ADCs and Orderlies attached to the Hq’s. I think that, like all armies, they were sometimes friend’s sons given some shelter from the front lines. Certainly, the L-g. was well represented, but I suspect a lot of the catty comments come from other ADC’s and Orderlies who thought of themselves as hard working and deserving (or from Tolstoy dealing with his own grudges in later years).

    in reply to: Well, that was odd #176315
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    HI guys, sorry been a bit preoccupied of late.

    Are you still having issues? May have to find someone other than Cypriots to host me…

     

    in reply to: Spoiling your fun with Russians (v2) #176314
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    I think a lot of this can be answered by my page, understanding that if something isn’t there it’s because there is no indication that it was.  BTW I try to concentrate on things not found in Viskovatov, particularly that now presented by Leonov, Belev, Popov, and Kibovsky. But to respond:

    • Did basic infantry regiments still wear bicornes in 1805? Was it all, or some? By the unit, or by ‘Inspections’?

    Never seen any documented claim that they did. Some of the new Caucasus regiments were supplied bicornes from the arsenal due to lack of shakos, but I would take that as indicating the bicornes all been turned in.

  • Given the issue of regulations, how long before units received new uniforms and equipment? Changed their ‘formations’ integrity to Imperial wishes?
  • Some changes were immediate (i.e. beginning of the year), some due on term. Sometimes centralized manufacture and sometimes local. Facings, for example, could probably be changed in a week by the regimental tailors, but the 1808 changes were delayed a year because the administration was trying to figure out seniority. Most of the major changes occurred between 1801-5 and 1808-11. So, while uniforms in the wars against Turkey, Austria, and Sweden must remain guesswork, the situation was much more static in the big campaigns.

  • When artillery are concerned, were they instantly reorganised with new troops and ordnance? Or did it take a while?
  • There is a misconception that Russian Artillery went through a major change in the period. Instead, it kept evolving, but was essentially the same stuff thing as under Paul. There are two reasons for this, I think. One is that Arakcheyev was a political animal and so constantly touted the shortcomings he was correcting, and two some people believe the Russian had to catch up to the superior French artillery (rather than that the French had to reform to the European 6lbr/12lbr standard).

  • Did the cavalry instantly change uniforms from Paul designs to Alexanders ahis accession? Those are quite some changes.
  • Well they had 3 1/2 years  (Jan. 02 to mid-05)to get it done. The 1812 reorg lagged quite a bit, as noted by LPK.

  • Did Generals, who habitually wore regimental uniforms, suddenly adopt the ‘new’ versions? Did this affect those who may have been ‘promoted’ generals but those who didn’t actually old a senior role?
  • There was already a green (white for cavalry) coat for officers “at large”. The common general’s coat was quite expensive, so they probably kept it in the wardrobe as much as they could. The plainer green undress coat was introduced in 1811 to address this problem. I believe they introduced the coat after encountering the French and having their generals occasionally unrecognized and so ill-treated.

  • Given the bicorne debate and questions, what of the ‘Grenadiers’ and their mitres? Versus shakos? There were the Grenadiers of musketeer regiments; then the Grenadiers of Grenadier regiments. And the ‘other battalions’ (the second and third) of ‘Fusiliers’ who by tradition had a smaller type of mitre. Same question as applied to musketeers and bicornes.
  • Perhaps the biggest unsettled Russian uniform question out there. Guess we have to build two sets of regiments. (Or use magnets to make replaceable heads;-) Haythornthwaite managed to put 3 contemporary illustrations of fusilier miters in his Osprey. The form under Alexander appears to have very similar contours to the grenadier version, albeit with brass strips and no pompon. I would assume the grenadier regiments were either all shakos or all miters.

  • Even the simple jaeger drag us unto the mire. They had tricornes, or bicornes, then some, not all, were issued ‘tophats’ with wide brims in 1802. Who and how long did they last? Citation of regulations just gives you “when the infantry received the [revised] shako, so did the jaeger” school. But did they?
  • I’m afraid LPK managed to break a lot of gamers hearts when they declared that top hat an extremely fleeting existance of less than a year.

  • Drums changed shape and design- regimental colours used to be displayed on rims; yet drums were supposed to last and be issued for 20 years services. Were they ever modified?
  • Well, the wooden hoops could easily be repainted. LPK do note the Jaeger version was supposed to be smaller, and note the reuse of dragoon versions which had an embossed imperial eagle design.

  • Similar question about flags/ banners. Extra curly topic- they were issued new and fresh to ALL REGIMENTS by Paul in 1797 AND remained in hand, some as much as 60 years later- basic reply is they weren’t replaced unless disaster struck OR bravery shown. And punitive hardship was metered out to regiments who clearly failed to fight ‘to the death’ to save them!
  • While there are a number of nuances, the general outlines are simple as you say. Everyone got flags in 1797 and then new regiments got new flags with about a score of award reissues. Most garrisons got 1800 patterns, which then showed up when some were converted to line. Don’t know why people find it obscure.

    Well these are some of the issues of my last couple of years research. Having watched newer authors come along and cause dissent and discussion among us for the French or Brits (uniform lace and buttons anyone?), I’ve kept a really open mind on who and what the Russians I’ve chosen to depict looked like. And they’re not quite those perfectly aligned, uniform and full dress chaps you’d expect to see. Unlike those ‘prize’ competition armies of 15mils marching about like pike blocks, all identical and depicting 1812 most of the time, and no, I didn’t want that. Cheers ~d

    in reply to: Spoiling your fun with Russians since 2007 #176262
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Hi guys! I translate as Leib-garde because it is a clearly German borrowing in Russian, and so I render it as a German borrowing in English…

    in reply to: a note on Russian 1797 Cuirassier Standard #171945
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Those flags are pretty straightforward. The Apsheron deep rose cross on light azure, the white flag light azure -white-deep rose across the top, staff to fly. The Novgorod dark brown cross on azure, white flag dark brown-white-azure. The dark brown was moire if you are doing them in 28mm 😉

    in reply to: Article- Suvorov Regiments. #171886
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    I’ve aways been suspect of Suvorov’s reputation. Not that he wasn’t a competent general in an age when many were not. But rather his transcendental reputation is a prop for Napoleon’s. Bonaparte ran around the back waters of Italy for a while, with plenty of initiative, effectiveness, and daring do, as did any number of young, up and coming French leaders.  But once he made it big, the pundits searched the Italian campaigns for signs of his genius.  Then he went off to Egypt (which could well be searched for signs of his grandiose delusions) and Suvorov came to Italy and rolled  back all the French gains. So if B0naparte was brilliant in Italy because he conquered it. then Suvorov must be equally so, and since they never met on the battlefield one can pump up Suvorov without doing anything but equally inflating Napoleon’s repute.

    in reply to: a note on Russian 1797 Cuirassier Standard #171885
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Goodness – it’s from Vexillographia.ru which faithfully transmits Zweguintzow’s description. I.  think I know what happened there. I thought I was on top of all the variations, especially Z’s.

    in reply to: a note on Russian 1797 Cuirassier Standard #171883
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Michman, or whatever name he is going by now, is very good. I have to get my shots in when I can;-) The New Ingermanland colored flag had all white “corners” (field). I would also suggest the straw panels would be a pale yellow not a tan, but there;s no guarantee.

    in reply to: I’ve been Clucked! #171882
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Perhaps it’s frequency illusion, but I get the impression the best way to get thrown off of a certain forum was to have too much of a presence. Someone doesn’t like sharing our rather parochial spotlight.

    in reply to: [1805] On the Sources for Austerlitz- #171876
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Both Bowden and Duffy mention 3 pioneer coys. The Militerra article mentions the bridge trains. I’m not sure it is still accessible on line. Possibly because of the embargo.

    All I know about the bridge trains is from that lovely discussion, elsewhere;-)

    JG

    in reply to: How to store my miniatures safely? #169549
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    I bought steel paper from Rennaissance Ink years ago. You can find steel paper on the web, but it’s a little tricky as the name appears to refer to a number of products. You want a thin steel sheet with paper on each side. Needs to be magnetic. Not sure if the stainless steel versions are. (Some stainless is magnetic, some not.)

    in reply to: How to store my miniatures safely? #169469
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    I like “steel paper” on bottom of the base, as it will not wear out. You can then use magnetic tape or sheet on a steel chest of drawers to keep them in place.

    in reply to: Is Oliver Schmidt around? #168391
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    I should encourage him.-)

    in reply to: Is Oliver Schmidt around? #168324
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Oliver has been in touch, so all is good. The discussion of Prussian squadron sword knots has added some nuance to Russian practice.

    in reply to: Is Oliver Schmidt around? #168275
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Very nice. I think I recognize the address. Anyway, I gave it a shot.

    Well as a tease (to a conversation elsewhere, sigh) I note that Bleckwenn, in his plates on the K2 has 10 swordknots: all white for the Leib-company, an all green one, and yellow, blue, red, and black ones in pairs – all colored, and white body with colored ruff and slider. He cites Kling (Cuirassiers and Dragoons) page 82 where Kling describes a “Maßrolle” of 1784. Can’t find a definition of a Maßrolle – maybe some kind of tailoring specs.

    in reply to: Russian Napoleonic haversacks #167560
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Mishanin notes the widespread use of cross-body sacks, but does not identify them as standard issue.

    in reply to: Russian Napoleonic haversacks #167552
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Hi Magnus,
    The knapsack is well documented in illustrations and Viskovatov.
    So I assume you are talking about a bread or rusk sack? They did under Paul but then they started using the knapsack for rusk.
    There may perhaps be a reference to a separate bag in an article on the Jaegers. I will have to check.
    Jon.

    in reply to: Orphaned again! #165239
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Guy, are you still having a problem accessing the site?

    in reply to: Orphaned again! #165150
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Comes up quickly for me. Maybe give it a day or something. Otherwise it’s back to the grindstone.

    in reply to: Orphaned again! #165148
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Ok I’ve put the Facings page back. It’s on webhost – the devil you know and all that. Will have to take the thankyou out…
    Hit it early and often (and leave a link in your blog if you have one). I don’t know how Google picks this stuff up.

    https://kiver.000webhostapp.com/allfacings.html

    in reply to: Naval – German destroyers #165016
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Is pretty!
    I once ran into a guy who preferred CinC ships because the smoother surfaces allowed him to customize by addeing the tripods, etc. that distinguished individual ships in a class! 3D printing could make that an easy reality…

    in reply to: Naval – German destroyers #164563
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    I said they went to bigger boats, but really they went to fleet boats and their first thought was that they needed to be more maneuverable. The V1’s were actually a little smaller than the V186’s and poor sailors.

    in reply to: Dune 2049 #163913
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    So! Twice the dynamic range of young Timotheeee! 😉

    in reply to: Dune 2049 #163905
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Sigh, one of the clues I needed hearing aids was the movies. You start reading lips, and in the movies the lips and the sounds aren’t always doing the same thing.
    But really it’s the music in Dune – way too loud…

    ***

    The comments about Liet on IMDB are really disturbing. “I don’t care that Liet’s black but they made him a woman!”
    – Uh, dude, first of all it’s 140 Fahrenheit out there, so either you’re dark or you’re dead. And second, why on God’s green Earth would it matter if a minor character, the ecologist, hardly explained in the movie, is a man or a woman?????

    in reply to: Dune 2049 #163862
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Well, I thought it might play better with the miniatures crowd…;)

    Had no idea who Zendaya is. Thought she was some Eurobabe with Near East, Far East, or Tropical heritage. But no, Ms. Coleman is a California mix from Arkansas and northern Europe!-) From her photos she seems quite the chameleon. Certainly makes a splendid Chani and livens up those drear visuals=:o

    in reply to: Dune 2049 #163809
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    It’s been a long time since I saw it, but at the time I thought Lynch had captured the essence of the book. And I am not a big Lynch fan.

    in reply to: British Napoleonic Uniforms #159987
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    Excellent! I missed that thread. Paul Dibble(?) is certainly a voice I listen to, like Oliver Schmidt for the Prussians.

    Looks like Franklin mentions “feather plume” for the 5th, other ranks “grenadier distinctions” for the 7th, but only calls out wings for the 21st and 23d. Get that pencil out NCS!-)

    in reply to: British Napoleonic Uniforms #159979
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    My cracked and taped and pencil-translated Funckens still grace my shelf, although I haven’t opened them for ages (nor the Eltings for that matter).

    Funny you should mention the white hackles of the fusiliers, G. S. I don’t pay much attention to British uniforms, but I stumbled upon that exception, and spent a little bit of time trying to run it down on the internet. I found post-period official acknowledgement, but I could not find an authoritative source confirming the practice during the era. I worry that it’s one of those things “everybody knows” and no one can say why.

    JG

    in reply to: British Napoleonic Uniforms #159942
    Avatar photoJonathan Gingerich
    Participant

    My impression is that there is some concern with the traceability of the sources and about “filling in the blanks”. It certainly is a hansom effort far better than the Histoire & Collections. It appears to provide a solid baseline at any rate.

    I took a glance at a copy and noted the 3d Foot Guard was shown with decidedly crimson jackets. There wasn’t anything in the notes. Then I realized any number of line regiments were shown the same way. Couldn’t see anything in the write up on Jackets. My guess is it is intended to indicate variability in the dyeing. Anyone have more insight?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 299 total)