[OotKust]

I have no idea what WSS is but certainly don’t complete nonsensical questionaires as a hobby.

If you know what you want, you are going to need to know how to design such things; (as above others have said) and knowing what you are doing isn’t always a prerequisite in hobbies- pseudo-businesses or otherwise. ‘Hobby’ businesses die with their owners…

[OotKust]

Good work. Ever the analyst, it would drive me insane!

Don’t forget Shadow of the Eagles [ https://www.shadowoftheeagles.com/ ] which, Disclaimer: I took part in technical information supply and rules testing of sorts.

cheers dave

[OotKust]

Thanks Jim for reading. The post went into ‘audit/moderator’ mode and I couldn’t replace text from my draft so I guess thats why its ended up with two versions, at least I have to check. Sorry if there’s incoherence in the dialogue and pics dont match. I’ll try to correct in due course.

Yes the art of resurrection should be strong; my I’ve seen some dusty old shambles (like Steptoe etc..) ambling across tables in recent years.

I had painted many units for a ‘new’ version 1813/14 Allied army (the opposition), and just decided that, as I had already painted many of these early models (though catching the new animated sculpts from Hinchliffe as well)  these painted models deserved to join them.

Of course even they were done 30 years ago as well (early 90s) but have a significantly better paintwork in a more traditional style, at least IMHO.

I don’t need to spend as much, or any time, on research for these, and a bit like modern Eureka Miniatures, the exciting action poses were a breeze to paint. When adequate sunshine does come along soon I should get them out and record pics once again.

cheers dave_ 😉

[OotKust]

! removed repeated post~~~

[OotKust]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

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.

>>I think I left 0ut a footnote.

Your footnotes are other peoples books! I’ve poured over them each and every topic- absolutely no point reading them all when researching minute detail in one area. Good stuff!

Really? Do you wish to clarify?

I was really heartened to see even illustrators had managed to give all the Guard Infantry the ‘new’ shako and this included the LG Jaeger battalion. Why given its position as a minority in the Guard, would they NOT have received the ‘new issue’ headgear. I would have [more clearly]  understood more likely that they did not receive the ‘experimental’ version issued line units.

This single battalion regiment, who put on such a good show of all the Russian army at Austerlitz, (taking 5 French battalions to weed them out of Blasowitz) and perhaps its half Guard battery supports, may be one of the ‘ad-hoc’ strays to my pot-luck Russian force.

cheers dave

[OotKust]

Thanks Jonathan, sorry about the ‘o’ earlier!

While the Russian ‘General Army Staffs’ are well documented as to personalities, I wondered how far down the chain such reached

Yes I’d not discount nepotism anywhere (nor the ‘Lodge’ factor); just looking for some reality in my modelling. So perhaps I’ll stick with suitable dressed/ coloured regimental officers as support ‘teams’ on command bases.

regards dave

[OotKust]

>> 4/6pdrs,

No don’t be ridiculous. Everyone knows the ‘Artillerie Volante’ were armed with 8pouce pieces!

Yes ‘geography’ is simply a name/ title; it means less and less as time passes. We have a ‘Three Kings’ here, but two of the volcanic eruption cones have been mined out of existence in the last 150 years- immigrants will ask in wonder…. 🙂

I’d agree,  artillery ‘rapidly’ crossing a defile (by a ford?) for their own good safety concerns, hardly makes the ensemble a “charge” of artillery. I’d also question whether anything BUT the Austrian artillery was contained within any entrenchments. The line is just far too long to have been dug-in.

And I still can’t fathom why the ‘superior’ arme-blanche of Austrian cavalry wasn’t there in support to defend it. Certainly the French outflanking would have been severely handled if they had.

cheers

[OotKust]

Which just goes to show even the best ‘analysts’ don’t agree- from horse charging to heavy 12 pounders, and something in between…

[OotKust]

As I delved here and there, I wonder JONATHON, is there more depth to the staff around commanders, like the French? My commands there include 1:1 named and known staff, but I’m at a loss to decypher the Russians methods. OB usually only have generals names and little else.

I’m not referring to the snoopy Imperial toadies, but actual working stiffs who will give ‘weight’ to at least my 3 Divisional Commanders for 1805 (and/ or 1806-7)  Kutuzov; Miloradovich and Dokhturov.

I’ve captured an array of Austrian, Prussian and Russian command figures to utilise on the eastern fare…

[OotKust]

Mike wrote:

ATM it is working for me.

Indeed, ditto (Sunday 31July)

 

[OotKust]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

No, it opens your post so that you can edit it. Like every other edit button, everywhere.

Obvious contrarian– you have acheived both. Computerised files also change their metadata, which primarily includes their date and time written/changed/archived.

I noted, for reference, that making a change to the text, which should be a change to the file/record itself, makes no difference to the metadata of said entry. Unlike most other systems and environments I’ve worked with for nearly 40 years. To not differentiate, is to obfuscate or even lose ‘changed’ data because, internally, it appears no record is kept.

Anyway it was only an unimportant comment to the populace so no sleep shall be lost.

JONATHON- Thanks I wasn’t really asking the questions, I was developing the base line of what must be answered  to create a non-standard, unique and non-heterogenous force.  But thanks all the same; as you rightly say, on your web site (++ others and books 🙂

cheers dave

 

 

[OotKust]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

From Oot Kust’s Wiki link, above. “At this point, Bonaparte launched his masse de rupture against Monte Medolano. Chef de battalion Auguste Marmont galloped his horse artillery up to point blank range and opened fire. Grenadiers then stormed the hill.” Chandler ‘The Campaigns of Napoleon’ 1966.

The actual reference s given as : Boycott-Brown, p 401, so not sure if you’ve extrpolated that back or not.

However such statements I feel cannot be left unchallenged these days.

“Bonaparte launched his masse de rupture…”

Seems an entirely unlikely sentiment. History shows that Buonaparte did not lead from the front all that often, and gave to ‘marshalling’ his commanders from the safe ‘3rd zone’ from the conflict. (See Marengo and Austerlitz etc…)

“Marmont galloped his horse artillery up to point blank range…”

Again I’d like to know the source for such a statement. Did they, unaided, expose themselves ‘because they could’? And was it in front of said ‘Monte’ or actually on it, if we are led to believe the Austrians hadn’t left the ‘elevation’?

“Grenadiers then stormed the hill.”

I’ve not seen an exact OB for this battle, and the refight doesn’t give ‘real designations’ of units, but I see no ‘elite’ designated. I have much of Nafzigers work in both electronic files and hard copy but not found this one.

Despite the courageous and worthy writing of Dr. Chandler, he has his failures, to be expected on such a major issue as his topic (and yes I own an original copy), but things like the strong depiction of such as the tactical ‘advance’ formation by St. Hilaires Division at Austerlitz in approved ‘Napoleonic’ fashion has been shown to be bunkum.

It has been shown Napoleon spent years re-writing history in his own favour and to some extent uncaring authors have used these misguided missives as if they were court records of worth and truth. Sadly not we see, no reason it should ruin a good game however, cheers

[OotKust]

>>Ever been to Mantua?

No- but then I’d bet 99% of commenters have never visited theirs either. However I did make an effort- about 35 battlefelds driven and walked from middle France to Vienna and Alessandria, and Waterloo; never made Austerlitz in Bohemia due to the partners fear of going behind the Iron Curtain; and about 4 states in US following the Revolutionary trails.

>>Could it have been flattened out over the past 150 years?

Everything is possible. yet many of these places remain largely untouched. Of course Waterloo grew a mound; Stare Vinorady at Austerlitz is much reduced from its cited 300 height (another ‘nob’).

>> This map shows Monte Medolano__

Obviously a much higher scale of map. If you look at the previous wiki one there is zero inference of any such elevation. Wondering how Marmonts battery would have been expecting to reduce any fortification IF they had been that elevated, but 5m seems more resonable and clearly not much more than a walk in the park.

What should be astounding to us, is the declining/ ignorant awareness that linear warfare just wasn’t it any longer. The Austrians really expected a simple frontal attack on their terms?

>>I hardly think the Army of Italy was degraded or despondent by August 1796 – since April …taken three of the Quadrilateral fortresses and were besieging the fourth.

And a year later the almost same Army had lost the entire region again to new Allied commanders. The subservience to ‘places’ held was an Empirical meme and wasn’t really enforced in French doctrine.

Again in 1800, defensively holed up in Alessandria, the Austrians marched out to thrash the French intruders on their domain. And nearly did.

Five days later the Armée du Rhin in the Battle of Höchstädt under Moreau defeated, Kray defending Ulm, with a covering force, described as-

The campaign culminating in Kray’s evacuation of Ulm was one of Moreau’s most resounding triumphs. Napoleon Bonaparte had given Moreau specific instructions about the conduct of the campaign, all of which Moreau had ignored. Regardless,…

Given the proximity of timing, 5 days apart, I wondered if either side knew of the previous reversal of fortunes; and whether anyone at French command cared about Moreau’s win in taking strategic territory once again?

So the maintenance of fortresses while a necessary evil, but was not a comittment to be tied to. Austria continued this nonsense until 1805 in all theatres.

I’ll raise this in a new topic shortly,

cheers

[OotKust]

Ok I can see the title, but there’s no elevation shown on the map, and it is right next to the word ‘Plain___ ‘ so I still wonder. It appears as three buildings, so with little elevation and a tiny ‘redoubt’ built solely as a ‘flank’ guard to a ‘line’?

Of note:

As a reward for his bravery, Bonaparte appointed Augereau to bring to Directory the 7 flags taken from the enemy. Bonaparte, who became Emperor, gave him the title of Duke of Castiglione for these same reasons.

The more cynical among us would also conjecture that he was getting rid of an argumentative subordinate for a while, as Augereau  had been and would be again an equal, General en Chef of armies.

cheers

[OotKust]

Missing Person(s)

Committing to the ‘Russian’ elements of the 4th Column (I’d prefer ‘Corps’ as the battle line naming, as ‘columns’ were a separate marching OB…).

One subordinate is given as:- Advance Guard: Maj. Gen. Wodniansky by our friend JG and others. Unfortunately I am unable locate such a person. And now knowing that Russians use a ‘phonetic’ style of indexing it is probably not surprising if this is an ‘anglicised’ naming, such is why I cannot find him.

Mikaberidze ‘Russian Generals’ only has 880 of them; and the ‘summary’ on N-S by same author (surprise!) also has nothing.

To add further confusion, old research recites another ‘person’ in charge, and given the rather small force (just two battalions, one of those an amalgamation of much reduced manpower), is potentially likely- Lt. Col. Manakhtin (of Novgorod Musketeer Regt.)- one of the regiments involved.

– Duffy cited this and then most recenty I found in  “Lieutenant General Miloradovich’s Report to General Kutuzov“ confirms it.

Maj. Gen. Wodniansky was cited in the generic OB of the battle by Nafziger, which lists are also quite prone to errors and distortions.

So stretching the lead on Wodniansky being possibly Austrian, yet leading Russian troops (a situation I felt unlikely given the general animosity between the two commands) there is indeed:

Wodniansky von Wildenfeld, Johann Joseph Freiherr

born in Prague/ Bohemia and ‘Oberst’ until 1805 when he was promoted GM during the campaign.

https://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/Austria/AustrianGenerals/c_AustrianGeneralsW.html#W41

Given I haven’t seen any other mention of him, I’m guessing he hung around HQ somewhere as a support officer near Miloradovich, Kollowrath or Kutuzov, the only commanding Generals present after His Excellency had ‘left’ with his crew.

BTW the presence of  some ‘Erzherzog Johann Dragoon Regt.’ (one- the Colonels Division) in the so called ‘Advance Guard’ was in my reading a token ‘patrol’ of what was probably the 4th Column Headquarters escort/ security troop. Goetz cites their inactivity once the French had taken Pratze village. I’ll be using just 4 figures to represent them.

cheers d

[OotKust]

Having just looked up Gen en Chef Scherer I uncovered this volume from his wiki. Don’t know how many will make use of it but I find putting faces to names helps me modelling certain characters:-

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5656749b/f147.item.r=Album%20du%20centenaire#

There was some difficulty getting a clean download however. It is 50MB but for 436 engravings, it may be worth it. Even though it is entitled ‘Grands hommes’ it does include some dames!

cheers

 

[OotKust]

37 to 28 battle units I’d certainly hope I’d win too- ~30% greater. I’m not sure where the ‘hill’ on the Austrian left came from; given the ‘old’ map it appears to be a flat(ish) plain for most of the combat area. Orientation?  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castiglione .

That said, I’d wonder at the apparent high ‘skill’ values of [most of] the French Army given the excess of despondency and degradation noted in most histories (no I’ve not researched this era as much as the 3rd Coalition).

Edit: The bulk of what appeared as the Army of Italy at the ‘takeover’ by Buonparte is described here as:

In September 1795 , it received 4 divisions (16,000 men) of reinforcements from the victorious Army of the Eastern Pyrenees. With these reinforcements, the army is made up in very large majority of battalions of volunteers from the South.

Emphasis mine. Scherer was Commander of THAT Army also, so was no slouch. A year later after his resignation by political actions, he was appointed Minister of War !(1797)_dw.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm%C3%A9e_d%27Italie

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barth%C3%A9lemy_Louis_Joseph_Sch%C3%A9rer

I guess only an ‘Austrian’ would hide his [attacking] cavalry strength in mountainous terrain! cheers

[OotKust]

>>26/07/2022 at 00:37

Ok I see, an ‘edit’ doesn’t trigger a new_message facet … oh whelllll….

[OotKust]

Upon trawling blogs once in a while, recovering (and tired) after some minor surgery and barred from doing anything ‘physical’- does that include model painting..? Well in this case yes, as it was eye surgery.

Found this bloke in France and somewhat pleased he reached the same conclusion about Russian uniform;

https://atelierpa.blogspot.com/2022/01/peinture-recente.html

Russian musketeers in 1803. I will consider that some regiments still wore the hat in 1805 (mark AB).

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiSwPaBydQxZ84lVJ3vRUjzQ42Py85VMpJrhACVsiXrvHQgMc7Zw8VkshnpZJvVVu5n_UeeWuJErEcEkknD11Z1-LhvEoZ3Xcl7dvJbKZ8TfVZIgmcqfg6OCVBiypUp6KgQOCRRgXIac5o8q5YywwlJCuiGc-dvwvNMvwyeivNZ272CMJ4eOERCiteD=s320

[Edit:] Along with a comment about snow covered bases, I’ve tried in the past and will continue to trial first to see IF it possible to create something realistic.

I have already, last year completed a unit of WF jaeger:-

cheers

[OotKust]

I’m surprised they didn’t just use “Highest BodyGuard” and be done with it, since that appears before everything else… of course His Highest did have to go sit under a tree moment when he saw actual carnage on the battlefield, if ever so briefly.

[OotKust]

©dww_2022

Napoleon- The Leadership Team

Napoleons youthful ‘age’ is often benchmarked as significant, compared to his military opponents, and very often this is accurate.

However, he was a man of due diligence and perspicacity himself, and used those around him who suited, no matter their age or origins.
Such is the case when considering his army, and more importantly, those he chose as leaders.

As I am modelling a French 1805 Corps, plus ‘supports’, I’ve taken to maintaining a register of those most important in the hierarchy, and the models I will use to create these men. Let me remind you that my ‘commands’ in gaming terms are 1:1; that is each named individual is present with each leader- if they have two or three ADC’s, I depict them all.

The few characteristics based around important dates, relate core competency, promotion and durations and awards.

Using 1805 and Napoleons age in the campaign, just 36 years old, thus I measure those around him. This is important when selecting suitable other models for officers, aides and support characters I suppose one could call them.

I was surprised when I reviewed some of the ‘elders’ of the Imperial group, so will just restrict myself here to the top most and basic data for them. Some are extremely common names, others not so much.

Note that in my research [and therefore descriptions] I do not subscribe to the common form of applying a persons maximum role, rank or dignitary status at some future point. To take that to its’ logical conclusion, one would always then refer to Napoleon as the ex-Emperor of France. I do not bother with most dates and events after 1807 (the critical end of my interests).

Officers Aged 50 and Over

Berthier- Louis-Alexandre Age: 52 Born July 1753 Enlisted Jan-1766 (Geo-Engineers) and subsequently promoted General 1796. He served in the American Colonies, subsequently as ADC to LaFayette 1780. He was when promoted placed due to his overt abilities as Chef d’état-major in 1796 in the Armée d’Italie.

He lead, controlled and organised the highest command group under Napoleon- the Etat Major-Generale (Army General Staff), and as such held the unique rank, literally, of Major-Général of the Army. Alongside which from time to time he combined such a role and knowledge, with the ‘administrative’ role of Minister of War. As such, and Marshal of the Empire, he held the Grand-Cordon of the Legion d’honneur from 1804.

Dumas- Mathieu Age: 52 Born November 1753 Enlisted in 1773 in the Genie and promoted General of Division only in 1805, due to his post I imagine. He also served in the American Colonies and ADC to Rochambeau 1780 so clearly was a well known associate to Berthier in war.

In the Grande Armée he was placed in command, as one of three highly respected individuals called ‘Aides-Majors Generaux’ who each were ranked as Adjutant-Commandants whilst simultaneously holding their ranks of General of Division, to the Second (2eme) Section (Maréchal des logis) of the EM-G. He held the Commandeurs Cross of the Legion d’honneur from 1804.

Belfort- Jacques Renard (!) Age: 52 Born December 1753 Enlisted in Apr-1770 in the Royal Cavalry and was still a Colonel in 1805 of the 12e Cuirassier Regiment.
He was awarded for his actions during the campaign and Austerlitz the Commandeurs Cross of the Legion d’honneur AND promoted General de Brigade in the post Austerlitz recognition of 26 December 1805 (we better not call it ‘Christmas’ as it apears it wasn’t at the time). The ‘awards’ happened to coincide with his 53rd birthday. The Division (Nansoutys’ First Heavy Cavalry) was subsequently in pursuit of the Russians. He was one of the oldest cavalry commanders in the army. Great name btw, Jacques the fox! However strangely, he is not inscribed on the Arc de Triomphe!

Ordener- Michel Age: 55 Born September 1755 Enlisted in Jan 1773 in the Royal dragoons and served across a variety of regiments in all ranks. Distinguished in 1800 in the Army of the Rhine he was subsequently promoted to command the Grenadiers à Cheval of the Garde Consulaire. Promoted to General de Brigade (as were all Garde ‘Colonels’) and made Commandeur of the Legion d’honneur June 1804. Grievously wounded at Austerlitz, he was promoted General de Division in the post Austerlitz recognition of 26 December 1805.
Unable to recover from wounds, he retired from the military to civil occupation before dying in 1811.

Piston- Joseph Age: 51 Born in 1754 Enlisted in 1791 in the Royal Cavalry and joined his new home as Gen de Brigade to the Carabiniers in 1793! In June 1804 he was awarded Commandeur of the Legion d’honneur and remained in command of the 1er (Carabinier) Brigade of Nansoutys’ 1er Heavy Cav Division. Post Austerlitz he was promoted GDV and he retired in 1808.

Scalfort- Nicholas Age:53 Born February 1752 Enlisted in Apr-1788 in Royal Cavalry and became a General de Brigade August 1803 at the Army of the Coast. Awarded Commandeur of the Legion d’honneur June 1804. Leading the 2eme Brigade of the 3eme Division des Dragons (Gen de Division Beaumont) he performed better than more junior officers.

These are some of the senior officers who ran and led some of the critcal formations of the Grande Armée.
– –

cheers

[OotKust]

And yet gents, missing the point entirely, we are referencing the RUSSIAN version, not anything else.  Because it ‘looks like something else, it must be’, hardly seems to be a rugged rule to use/ apply.

Seems like someone who just made an ‘agreement’ to cooperate then went ahead and made a ‘show of force’ to teach a lesson that, if they wanted to, they could change positions very rapidly. Makes the use and understanding of ‘agreement’ tenuous and rather subjective doesn’t it? Not at all the same ‘interpretation’ by both sides…

[OotKust]

🙂

[OotKust]

I really don’t follow the logic of those when, if someone of Summerfield and his co-authors expertise are correct, that the word then is BODY and not life, then whatever other  interpretation you make, isn’t correct [strictly- semantically or something else].

You may want to use colloquialisms as you see fit, but apparently the “we thought it was German version” wasn’t even challenged years ago, hence the assumption of correctness.

But please, don’t change anything just because I brought it to attention, and you don’t like the potential results.

[OotKust]

Yes I wondered about the academic vs colloquial usage/ translation, but if you really wanted to reinforce an issue I guess that was a place to do it.

It is obvious from both Conrad and Gingrich that there is much non-direct interpretation of Russian dialect terms.

[OotKust]

Couldn’t find another place to store this snippet of info, taken from the horses mouth so to speak:

Source: Victoria Joan Moessner, Ph.D., Professor of German Emerita, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA. and Dr. Stephen Summerfield, Ph.D., Fellow of Loughborough University, UK. May 2010.

Taken from the Foreword for :

With Count Pahlen’s Cavalry against Napoleon: Memoirs of the Russian General E duard von Löwenstern (1790-1837).  (Baron Georges von Wrangell’s 1910).

– –

The German word Leib, taken into Russian can be found in descriptions of the Napoleonic era military written in English. It is indeed sometimes mistranslated as “life” instead of “body.”

For readers not knowledgeable in German, Leib might be understood as a place name, which is the case with most of the names of military regiments, or mispronounced as Lieb, thus changing Body into Love. ..

So don’t call them Life-Guards; name them Body-Guard xxx.

[Not intended for the author of this thread..]

cheers

[OotKust]

Resurrection Time !

Yes Tony, after a laugh or two here I thought things have changed enough in last two years that it would be worth another bash on the topic.

I recognised this, having ‘changed strategy’ back in the 80’s to concentrate on one army- my French Nap 1805 all time big hitters; so stopped ‘collecting’ random sidebars;  but a few years later after ceasing club and competition gaming, I occassionally to have odd guests for games, and therefore needed, the opposition.

The thought of doing ‘an Allied army’ with complications wasn’t appealing, so I chose, based on the most excellent Warg.Foundry figures available- just the Austrians. Complete, thorough and efficiently animated.

20 years in the making, renewing my interests AND revitalising 1980’s figures and paint jobs, with an Austrian Division in hand, it seemed that some ‘colour’ could be added; the more I read (ie availability of modern research) the more those ‘Allied’ forces actually did appear of value.

So two years ago (when you were writing this) I decided another mission- to augment the Austrians with ‘adjunct’ Russian forces- just those that were within the same Divisions @Austerlitz/ 1805-’07 campaigns.

And hence grew the need and desire to understand, beyond the blahblah rhetoric of ‘old school’ repetition, of who and what they actually were. Eureka Miniatures from Oz being closer, and finely animated models they are, for 1799 campaign figures, that cover a significant amount of those required, with minor modifications, entirely suitable for 1805 at least.

Some people get married/partners and divorced multiple times in a similar period; all I did was reverse my thoughts and needs to achieve balance and maintain interests accordingly. Given that some of my club gaming mates are still around and meeting regularly, and our local ‘public’ club turns 50 next year (1973 AFAIK), seems a fitting final design consideration.

Regards, dave

[OotKust]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Can’t be right – maybe it’s me!

Nope not really. The site is messing around.

I noticed that it must have multiple servers/ service as the page icons changed- when on old server it was one thing; changed to next; now all back to original icon; i cant be assed doing TraceRoute coz as I say, I’ve saved copies (and there is the backupski system) for my use anyway.

The perils of using a remote AP and ‘free’ at their mercy. Mike why don’t you just host him on here, can’t cost too much and the ads revenue may increase because of it?

BTW just on the content- Facings especially, often overlooked but important here, you really do need to consult the referenced footnotes thoroughly. They range from simple abbrevaited citations to expansive dissertations with illustrations, so JG really does his homework, and sets out to define what he can, and more importantly can’t, clearly!

cheers dave

 

 

[OotKust]

… and they’re back_ at least temporarily_ or on this side of the planet ../

:-/

[OotKust]

General Slade wrote:

Thanks Mike, That works for me. Hopefully Jonathan will be able to find a new host soon. It is a wonderful site and I refer to it often.

 

Anyone emailed him direct lately?

I had earlier which prompted his multiple replies… d

[OotKust]

Jim,

Massive exercise in big govt and technology. I’d say no differet to the space race in many ways.

Only goverments/ empires could and did have the need; this is a process so embedded in the pre-industrial revolution cusp, etc. that the finances and tech and personnel were so entwined (not to forget the ultimate ‘financier’being some emperical autocrat and their egos …) I’d suspect not many accounts were rigorously kept and filed.

Although the very public creation/ expansion of the ‘artillerie volanté of Revolutionary France in ’92/93 may be documented as it was both created and debated in very short order.

I guess you’re stuck with Quarries quotes ~cheers dave

[OotKust]

… well jim, It may have taken a while but I eventually got there. No, the Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield volume ‘Napoleonic Artillery’ has no trace of ‘costs’ or expense of artillery, anywhere in the establishment.

Of course it is not easy to follow specifics very easily in modern books- chaos theory seems to blight many. But not one ‘value’ was placed anywhere that I could see in a further ‘scan’ of the book. I thought I’d look up Russia as they’re topical for me, and I find rather disappointingly that nearly every ‘status’ revolves around 1812 and very few other campaigns. Not helpful when one is pursuing earlier periods; also I note the intractable ‘mixing’ of subjects, when one country is in the heading, is followed by paragraphs of padding?; but such and such did this, then another did that etc. Drives you bonkers trying to stay focused.

Of course the technical detail can’t be beaten by anything else I’ve read, the multitude of European photos and graphics giving a breadth to the subject no other has done.

But the cost of a ‘gun’, no sorry.

regards d

[OotKust]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

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,

Not to belabour the message, but I too ” have aways been suspect of anyones [so called] reputation”. SO much opinionated and biased literary works on defining Europeans by ‘British’ standards and writers have really annoyed me more and more. It renders my library obsolete to a point.

How could Suvorov not have been a consummate general of significance to undo, defeat and outwit [some of ] the same French commanders [themselves no fools] who’d taken part under Bonaparte?

He used the same criteria- surprise, concentration and concealment, as well as strategic marches to outwit them. His personal leadership of troops is well documented.

>>Bonaparte ran around the back waters of Italy for a while,

A bit dismissive ol’ chap given what the ‘Armée d’italie’ did achieve. As always, not everything went to plan, but as it is a belaboured ‘campaign’ and NOT of my direct interest (though Moreaus’ part is interesting to consider… in light of later events).

Duffys book reissued by Helion has just arrived in my hands, and on first glance, as a real book- hard cover, traditional layout and plethora of references an embarrasing step up from the 1977 ‘Austerlitz’- my other go to edition and arbiter of where my gaming army would focus.

It will be interesting to read this side of the Russian web sites I’d explored recently that gave a ‘home’ theme to the subject.

regards ~d

Edit: _Cross refs: https://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/new-edition-of-duffys-eagles-over-the-alps/

[OotKust]

Thanks Guy, appreciate the positive feedback.

I’m the same, but now I’ve had to catalogue my virtual library as well as my real one, things get out of hand after two years of ‘discoveries’ and I’ve RE-found resource books I’d forgotten about downloading. if only there were software for that!  Have a little story of interest that I’ll post later.

regards d

[OotKust]

A simple update of a set of Imperial Etat-Major ADC’s and the beheaded figure above.

The ‘important’ chaps are (Minifigs 25mm)- Capt. Lejeune (yes the painter) and Capt. Girardin- both ADC’s attached with Mal.Berthier however rubber-banded to the main man; the Chasseurs officer becoming an ADC to Bessieres; well naturally!

I particularly like the lighter shade of ‘blue’ on Girardin, by using a white base then a thinner wash of blue, rather than solid pigment. No pretence they are anywhere near finished, but doing this helps me ‘formulate’ my command vignettes. Lejeunes uniform is that depicted by Bucquoy in his series (for 1806 so it was probably a replacement!).

Just to show my favour has spread, heres my CRM ex-WF castings for the Russian 3rd Artillery Regiment, for Miloradovics corps at Austerlitz. These were just 6 pounders but anything can be used when necessary.

cheers ~d

[OotKust]

I wonder, on further research, if we are to believe that even the great chroniclers of fashion took liberties? Looking at Edouard Detaille, whos passion and enthousiasm for his subjects, as a form of PTSD recovery after 1870, reputation being made on these bases.

I’ve read criticism of that ‘position’ of carrying arms- so is it real?

https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e1-0ac8-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

Did he extrapolate a later period ‘method’ that may not have existed at the time depicted?

Similarly- a favourite and close subject to my heart, les Carabiniers:

https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e1-0b4e-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

The horse furniture in use, varying over time- the ‘norm’ applied per Rousellot etc. among others, being the sheepskin and round valise- itself a rather anachronistic feature [according to whom it was re-introduced about 1808] since, the norm, being round for legere, and square portmanteaux for ‘heavies’.

Thus is Detailles’ depiction an error, misjudgement or whimsy? The close resemblance to those of the grenadiers á cheval cannot be mistaken. His reputation for accuracy, research and thoroughness has sometimes been brought recently into question.

I guess if records do exist, we will have to wait for ‘new’ confirmation via the incredible work of PLDawson coming out.

I note sadly a degradation of the services from the NYPL- they’ve restricted their available online downloads to a miserable 1600px scan which is next to useless for serious research.

regards ~d

[OotKust]

~~ main subject site whacked again?

Just when you want an easy look up… back to the backups … good lock jono…

[OotKust]

He needs more business then! Agreed.

Yeah I had enjoyed a year or two picking pieces up while getting fill in Hinchliffe, sadly that came to an end so havent been back. He always packed well for global transport.

[OotKust]

:: Victoires, conquêtes, désastres, revers et guerres civiles des Français, de 1792 à 1815 ::

And yet more- a most surprising find as I believed what is often written in English, about the ‘repression’ of the royalists agenda post ‘Empire’ – a series of books commencing in 1817 and therefore notably ‘current’ history- albeit leavened with both historical and much revolutionary information (as a warning if that is not your ‘thing’).

https://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&version=1.2&collapsing=disabled&rk=21459;2&query=%28gallica%20all%20%22%27Pr%C3%A9au%2C%20Charles%20Th%C3%A9odore%20%27%22%29%20and%20dc.type%20all%20%22monographie%22%20and%20dc.relation%20all%20%22cb36378831k%22#resultat-id-3

There are more than twenty issues, originally available by private subscription, that contain streams of actions, people and anecdotes. There are errors amongst it, and these are often rescued in later editions and errata sections.

Trust some will find these interesting volumes…

regards

 

 

[OotKust]

All his work has been excellent and interesting. Sadly this came too late for me back then and so was off the radar, otherwise my interest in the period/ campaign outside my main theme interests would have been vastly improved.

Edit: 16 July- Book arrived and I wondered, at the cover- nice to see Prince Bagrations regiment of Jaeger in the flesh; wondered about the ‘Rosenberg’ Grenadier however- no simple explanation in sight. I had to use Eureka’s excellent monologue aligned to their range of 1799 Campaign Figures to determine that : Grenadier Regiment Rosenberg – formerly the Moscow Grenadiers!

Helion could have stated that given they weren’t editing the entire book (other than compositing). Anyway, here’s to an interesting read…

d

[Author]

Posts