"Artillery" Topic

Bagration,

You can get excellent Russian artillery information in Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars by Alexander and Yurii Zhmodikov (2 Volumes) which was published by George Nafziger in 2003. It also goes into the lack of education of Russian artillery officers somewhat.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Bagration1812

I am sorry, but other than the malicious comments of Wilson, it appears that one does not find the anglo-phones looking too closely at the Russian Army, at least until 1945.
The infos come, in the specific case, from the little brochure ine gets as an introduction to the Mikhailosky Artillerie University. It is the current naem for the same functions and was formed about 1820 to provide even more training of officiers. But, in the the truth, these simple detailes are likely in any scholl book for children – it is a big topic that the Great Peter did start all these technical scholls and that the later TSARS and the ministeres responsible (here Shuvalov and Arakcheev most noted) did expand and build on these programmes.
It is all a little obvious, one might say. The nobles officiers were known for their fine "blood" and noble spirits and high culture (or so one will have hoped), not their technical skills. The most of the other peoples were serfs of no education, service peoples like Cossacks, or even un-civilized "beasts" such as Votyaks and Chukchi. So, for a technical service one did need to have training.

@von Winterfeldt

The full statemrnt of @Kevin F Kiley was :
"The least trained [artillerie officiers] were the Russian and Prussian."
But I did only ask about the Russians, as I did know what was their training.

@von Winterfeldt & @Dave Hollins

I have only simple questions, and have no part of any ill-will to any colleague. None. Point. Nul.

@Kevin F Kiley

You did make assetions, I do quote you :
"The best trained artillery officers were the French"
"The least trained were the Russian"
My questions :
-- other than 33 per year from the école, how did all the others Frenches (approx 2700 new artillerie officiers) get "best trained" ?
-- If Russians with academic scholl + 2 years artillerie scholl + 2 years as yunkers training in the compagnies were "less trained" than French officiers, how was this better done for Frenches ?

You did make another assertion, I do agian quote you:
"The Russian officers had a reputation for being less well-trained" – then you mention Wilson
My questions :
-- please quote Wilson commenting about the training of Russian artillerie officers
-- please indicate Wilson's training in artillerie and artillerie education
-- please indicate where the "reputation" you speak of was shared other than by one man.

Will you now please be so good as to answer these questions ?

- un ami

For the impatient, one can always look for one's self :

Wilson (writing of 1807 year):
"The Russian artillery is of the most powerful description. No other army moves with so many guns, and with no other army is it in a better state of equipment, or is more gallantly served.
The piece is well formed, and the carraige solid, without being heavy. The harness and rope-tackling is of the best quality for service."
Here follows a long paragraph about the excellence of the horses.
"The drivers are stout men : like all other drivers, they require superintendence in times of danger, to prevent their escape with the horses, but on various occasions they have also shwen great courage and fidelity; and they have the essential merit of carefully providing subsistence for their horses."
Here follows more praise of the drivers and the horses.
"The artillery-men are of the best description, and the non-commissioned offices equal, but the artillery officiers of inferior rank have not the same title to estimation as in other European services, for their education is not formed with the same care, and their service does not receive the same encouragement . To them is toil and responsibility, but the honour is by no means assured them. Some favorite officer, completely ignorant of the science and practise of the artillery, is frequently in the day of action appointed for the day to command the batteries, and the credit is in the dispatches given to him"
Here follows some more complaint about un-qualified favorites getting unfair praises.
"The horse artilery is no less well appointed, and the mounted detachments that accompany the guns ride excellent powerful horses, and form both in real character and appearance, a corps not inferior to any in the European services."

I still do not know how qualified is as a judge is Wilson about Russian artilerie education. But the main complaint is of the favoritism in appointments to command on the day of battle. The later organisation of the artillery (in fixed brigades in the divisions and in reserve brigades) did stop this practise.

- un ami

For anglo-phones, pelase

In the context of Wilson's remarks, what does this mean:

"not the same title to estimation"

Estimation and regard in the Russian Army by the Russian Army compared to how other armies regard their lower ranking artillerie officers?
OR
A general estimation of these Russians officiers compared to other nation's artillerie officiers ?

I can not understand where does the reference of "estimation" apply, since the rest of the texte is about the poor regard and not giving credit and praise of these officiers by the Russian Army.

Thank you for your advices,

-un ami

Kevin
Surely someone whose arguments are as balanced and politely put as are those of un ami, deserves a reply.
Regards
Gerry McGinty

Gentlemen,

I fully intend to reply to Un Ami and I do apologize for not doing so promptly. I, as undoubtedly all the rest of you, work full time, but I cannot reply from work as it is forbidden by the school district that I work for. I don't have my references at school, so I have to wait until I get home to look up material.

Lastly, my family has had two deaths within two days of each other late last month (my sister-in-law and my mother), and in the last four weeks this weekend is the only one that I will have the entire weekend to be at home and be able to answer fully from my library, and I do believe that Un Ami's questions need me to look up material at home. My family and I have had to travel from North Carolina to Washington DC twice and to California once in the past three weeks on family business and life is just now getting back to normal.

In between that visits to mortuaries and lawyers has taken up a considerable amount of time. As my mother had Alzheimers, I was her guardian for the last six years and had some legal duties to perform after her death. I don't particularly like to talk about things like this on the internet, even to you fellows many of whom I consider good friends and colleagues, as I am a very private person in matters such as these, but it appeared to some of you that I was either ignoring you or being rude. I wasn't-I was just preoccupied and quite busy. I've also missed eight days of school and have to catch up with my students. My fault entirely and I do hope you will be patient for my replies on this subject.

I have a laptop which I used on the trip, but I didn't take my library with me. So, if you will be patient, I'll post either this evening or tomorrow to answer Un Ami's questions.

Gerry, you are exactly correct that Un Ami deserves a reply and that he is a gentleman. Again, I do apologize for being tardy and I do hope that all present will excuse and pardon me.

Sincerely,
Kevin

no Kevin none of us really have to reply to anyone if we do not wish to or do not have time to reply. To me it is rude of others to insist prompt replies and then get impatient when they are not forth coming.

I want you all to know I am not somehow rushing to Kevin's aid like some paladin as you might think, I simply find it downright rude of others to insist, demand and push it when there is no law that states there is a certain time frame that a reply have to made or for that matter has to be made at all.

Guys, lighten up a bit and be less impatient ehh, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Shane

@Kevin F Kiley

First and most important, please accept my most sincere sympathy on the occasion of your recent losses. I think we are of about the same age in years, and I too have had the sorrow of now beginning to lose the members of the prior generation. May the Good God ease your grief.

The questions about events of 200 years ago can wait another 200 years for answers! Especially if these will be the good answers as you can give.

With a friendship,

- votre ami

Hi ami,

"not the same title to estimation" is quite obscure English. He appears to be using 'title' the same way as we might use 'entitlement' now. The phrase, AFAIK, only appears in modern English ina similar sense in phrases like:

He has the title to that house (i.e. he legally owns that house).

'Estimation' means opinion, in this case good opinion (IIRC Jane Austen uses the word in this sense from time to time).

Wilson's phrase means:

(They) don't deserve the same high opinion (as one should have of the junior artillery officers in other European Armies).

He writes in an impersonal, passive voice inviting us to consider the viewpoint objective (he doent's write 'I think', 'it seems to me' or something similar) – but as you say, it is only the opinion of one man…

Does this help at all?

Regards

Sorry, that should be "(he doesn't write..)"

Regards

My sympathy on your recent losses, Kevin. I wish I could put my suympathy as eloquently as Un Ami has …

Sometimes one forgets that every member here, no matter what side of an argument about 200 years ago that they stand on, have their normal lives going on around them, with much more important events happening.

Next time someone doesn't seem to be responding to an argument, we should never assume or assert it is because of the argument itself. We do not know the real reason why that person can't respond. And, in the end, the argument isn't really that important anyway – this is just a hobby after all.

Kevin

Sorry to hear of your loss, my sympathies to you & your family.

un ami
I have only simple questions, and have no part of any ill-will to any colleague. None. Point. Nul. good reply!

Whirlwind
Thanks for the English translation, it shows how difficult it is interpreting the writings of others of 200 years ago, double when not your natural language.

I think there is a lot lot more to learn of the Russian army, unfortunately i only have any enthusiasm for French or German, a good writer, someone like Duffy is needed to provide some inspiration on Russian subjects!

please carry on with the discussion – gentlemen.

Kevin
Commiserations and sympathy to you and yours. The Napoleonic Wars suddenly seem to be unimportant.
Very best regards
Gerry

Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for the kind thoughts.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin,

Really sorry to hear of your double loss. You've done well to keep up your contact with us at all.

Will be saying one for you on Sunday.

Yours,

Rev. Simon Hunt

Bit of an aside – and I am not trying to start a religious discussion – but many years of looking at source materials and the way they have been mistranslated, wrongly interpreted for all sorts of reasons and taken out of context on artillery, Marengo etc. has recently prompted me to reexamine the New Testament and now, having seem what can happen over 200 years, I don't believe the NT story as doctrinally presented, although I think there is a kernel of fact in it and that Jesus was a leading philosophical and moral teacher. Interesting how one subject can spill into another.

Anyway, that's an aside and please, don't anyone take up the religious angle here – back to artillery.

"Bit of an aside".
Boy! Is that an understatement. The above is the oddest in a long line of odd posts at Naps.
dave, who are you saying is the Messiah of the Naps board?
I hesitate to ask….
donald

Dave,
Couldn't agree more. The history of textural analysis of the New Testament is fascinating, and many of the techniques developed are crucial for our reading of any much accreted historical texts. The isolated issues surrounding tiny points of copying errors and translation and subsequent misinterpretation alone have occupied scholars for centuries. It does repay study, though some of the bitter controversies are an object lesson in futility!
Ben

Dear Simon,

Thanks and it very much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,
Your family troubles bring some much needed perspective to these discussions. I wish you the best at this difficult time,
Ben

Un Ami,

Here is some of the information from Wilson. No, he wasn't an artilleryman, but I would think that an experienced officer could tell who and what is skilled and well-trained. Further, Wilson was very pro-Russian which is very indicative of his fairness on the issue in that he isn't going to make something up to discredit or bad-mouth them.

'The artillerymen are of the best description, and the noncommissioned officers equal, but the artillery officers of inferior rank have not the same title to estimation as in the other European services, for their education is not formed with the same care, and their service does not receive the same encouragement. To them the toil and responsibility, but the honor is by no means assured them. Some favorite officer, completely ignorant of the science and practice of the artillery, is frequently in the day of action appointed for the day to the command of their batteries, and the credit is in the dispatches given to him for a service which depended on long previous systematic arrangements and laborious attention, with which he never was acquainted: an injustive mortifying to the corps, injurious to the individual artillery officer, and gravely detrimental to the general interests.'

A serving officer in the Russian service, the French emigre Langeron wrote that most officers were not well educated and trained and that the three cadet corps were too small to provide the number of junior officers needed for the army. He also mentioned in the 1790s that Russian artillery pieces were too heavy and that the artilleryment were not well-trained in aimed fire, but could shoot rapidly. Therefore, Russian artillery was not accurate. The artillerymen were not trained to maneuver their field pieces and most of the draft animals were only purchased immediately prior to a campaign.

I would consider the Russian artillery arm to be the most improved throughout the period with a new system and senior officers such as Sievers and Yermelov, and perhaps Kutusaiv, who strove for improvements in the arm. Considerably progress was made at the battery level, though the debate on regimental and battalion artillery continued almost throughout the period.

Command and control at the higher levels and higher level tactics never approached the skill level of the French and the education of artillery officers suffered a setback as artillery training was stopped in the cadet corps and from 1800-1808 there was no formal military education for artillery officers. Artillerymen were mainly trained in their companies. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that Russian field armies were artillery heavy, choosing quantity over quality.

The situation started to improve in 1808 when the Artillery Committe started to publish the Artillery Journal. However, the Russians saw artillery's main mission to be to defend the infantry and cavalry. Sievers maintained that the only reason to establish large batteries was to defend against strong enemy attacks.

I haven't found any evidence of a Russian formal artillery school until 1821.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Ben,

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"A serving officer in the Russian service, the French emigre Langeron wrote that most officers were not well educated and trained and that the three cadet corps were too small to provide the number of junior officers needed for the army. He also mentioned in the 1790s that Russian artillery pieces were too heavy and that the artillerymen were not well-trained in aimed fire, but could shoot rapidly."

It appears your ‘evidence' consists of the already mentioned Wilson quote and, perhaps, two statements, not provided, purporting to be from Langeron. Any particular work and page where these Langeron ‘quotes' can be found? I know of the following two published works, which are available on-line:

1) Pingaud, Léonce, 1841-1923. L'invasion, austro-prussienne, 1792-1794: …. 1895:

link

The "Memoires sur les guerres de la première coalition (1792-1794) par le comte de Langeron": are on pp. 1-109 of this work.

2) Memoires de Langeron, general d'infanterie dans l'armee russe. Campagnes de 1812, 1813, 1814, publies d'apres le manuscrit original pour la Societe d'histoire cotemporaine, par L.-G. F[abry]. 1902:

link

It should be noted, that the second work is full of praise of the Russian artillery that served under Langeron. Do a book search of the text using as the search word ‘artillerie'.

@Kevin F Kiley

With regard to Wilson:
I did already post this quote (see above). It is not clear if the complaint is
(i) that the Russian Army did give the artillerie education less attention vs. other Russian armes compared to how the armes were treated in other armies
Or,
(ii) that the Russian artillerie officiers had less training than in other armies.
In either case, he did write without making any formal review of the training and education of these officiers, was not him self an artillery officier, and did write about 1807 year.

For Langeron,
it would be well if you could provide the quotation, because I do not think he was specaking specifically about the Russian artillerie. In any case we have again an officier who has no direct knowledge of training the artilerie officers and who himself is not of that arme.
More over, the condition of the 1790's bears little up on the question of 1811-1814. Here is what did Langeron say of his Russian artillerie of 1813 year:
"Le général Blücher m'a souvent témoigne sa satisfaction de la perfection materielle de mon artillerie et de l'intrépidté de mes artilleurs; jamais ils n'ont déployé une bravoure plus brillinate et autant de talents que cette mémorable journée. Les chefs de compagnies [he names them all]… acquirent les droits les plus justes le mieux mérités a ma reconnaissance. Le général Veszeliski, qui pendant toute le campagne a commandé mon artilleire et dont le zèle et les soins ont contribué si efficacement à l'entretenir dans un état parfait, malgré les pertes sensibles qu'elle à éprouvées, mérite aussi les mêmes éloges pour son courage personnel et ses talents dans l'emplacement des batteries. Pendant les quartre jours qu'a duré la bataille de Leipzig, mes 175 cannons ont tiré 12.600 coups et j'ai perdue 400 chevaux d'artillerie."
link

"artillery training was stopped in the cadet corps and from 1800-1808 there was no formal military education for artillery officers."
You are not correct. Where ever you did get this idea was in error. The function of the 2nd Cadet Corps was entirely this (to include engineers). It was the First Cadet Corps that did cease to train the artillerie officiers, as a special corps, the Second, was created exactly for this. It is merely nomeclature to call this a "corps" not an "école". It is the same thing.

"I haven't found any evidence of a Russian formal artillery school until 1821."
Do you read Russian ? It is in every child's scholl book, as I did outline above. If you can not find this infos in anglo-phone or franco-phone works, it does not mean it did not exist !
I do not have the book with me as a scan, but I am told by the silly girl who is the employée of ma femme that this is discussed, for anglo-phones even, as a short summary in the préface to the recent anglo-phone book by the Georgian Professor Mikaberidz abot the general in the Russian service.

"Sievers maintained"
I did ask before, and must, one supposes, ask again. I do not wish to seem to pressurise you, but there is no quotation, so one does not know exactly what was said. There are two possible Sievers who have some thing to do with artillerie or engineering and many others who did not.
It is not helpful to give as evidence a summary of what some one said, without the context of what exactly he was talking about, who he was and what was the basis for his knowledge of the topic and when he did write.
In any case,he does not seem to be talking about artillerie officiers training. This is the subject that is being dicusssed, not "skill", nor "tactics" nor "équipments" nor "quantity".

Overall, I do not see any evidence at all in what you have offered that the Russian artillerie officiers, after the reforms of 1805 (with effect thus after 1807 year), were not trained well.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Not that we have discussed at some length about your question about the Russians, can we please, with you kind permission, return to answer the questions I did pose about the French training of artillerie officiers ?

You did make assetions, I do quote you :
"The best trained artillery officers were the French"
"The least trained were the Russian"
My questions :
-- other than 33 per year from the école, how did all the others Frenches (approx 2700 new artillerie officiers) get "best trained" ?
-- If Russians with academic scholl + 2 years artillerie scholl + 2 years as yunkers training in the compagnies were "less trained" than French officiers, how was this better done for Frenches ?

Thank you again,

- votre ami

Un Ami,

I obtained my information from the book, in two volumes, Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars byu Alexander Zhmodikov and Yurii Zhmodikov and much, if not most, of their information was taken from Russian material. That being so, and unless those two authors made some serious errors, the information on Russian artillery education is correct.

Further, what I said in total about officer training was that 'The best trained artillery officers were French, British, and Austrian' not just for the French, and that the least trained, or perhaps I should have said poorly trained, were the Russian and Prussian. I didn't merely state French in the first part nor Russian in the second.

And based on Russian artillery performance during the period, especially comparing it with that of the French, I would have to state categorically that the French artillery officers were much better trained than the Russian. Improvement was definitely seen, especially after 1807/1808, but they were still inferior to the French overall.

So, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you would like, I can quote from the Zhmodikovs' books for you, but they are still available, I think, from George Nafziger who published them in 2003. They are excellent books and outstanding references for the Russians for the period. I highly recommend them.

And yes, I can read Russian, as I took four years of it in school, though I now have to use a dictionary.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"He also mentioned in the 1790s that Russian artillery pieces were too heavy and that the artillerymen were not well-trained in aimed fire, but could shoot rapidly."

Found the above ‘Langeron quote' in Vol 1 of the Zhemodikov brothers book, page 2. It is actually from Kosciuskos' "Notice sur les Russes", which starts on p 143, found on page 144 in

Huffer's Quellen zur Geschichte des Zeitalters der französischen Revolution. Part 1, vol 1. 1900:

link

"Le corps d'artillerie russe est ordinairement nombreux; il fait précéder l'attaque du corps d'armée par des décharges continuelles. Les artilleurs russes tirent assez vite, mais leur feu est mal dirigé et les pièces mal pointées."

The other portion you mention is actually from Langeron, and can be found in the "Russkaia starina", parts one and two for 1895:

link

link

This serialized article concerns the Russian army at the end of the reign of Empress Elizabeth.

@Kevin F Kiley

"Alexander Zhmodikov and Yurii Zhmodikov much, if not most, of their information was taken from Russian material."

OK, is this meant to explain why you do not have the name of which Sievers, when he did write, what he did actually write, and that you in the same why do not have a quote from Langeron and cannot thus say exactly what he did say and about what years, etc. ?
If this is the situation, I will not again ask for these quotations and their authors, etc. – so please do tell me if you may.
It is very hard to find favor in your ideas when there is, if one may be so bold, not an actual historical evidence given on to the question.

Since you do not know about the training of Russian artilerie officers, here will be some little introductions :
Военная Академия Ракетных Войск Стратегиче ского Назначен ия имени Петра Великого
« Станов ление професс ионального образ ования отечест венных артилле ристов »
link
It is in Russian, naturally.
(I am sorry to break up the long Russian words, but they will not post more than a few lettres at a time on the TMP)

----------------------------------

But still, you resist my questions about the Frenches. Here I do not have any idea of challegning your ideas about the French artillerie officiers being better than the later Russians artillerie officiers. Let us accept them as perfectly agreed. But then the question is how was this done by the Frenches :
-- other than 33 per year from the école, how did all the others Frenches (approx 2700 new artillerie officiers) get "best trained" ?
-- If Russians with academic scholl + 2 years artillerie scholl + 2 years as yunkers training in the compagnies were "less trained" than French officiers, how was this better done for Frenches ?

If you do not wish to answer these questions, please just so say. Then the matter can so instantly dropped.

- votre ami

@Steven H Smith

Oh, well bowled ! (it is OK idiom, isn't?)

I did think the Langeron comments were from long before the era under discussion, but I could not find them as quickly as did you !

:-)

OK, one must also note that the général Tadeusz Kościuszko was not an artillerie officer, did no review of Russian artillerie officier training (he was in Russia only as a prisonnier de guerre, until was pardoned and sent away), wrote about the Russians of the 1796 and before (the only ones he fought) and did manage to lead two révolutions in Poland against Russia which led to the destruction of his country.

Other than that, he also did not actually say anything about the training of Russian artillerie officers, which was the actual question under discussion.

- votre ami

@ DH,

I'd love to respond in full to your thoughtful aside but sadly this is not the place!

Your comment on the applicability of the tools of textual analysis in Napoleonic study is a very valid one.

Now back to the artillery!

A correction:

The article by Shil'der, "Russkaia armiia v god smerti Ekateriny II", is found in the March 1895 issue of the "Russkaia starina", pp147-166 – which is not yet available for download; the April issue, pp 145-177; and the May issue, pp 185-202.

The April and May issues are available for download:

link

If you download the volume, the article is at frames 150-182 and 418-435.

Kevin is rather prone to using 7YW material to "prove" some inadequacy amongst non-French artillery. He did the same thing with Duffy on the Austrians. Then, I have heard that in one place in his book, Kevin says the opposite of what Z&Z say, despite citing them. I wonder why – like his German – he claims to be able to read it, yet nothing ever comes up in his book as a direct quote from a cited national language work.

It is perhaps a lack of confidence among him and his acolytes that a second "review" attempting to rubbish Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield has now appeared on Amazon UK.

All that aside, it is interesting to see from Huffer (which is a collection of many interesting primary documents from the 1792-1801 period), that the Russians are using a large scale advancing gun line ahead of the infantry in the Rev period – yet another tactic usually attributed to the French.

Un Ami,

I have shown you material from Langeron and Wilson and their comments on the professional capabilities of Russian artillery officers. Koskiuzko wrote an excellent horse artillery manual, so I would give him the nod to be able to make a proressional judgment on the capabilities of Russian artillery officers.

It is also noteworthy that Tsar Paul reorganized the ARtillery and Engineer Cadet Corps into the Second Cadet Corps during his short reign and there no longer was specific artillery instruction being given.

I believe you to be in error on the education and professional competence of Russian artillery officers.

From the time of Gribeauval's first reforms in the mid-1760s, each French artillery regiment was also a school. That's where the French artillery officers were trained after they came out of the Royal Military School in Paris and were commissioned. They also spent nine weeks training as an enlisted man before assuming their duties as artillery officers. That is why I asked you about curriculum. I can supply the curriculum for both the French officers and NCOs. Can you supply the curriculum for the Russian officers? That is a definite indicator on what an artillery officer knew and the level of competence expected (in the French case very high). I don't believe that is the case with the Russians.

Where is the Russian artillery school during the period 1796-1815? There isn't a formal one and I don't agree with the education numbers in years that you have provided. The first French artillery school was established at Douai in 1679, and the excellent Austrian school at Budweis was based on the French model? Where is the Russian school and could you comment on the curriculum and training please?

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

"Where is the Russian artillery school during the period 1796-1815? There isn't a formal one "
One assumes that you did not yet use your Russian dictionary. The text that I did provide as a link describes the training in exactly the 2nd Cadet Corps as for training the Artillerie and Engineer Officers. The article is from the current Strategic Rocket Forces and Artillery Scholl. If you will not take think this is a good source, I do not know what will satisfy you. Therein is also descrbed the specialist training of sous-officiers in the special compagnies of the garde artillerie.

As to Langeron and Koskiuzko, any negative comments you have provided refer to times before 1800. They are not relevant to the question of training in 1805-1815. Indeed, Langeron is full of praise for the Russian artillerie under his command in 1813-1814, as I did quote.

The entire, compete, total evidence that you have provided for the period 1804-1812 is this from Wilson :
"the artillery officiers of inferior rank have not the same title to estimation as in other European services, for their education is not formed with the same care, and their service does not receive the same encouragement . "
From the contexte of the quote, it is not clear if the comment of Wilson refers to the general esteem of these officiers (compared to other nations' officiers) or whether he refers only to how they are estemmed in Russia compared to other offciers in other armes of the Russian service.
In any case, his commeny is not relevant to the question of training in 1805 (effective after 1807)-1815.

You do now say that while 33 students officiers did graduate from the école per year, the others (about some 2700 new officers) received training only in their régiments, of 9 weeks as artileurs. It is this training in their régiments that you assert is superior to Russians with academic scholl + 2 years artillerie scholl + 2 years as yunkers training in the compagnies.

There is no listing of curriclum that could possibly make this 9 weeks so perfect and wonderful as to account the same as 4 years of special study. In any case, the curriculum will be the same topics, naturally (unless you think Russians were taught heavy drinking and flogging of serfs instead of gunnery, tactics and mathematics).

If you are not willing to offer information that is relevant to the period under discussion (1805-1815), if you will hold 9 weeks experience as a French artilleur in a régiment as better than 4 years special study and duties, if you will not read information provided directly to you by quote or link to a web-site --- then in such a case it becomes very much more difficult to have a good give-and-take of discussion. Indeed, the question of whether you are being guided by a blindness or by a bias can creep in to one's mind, however unhappy such a prospect will be.

- votre ami

I want to make it clear I do not have a great knowledge of Artillery and the training involved and really don't have a horse in this race but I would have thought that although the Russians trained their artillery officers and men the standard of that training would have been much lower than that of Western Europe?

Not every university is equal to Harvard, Cambridge, and West Point amongst many others. I would think the best teachers and lecturers would have taut in the best artillery schools of those days and going all the way to teach in Russia not that enticing. Dunno, I could be wrong, France, England and Austria seems to be where all the modern knowledge, innovations and inventions was being learnt.

Shane

Dear Kevin
Did not the Jacobins abolish Artillery and Engineering Schools as being elitist. These were then re-instated. Also looking at the stats in Alder only 11% of the Artillery Officers held commission before the revolution. Artillery advancement in France was upon seniority rather than merit in this period.

Un Ami has demonstrated that there was an Artillery School. By the way it was in St Petersburg. (this was at the time the capital of Russia since 1707 after it had been captured from the Swedes) Moscow was the religious and the heart whereas St Petersburg was the head. Where did Euler and Bernoulli teach? Ah yes that was St Petersburg. They taught ballistics to Artillerymen. I can explain at length their importance. Russia had reduced their charge sizes some 50 years before the French Belatedly chose to do so. This was still in dispute there until 1776.

The Gribeauval 8-pdr and 12-pdr gun carriage failed in the trials just behind the trunnions. This is where the M1803 reinforcement was placed. The extra straping required for the M1765 12-pdr carriages made them heavier than the Valliere carriages. There were still comments that the charge in the Gribeauval guns was too high. It was again all about the need for range.

The Baltic region of Russia were dominated by Germanic decent and were well known for their learning. In addition the areas of newly acquired territory were fertile areas for officers with learning. As you realise there were a number of Generals with Germanic names. They were not considered Russian enough. These I have written about in the Brazen Cross of Courage. Russia lead Europe upon ballistics in the 1710s-1740s. The impression of Russia is of the time before Peter the Great. The change in the education and understanding was huge.

It is notable that the Russians had developed spherical case some 50 years before Shrapnel had reinvented it. Although it was not of course perfected until Boxer in the 1750s.

Burkhard Kristof Munikh (von Munnich (1683-1767) founded the artillery cadet corps in the 1720s after the consolidation of Russian Artillery in St Petersberg in 1714.

Just because the system does not work as the French does not mean that it was not effective.

It is so strange that the work of Shuvalov, Euler, Arakcheev, Bernoulli, Gascoigne, Munnich, Bruce, Danilov and many others are dismissed as not relevant. Each demonstrated the way forward and Europe followed. There is also a list of Prussians I could name.

Then Piedmont, Hesse Cassel, Bavaria, Austria and Britain seem excluded from considerations upon Artillery Schools and learning.

Stephen

@Kevin F Kiley

Кадетские корпуса и российские кадеты
В. М. Крылов
(СПб., 1998)
history.scps.ru/cadet/00.htm

If your Russian dictionary does not be come over used, you will see nicely the curriculum (curiously not therein to be included neither heavy drinking nor serf flogging), the graduates, the service biographies of noted graduates, the lesser scholls (such as Pskov and the special one for those of Polish and Litwa ethnoc), the pedalogical methods, the instructors or directors, etc. etc.

- votre ami

@Shane Devries

One might think that a good Russian academicien or experte was quite near as good as the one from some other nation -- not least of which because the TSARS did pay nicely and could draw up on a huge population including dozens of ethnocs and creeds.
But in truth, the question was on the training of artillerie officers in the Napoléon era. It is easy to expand the question : "national characters", national educational systemes, "skill in artillerie", tactics, équipments, logistiques, etc. and etc. and for ever.

Let us keep in a focus, and see what of can have a clear view:

-- 33 such officers graduated per year from the French artillerie école (you may read their name even in the Almanchs Impérials). But the need for new offficers was about 10x that number over the years 1805-1815. It would appear we do not have too much infos about the training of the greater number of French artillerie officers, except that they seemed to have served in the régiments for a while.
The Russians (please do take a dico and look at the links that i did give if you will wish to confirm) did have academic scholl (top graduates) + 2 years artillerie scholl + 2 years as yunkers training in the compagnies. Indeed the Graf Arakcheev was said to give the examinations himself for some years !

For sous-officiers, it is asserted that some training was done in France. For Russians it was garrison academic scholls (15 years study, top ten graduates) + special compagnies in the garde (2 years) + 2-3 years service in the régiments + (optional) special additional advanced scholls for artillerie mathematics and artillerie drawing.

I will not say that the Russians waere better trained than the French (but it appears quite possible).
But I cannot see how the training of the Russians in artillerie in the Napoléon era was any less than the French.

And it was only this last assertion that was the question I did raise.

- votre ami

@summerfield

"there was an Artillery School. By the way it was in St Petersburg."

He is still there, as the Mikhailovsky Artillerie University, on Komsomola ul. -- unless some one did privatise him and re-develop the property in to a business centre and residences !

I did once so many years years ago give of lectures of a sorte to the students and faculty, about war fare not vs. NATO or fascistes, which is what they did like to study, but against in stead a population of peoples with some not-friendly mixed in with mostly not-caring.

They were not happy, as I did say it would be best to leave the pièces in dépot and take only their rifles. But the world does change, and the US Army does now create infanterie légère from their artilleurs for the campagnes in Iraq and the Afghan lands.

So may be a business centre on Komsomola ul. would be the best idea after all.

- votre ami

Dear Un Ami
Thank you for the clarification. I away from my books. I will have a look at you references with interest. The Russian Artillery is much misunderstood especially by my atlantic cousins. I would like to know more upon the 7YW and Tsar Paul Ordnance. Have you any suggestions.

Stephen

Gentlemen,

You might wish to take a look at this article which states that the subject artillery school was founded in 1821.

link

Again, I submit there is enough evidence given by primary source witnesses (Langeron, Wilson, and Koskuzko) on the lack of education and skill of Russian artillery officers from the 1790s to at least 1807. Russian artillery Major General Sievers also comments on the superiority of French artillery in 1807 with regard to employment which is a function of training and education.

Further, artillery training in the Russian army for officers was taken out of the curriculum of the Cadet Corps by Tsar Paul which would retard the professional education of the Russian artillery officers.

While there were great improvements in the Russian artillery arm of the period, higher level tactics never rivalled that of the French nor did their command and control.

The French artillery arm didn't lose the amount of officers that the cavalry and infantry did during the Revolution because of emigration. There was always the core of professionally trained officers to keep the artillery arm proficient and more were trained in action and with the units. This later caused a minor uproar in the Guard artillery during the Empire as some of the artillery officers chosen for admission to the were not school trained. They were tested and found to be proficient and Napoleon waived the school requirement.

However, artillery excellence was institutionalized in the French artillery arm, something you don't see with the Russians (or the Prussians for that matter).

While the Russians have always been enthusiastic about artillery I don't think they are as proficient today as the western artillery arms of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany. I have a Russian gunner's quadrant and a Russian compass. The gunner's quadrant, which is modern, is a very crude instrument, the tooling used to produce it is not refined to western standards. The compass is only graduated to 6000 mils, whereas the US equivalent is graduated to 6400 mils, making the Russian compass very inaccurate comparing it to western standards.

The same thing can be seen when comparing French optics to Russian optics (sights) during the Napoleonic period. The French movable sight is simple in design and easy to use. It also can remain mounted on the gun tube during firing. The Russian diopeter sight is very inaccurate on uneven ground as the trunnions were not then level. The later sight was also difficult to use as neither it (nor the previous one) could be left on the breech when fired, thus slowing down the service of the piece.

Adding to that the 1805 system designs were based on older 1740-1750 carriage design and the elevating system was the older 1740s screw quoin, the entire Russian artillery was not an up to date service with undereducated officers that were not as skilled (or trained) as their French, British, and Austrian counterparts.

And the record of Russian artillery employment reflects this, even to the comments by their own senior commanders.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
The Artillery and Engineer School from the article you have given a link to is 1717 by Peter the Great. Now the 185 years seems a little strange and it is unclear when the article was originally written. It may have been written at the end of the 19th century. The copyright is 2006.

There were changes in the carriage designs in M1805. It is again you need to consult the plans. In any case Gribeauval Designs were based upon 1740-50s designs. The Axle derived from those of Rostaing, 8- and 12-pdr carriage from Leichtenstein M1753, M1749 Howitzer from the M1742 Prussian Howitzer. The Wagons came from designs of the late 17th century with new wheels only present it seems in 1792 according to the Manson (1792) Tables of Contructions. The old wheels are shown in the Muy and Gribeauval (1771).

The Russians used the Rechsmachine and not quoins. The M1749 Howitzer and M1775 Siege artillery used the Rechtsmachine until replaced in the Manson (1792) revisions.

Stephen

'In any case Gribeauval Designs were based upon 1740-50s designs.'

No, they were not. Again, see Alder for the carriage design information. They were a new design which was put forward in order to reduce recoil-the force of the piece being fired would be directed not only to the rear but downward.

'8- and 12-pdr carriage from Leichtenstein M1753'

Again, incorrect. Compare the two designs-they are completely different. The double set of trunnions was indeed taken from the 12-pounder Lichtenstein design, but that was it.

'M1749 Howitzer from the M1742 Prussian Howitzer.'

You might want to take a look at Persy for the howitzer and its introduction into the French service. The 1749 howitzer was an 8-inch howitzer and was part of the Valliere system.

'The Russians used the Rechsmachine and not quoins.'

Please read what I said. The rechsmachine is a screw quoin. It is shaped like the old wooden quoin or wedge and the elevating devise is a screw.

The original Gribeauval howitzer, which was a 6-inch and not an 8-inch howitzer, did use the screw quoin. However, it was later replaced by the Gribeauval elevating screw and platform as the guns had. Again, take a look at Persy:

Elementary Treatise on the Forms of Cannon and Various Systems of Artillery, Translated for the use of the Cadets of the US Military Academy from the French of Professor N. Persy of Metz 1832.

This is an excellent summation of the development of the French artillery arm regarding equipment and weapons. And it labels the systems correctly as well as being easy to use.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
Yes there was a new design carriage and the re-inforcement strap where the carriage split upon the change of angel. You were referring to influence upon design and then change to when the design was made. Interesting. So you accept there was an evolution.

Please superimpose the two design from the plans and you can make your own minds about that of the 12-pdr or the two systems.

So when was the 6pouce howitzer introduced? It was introduced in 1749 by de Saxe. Look at the carriage designs of the Prussian 1743 Howitzer and that of the 6pouce. This was a copy of the 10-pdr howitzer (160mm bore). The vertical elevating screw was introduced in 1792 and not by Gribeauval as he died in 1789. I refer you to De Scheel (1795: 1800 trans). Also see the writings of de Saxe upon comments upon this. This is one of the many differences with the Manson (1792) Tables of Constructions that you have referred to I believe before. This shows an evolution in the system.

The translation of Percy is flawed in areas and you should look at the original French. It is not complete. It would be better to look at Gassendi and Fave. Much can be taken from studying the plans.

Stephen

Stephen,

'Please superimpose the two design from the plans and you can make your own minds about that of the 12-pdr or the two systems.'

I did years ago when this subject first came up. I highly suggest that you do the same. The gun carriages are very different, including the design of the trail.

'It was introduced in 1749 by de Saxe'

Source? The 8-inch was introduced by Valliere and his staff in 1749.

Systems always evolve. That has never been in contention. What has been is the naming of artillery systems that didn't exist. That is the issue.

'The translation of Percy is flawed in areas and you should look at the original French. It is not complete.'

Where is it flawed? Could you point this out, please?

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

"You might wish to take a look at this article which states that the subject artillery school was founded in 1821."
Yes, That is when the scholl was reorganised with that name. The article speaks also the prior training organisation under different names, back to the the time of the Great Peter. I do not understand what is the point of noting what year they did call the training organisation by what name. Is it your idea that until one names an institution an "University" it cannot teach officers? Is not the USA Military Academy at West Point called a "Corps of Cadets" and there is "US Naval Academy" even in our days -- I did never hear of "West Point University" or "Annapolis College" ?

For Langeron:
Are you ignoring his great praises of the Russsian artillerie of the year 1812-1814 in favor of his critiques of the Russian artllerie of the early 1790's ? In the truth, I do not understand. Please recall we are discussing the Napoléon era.

For Koskiuzko:
In addition to writing about the early 1790's, not being an artillerie officier, not being in Russia other than as a prisonnier, and having led two révolutions against the Russians, he also did not write about the officers training.

For Severs:
You have not given a quotation from this officier. You have not provided even his name. It is impossible to tell the contexte or evaluate the opinion of an unidentifed person who wrote an unknown texte about an unknown narrative at an unknown time. In addition to this, you have not even provided any idea from him about the training of artillerie officiers.

For Wilson:
We have exactly just these few words, of the 1807 era :
"education is not formed with the same care"
It is not even clear that the comparison made by Wilson is to education in other nations, or if the comparison is made by Wilson to other arems of service in Russia.

"artillery training in the Russian army for officers was taken out of the curriculum of the Cadet Corps by Tsar Paul"
I must protest, I did provide at the links the exact training, described in great detail, given to these artillerie officers befoer during and after the reign of the TSAR Paul. Did you not yet read these infos ? Your comment is planely incorrect. I am sorry for all the other colleagues that I can not find such a detailed description in English, buy you do read Russian.

"While the Russians have always been enthusiastic about artillery I don't think they are as proficient today as the western artillery arms of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany." and so on.
This is not appropriate to the discussion of the Napoléon era. I have no idea why you would add such a thing of a venom of a negative modern comment. I assure you that no one the artillerie of 1812 year was made after 1975, nor does a sngle officier of that era survive to our days.
I protest most greatly the addition of negative remarks about the curent day beng added to a discussion of the past. The study and war games of the long ago past are to be an escape from the work and toil of today, an happy way to spend of the idle hours. If I did care about these topics of the current day, I would not ask questions of the Napoléon era.

"when comparing French optics to Russian optics (sights)"
Why are you beginning a discussion of sighting systemes when the topic of the question was the training of artillerie officers ? Will you be so good as to start this as a "New Topic", if you will wish to compare these items of équipment, as the questions one will discuss are not the most simple.

"It is shaped like the old wooden quoin or wedge and the elevating devise is a screw."
I do not understand why it is considered to be better if the machine is a screw without a wedge instead of a screw with a wedge. The Colonel Nilus does state that both were tested and that the screw without a wedge was deemed less reliable, one assumes in harsher conditions of service. In effect, even the Russian designs of 1845 year did keep the wedge.
Please explain why this design decision is a hegative comment on the Russian designs.
Please consider to start a "New Topic" for this also, if you do think it will merit an extended discussion.

For Frenches:
We have 33 officers per year to gradate from the artllerie école. This compared to a need for near to 10x that number of new officiers. You do tell us that the others did receive some training in their régiments.

For Russians:
We have the training of artillerie officiers to include academic scholl + 2 years training in artillerie scholl (called usually "Cadet Corps" ) + 2 years training as yunkers in the régiments. The curriculum, graduates , etc, for this has been given at the links I did provide.

If from this you can conclude only "undereducated [Russian] officers that were not as skilled (or trained) as their French, … counterparts.", one can only stand in complete amazement.

- un ami

Un Ami,

As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject. I have you the reference, an excellent book that came out in 2003, and that's where most of the information comes from. Apparently you have ignored that.

So, again, we can agree to disagree and I do hope that is fine with you.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@Kevin F Kiley

"Apparently you have ignored that."

I have ignored nothing at all. In effect, I did show in great detail the error or not applying (due to differences of many years) of your source as regards to the training of Russian artillerie officers of the Napoléon era.

If one will point a finger and make a claim of "ignoring", I think, with a candor, you should not be the first in this case. For myself, it does not seem sufficiently polite to do such a thing.

If you will base "agree to disagree" on the inofos as we have each provided on the topic of the training of Russian artillerie officiers of the Napoléon era, then so you will. I do not know what more could be done to provide infos for you to base a modification of your opinion.

- un ami

Un Ami,

I was not intending to be impolite. I do apologize if you took it that way. That was not my intent.

However, as we don't agree maybe we should drop the subject and move on? You believe as you do, and I believe as I do and I don't think we're going to convince one another.

Russian artillery performance did improve during the period. However, I do believe that Russian artillery officers were inferior in training and education, especially to the French, British, and Austrian artillery officers of the period. I still believe that to be the case today, no matter what the Russians themselves say or think.

Have you read the Zhmodikov's book? If you haven't, I would highly suggest that you do. I have found it helpful in understanding the problems the Russians had technically and tactically.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Kevin
I have been able to look at some of the Russian texts that our colleague have supplied and you should consider reading these before carrying on this discussion. To claim that the Artillery School was formed in 1821 when in the next paragraph it was 1717 by Peter the Great.

You reading of Z&Z (2003) has been interesting as has been Alder. Now you have not answered the question you have raised

1. When was the 6pouce introduced and please can I have a date and an ordnance?
2. What was the 8pouce modelled on?
3. What is the calibre of the Prussian 10-pdr?
4. What is the calibre of the 8pouce?
5. What is the difference?

You will see the 8pouce and 10-pdr are different calibre howitzers. The 8pouce is the same calibre as the 25-pdr howitzer (223mm).

What page number are you referring to in Alder that states that the Great Wagons, Sling Carts, Ball Cart, and gun tube wagon were completely redesigned. The M1771 drawings show the same form as those in St Remy. The Manson (1792) only rationalised and modernised the wheels.

Stephen

'What page number are you referring to in Alder that states that the Great Wagons, Sling Carts, Ball Cart, and gun tube wagon were completely redesigned.'

Stephen,

Please show me where I said that? I was talking about gun carriages which is what I thought you were discussing.

Sincerely,
Kevin