"1792 Austrian Jäger buglers/ hornists?" Topic

Does anyone perhaps know if the PRE 1798 (Freikorps) Austrian Jäger units had buglers / hunting horns or not during the early years of the Revolutionary Wars (perhaps similar to the ones carried later in the Napoleonic period)?

Thanks

John

Prior to the change to the Feldtrompete in 1809, the Jaeger used Waldhoerner (woodland or hunting horns). A standard hunting horn bent round a few times was standard issue from the regularised batts of 1784. It was 250cm long in all, but bent round three times with a mouth of 21cm, almost twice the width of a trumpet.

Yet again Dave – you come to my rescue! Thank you very much.

Another thing I was wondering about was whether or not the 1792-98 Tyrolean Jägers carried the long (plain bar hilted) 'sword' bayonet on their 1779 Jäger-Stutzen rifles (as illustrated by Ottenfeld, but not always totally reliable of course)? I understand they were supposed to carry a sword – was the long bayonet carried in addition to this?

Any advice gratefully received Dave. It would be nice to have direct contact with you while we are working on our 28mm Revolutionary Wars ranges. I will quite understand if you don't want to do that, but if you feel like getting in touch with me my work email is johnc@eurekamin.com.au

Many thanks once again.

John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures

"Die Jäger erhielten bei ihrer Neuerrichtung 1784 ein kreisförmiges mehrfach gekrümmtes Jagdhorn. Es hatte bei einer absoluten Rohrlänge von 250 cm eine dreifache Windung mit einem inneren Durchmesser von 18 cm und einenr Schallbecherweite von 21 cm.
Die Jagshörner wurden 1809 abgeschafft."

Karger, page 77

To add to Dave Hollins information, theinner diameters of the "bents" was 18 cm.

Somewhere I did see an ilustration of the buge, maybe Dolleczek? I must check it.

By the way Karger supplies furhter infaormation about the drumm fifes , field bottles and so on.

Excellent – thank you VW

Here a picture

it is from Dollezcek, that one with 1784 in the centre

picture

I'm thrilled to hear you are working on these John! I'm looking forward to adding these to my collection.

According to Karger only 21 Jäger were equipped with rifles per company, the rest had the usual infantry musket and bayonet.

As to the rifle, it semms that till about 1795 a Hirschfänger was fixed to it – and then from that date gradually the so called Haubajonett was introduced, the whole changeover took time till 1805.

The interesting question would be – how did the Jäger rilfes, introduced in 1789 looked like??

Basically, the answer is whatever was available – hence there would be old 1759 (no bayonet) and the 1769 (on which the Hirschfaenger could be fitted as a bayonet), which did not change significantly in the 1779 pattern, except that the 1779 had the larger 5/4 Loth barrel. The 1795/6 pattern reverts to the 1 Loth size, is shorter and takes the flat Haubajonett, although as vW notes, the Hirschfaenger was in service until 1805.

I don't think it is possible to be as definite as Karger on the numbers of rifle-armed troops per company. The three types of the First coaltion War came from different areas – the Tyroleans were volunteers from the standing militia units and general population, many bringing their own weapons. The Germans were south German volunteers, who would have been equipped from the Imperial supplies. The le Loup (Belgian) Jaeger have their origins in volunters, who fought for the Emperor against the Belgian rebellion in the 1780s. Probably more affluent, they would be providing some of their own weapons and some are known to have used the Grenzer Doppelstutz. Then of course there was the famous Windbuchse airgun.

As far as the side arms went, Jaeger received the Hirschfaenger initially, but that was fixed on the firing weapon as the ordinary infantry sabre was introduced. Contemporary illustratiuons show these Jaeger with hats with quite large brims on one side and only a small turn-up, although in theory they were supposed to wear Kasketts.

I will send you a scan of Dolleczek's illustrations of the jaeger weapons, but unfortunately none were in the exhibition catalogue produced by Krenn.

In the book by Erich Gabriel, showing photos of orignal weapons there is a Jägerstutzen M 1769 – seemingly without any device for fixing a Hirschfänger or something like that.

It would be interesting to know from where Dolleczek drew his designs.

For the Revolutionary period I would opt for the M 1779 with Hirschfänger.

I agree that it is not that one cannot be that definate about the amount of rifels per company as Karger is stating, but in my view, most part of the Jäger were armed with a normal musket.

I don't agree that the Hirschfänger was fixed permanenty when the Jäger received the infantry sabre, but that those Jäger with the rifle kept the Hirschfänger as their side arm – which could be used also for being fixed on the rifle.

The usual infantry sabre was worn by those who were equipped with the musket.

Dave can you be so kind to tell me where you found the contemporary illustrations of Jäger (Revolutionary pre 1798 time) with hats – especailly Tyrolean Jäger – there as you are aware the Artaria prints of 1792 show a Kaskett.

To go in reverse (!), the Jaeger with the hat is shown in the series of drawings attached to the 1795 Schematis, most of which I put in MAA299, although one of my colour plates shows a Tyrolean with an airgun in the official uniform. The 1795 Schematis would show the reality better than the Artaria prints.

I think Dolleczek has become somewhat confused. On the Hirschfaenger, where he says that "initially" it could not be fixed on, but in the weapons table, he says the 1769 had a Hirschfaenger, which could be fitted as a bayonet. I assumed from this that it had become a development before the 1779 formalised the fitting and consequently, that as the sabre came in, so the Hirschfaenger became just a bayonet, not least as the standard infantry belt could accommodate both. Hirshfaengers were replaced on artillerymen by Grenadier sabres in 1758, so there are plenty kicking around.

I can see how you would interpret it, especially as the 1778-9 Tyrol Jaegerkorps had some men with an infantry sabre and some with Hirschfaenger "from the Imperial stores" (p154 of Karger), but Karger then goes on to say that in 1798, the three Jaeger units still had a crossbelt to carry the sabre and the bayonet (p.156), when the infantry had lost their sabres. Dolleczek also says on p.57 that the Jaeger used the Hirschfaenger up to 1812 and on p.22 that the "1789" was the first, which could be used as a non-firing weapon, because of the fixed Hirschfaenger.

This seems to be where Dolleczek gets really confused – on the 1779/1789 pattern. The 1789 is a "ghost". The 1779 we know about with its certainly fixed Hirschfaenger, but then he talks about this 1789 pattern, which is not in the data table. He also says on p.22 that similar weapons were introduced in Prussia. However on p.78, he says that the 1769 pattern was introduced and that its ramrod was carried along the Hirschfaenger scabbard. Then he jumps straight to 1788 and says that an order adjusted this weapon slightly and it was introduced in 1789. It was apparently similar to Prussian weapons and was used to equip the Jaeger battalions alongside captured Prussian weapons and the long Austrian cavalry Stutzen. the large number of Jaeger and other irregualr units prompted the 1795/6 pattern to be produced in large numbers. Go back to p.22, where Dolleczek says that this "1789" pattern was only produced in small numbers, although the Hirschfaenger remained in service until 1808. The difficulty here is that the last Prussian weapons would have been captured in the 1778-9 Potato war and the first cavalry Stutzen was introduced in 1788, copied from the heavy existing Jaeger design (p.74-5) – its weight meant it was given to the Tyrolean militia, while a new lighter 1789 pattern was introduced. So the "1789" Jaeger Stutzen is a typo for the 1779.

All very interesting and useful gentlemen! Thank you.

So just to clarify, our 1792 Jägers armed with 1779 rifles should carry just the Hirschfänger hung from the waist belt – or fixed to the rifle – and NO additional sword? (In a combination ‘frog' perhaps?) I just want to be sure on that point – or as sure as we can be…

The plan is to produce some Tyrolean Jägers for the early campaigns of the Revolutionary Wars. We intend to offer these in two versions – one regulation, in the Kaskett hat (following the example in Dave's MAA299 Osprey: plate E) – and then ‘re-hat' these same figures to offer a second version wearing the round Tyrolean hats with the turned up brim. Command and a horn blower to be included. Customers will be able to choose whichever headgear they wish according to taste or personal historical interpretation. The poses (6?) will be mostly skirmishing, but perhaps with two or three marching variants as well for those who want to represent their Jäger battalions in march order.

All will be armed with rifle (and the M1779 seems our best bet for 1792 +). We hadn't considered the possibility of musket armed Jägers. Not sure we will do them. I suppose for the regulation / Kaskett appearance people can always use our existing Austrian ‘German' infantry figures and simple paint them as musket armed Jäger (although they will lack the side plume on the Kaskett – and yes – we know vW has reservations about the lengths of our gaiters and choice of water bottles, but they are the best we can do for now).

One dilemma we are still debating is whether or not to have the skirmishers modelled with their Hirschfängers attached to their rifles or stored away in their scabbards? Any thoughts on this gentlemen?

If there is enough interest we might do some armed with the 1780 Windbüchse air rifle as perhaps a four figure special set(s) – in both headgear versions.

Thank you again. Your input is greatly appreciated (or anyone else who wants to join in!)

John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures

My view on this

Only a part of the Jäger (the minority) were armed with rifles, as a rough guess not more than a third.

For those I would opt for the 1779 Stutzen and Hirschfänger.

In case the Hirschfänger is worn, there is – in my opinion – no need for an additional side arm (this was also the usual system of e.g. the Prussian Jäger, or those of Hessen Kassel).
The Hirschfänger was quite long and could count as short swords.

I would not fix them permantly to the rifle, there generally the Jäger had resents against permanent fixing, there the balance of the rifle was drastically changed and hampered easy aiming.

In my view the short sword was issued to the bulk of the Jäger who are equipped with the musket and bayonett, otherwise this would make no sense.

It is a pity to see that Eureka is not considering producing Jäger armed with muskets.

In the Napoleonic time – from about 1808 or so onwards, two thirds of the Jäger had a shortened musket – a light infantry carabine – and only a third did carry the Stutzen / rifle.

Here I attach a picture of a Jäger from the Artaria series of 1792

picture

Here you can see clearly the hight of the gaiters ;-)) – and also he seems to carry a Windbüchse.

As interesting as it would be to produce figures with a Windbüchse, I feel that Jäger with muskets and bayonet are in more need.

Please note – the rather narrow pouch belt – compared to those of the fusiliers or grenadiers, indicting a different cartridge pouch size as well.

As to the water bottle – this is what Karger says, in my view, they should be made out of white metal for the Revolutionary period.

Feldflasche 1765 – 1798

Quelle : Karger, S. 72 / 73

Feldflaschen für die Infanterie aus verzinnten Blech, waren mit ledernen Anhangriemen versehen und mussten zwei österreichische Maß (0 2,8 L) fassen.
Gesamthöhe 22, 5 cm, ohne Hals 17, 0 cm, Dicke 9,2 cm, Breite 18,5 cm, die Form in Querschnitt oval.

Feldflaschen für die Kavallerie, früher aus Holz, mit einem kleinen Reifen umgeben, glich nach neuerer Art (1765) in Form und Größe jene für Infanterie. Der Trageriemen war bei beiden gleich. Der inwendige Teil, welcher an den Leib zu liegen kam, fasste ungebleichte Leinwand, der Stoppel weisses Sämischeleder ein.
1798 wurde wieder die Feldflasche aus Holz (Tschutera) eingeführt.

Karger, Johann : Die Entwicklung der Adjustierung, Rüstung und Bewaffnung der österreichisch – ungarische Armee 1700 – 1809, LTR Verlag, Buchholz i.d.N. 1998

One has to be carefull about the dimensions given in Karger, maybe Dave Hollins can make a comment about the size of the white metal water bottle.

The metal bottle was regulation from 1769, but every reenactor knows how bad water tastes from it, especially after a warm day's reenacting! The dimensions are right – it is in the 1769 technical drawings and I copied it in Warrior 24. The wooden one became regulation in 98, which would suggest it was already in widespread use, esp as Karger says "wieder eingefuhrt", suggesting it never really disappeared.

The Artaria 1792 figure is carrying a Stutzen, which was only just over 2/3 length of the muskets. It is the basis of the colour figure in MAA299, but it also shows the way to go on the Stutzen/rifle – basically it needs a "sort of" 1779, which would then cover the older 1759 and 1769 weapons and the 1795/6 design as the sizes only vary from 112 to 105.5cm, plus the captured Prussian weapons on which the 1779 was modelled, together with local civilian production – perhaps the rear part of the trigger guard need not be quite so elaborate? The cavalry Stutzen was 127cm, so don't worry about that.

I would agree with vW's analysis on the rifle and Hirschfanger – stick it in a scabbard and given the usual kit shortages, don't worry about the sabre except for the NCOs. The ammo pouch pouch was just a larger version of the cavalry type.

The musket-armed troops can be repainted German line – it is only that plume, which is missing. It does only appear on a rifleman in the Artaria and is not on the German Jaeger of 1795. It was there on the Corsehut of the 1778-9 Moravian Jaeger, but in 1798, nothing was prescribed, although the yellow-black plume was worn, and it is only in 1808 that a small green plume was regulation for the Jaeger battalions.

This brings me to the 1795 German Jaeger line drawing in MAA299 – I don't have a copy!! I seem to remember that the unit was divided into those with black and those with green tassles, but I cannot remember the distinction! I think there would be more than 30% riflemen in each company. Looking at the 1808 Jaeger battalions, each was formed on a cadre of two rifle-armed companies from IR64, so it necessarily follows that the previous IR64 (1801-1808) was all rifle-armed, these men being the remnants of the previous three Jaeger units, whose additional volunteers were mostly Tyroleans.

Why should a Jäger NCO carry a Hirschfänger and a side arm? It is much more perstige to carry a Hirschfänger than a sabre and or Hirschfänger and sabre (and how would he carry both???)

I just would give a Jäger NCO – in case being equipped with a rifle – a Hirschfänger with NCO sabre straps and sabre knot (perhaps – most likley all Jäger NOCs carried a rifle)

As for the water bottle, wiedereingeführt – means re – introduced, so it was out of wear for a time – and re – placed to a larger or smaller amount by the white metal water bottle.

I find it a pity that the white metal one is seemingly completly ignored – due to the influence of Ottenfeld and Teuber.

According to Karger, p.158, for the 1798 Jaeger, the NCO had a Stutzen with a Hirschfaenger and a sabre. the regs for non-line units do tend to chase the existing practice. If he wanted to attach his strap, he could not put it on the Hirschfaenger as he would have a problem if he wanted to use that as a bayonet, for which the 1779 was designed and the 1769 may have been modified.

Als Waffen hatten sie Jägerstutzen mit Hirschfänger (Haubajonetten) und nebst letzteren auch Infanteriesäbel.

They had as weapons the Jägerrifle with Hirschfänger (Haubajonetten) and along with the last ones also an infantry sabre.

I think that nebst letzteren is related to Haubajonetten and not the Hirschfänger – because you would then use – ersteren.

(…)

Da die für Stutzen der Jäger bestimmten Haubajonette von den mit Säbeln versehenen Unteroffizieren nicht in den Ueberschwungriemen getragen werden konnten, und man selbe weder dieser, gegen die Kavallerie so nötigen Verteidigungswaffe berauben, noch ihnen die zur Distinktion gegebenen Säbel und Portepees nehmen wollte, so mussten die Haubajonette für die Unteroffiziersstutzen in Friedenszeiten wie bisher in den Kompaniemagazinen sorgfältig aufbewahrt, im Kriege aber von den Unteroffizieren immer auf den Stutzen getragen werden

Karger p. 158

In case I make a correct interpretation of the first sentence the Jäger NOCs had the rifle and the Hirschfänger, did they have the rifle and the Haubajonett, then also a sabre was issued.

In that case – confirmed by the next passage the Haubajonett had to be permantly fixed on the rifle there it was not possible to carry Hausbajonett and sabre in a cross belt (Ueberschwungriemen)

A sabre was not necessary in case a Hirschfänger was worn, there the Hirschfänger could be fixed on the rifle – as defence against cavalry, and also along with the Hirschfänger the Port Epee etc. could be worn for rank distinction.

My option for Jäger NCOs in the French Revolutionary time – therefore would be a rifle and a Hirschfänger. The Hirschfänger carried usually in the scabbard – around the hilt the Port Epee.

In case you like to show Jäger with Haubajonett (more typically in the Napoleonic Wars) – only then I would give the Jäger NCO the sword but then with a permanently fixed Haubajonett.

Thank you once again gentlemen. Lots of high quality information for us to mull over here.

John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures

I do of course defer to vW's native prowess and it does back up his suggestion that the Hirschfaenger was the only weapon until the Haubajonett/sabre replacement.

However, on the NCOs, that also shows that the Haubajonett/sabre combination was not a problem on the new crossbelt, but as Karger (quoting the 1809 Okonomie) shows, the problem was the effect of the new Haubajonett and crossbelt on the NCO sabre, which could now not be carried. The problem only affected the NCO sabre, not the man's, and as the quote notes, "noch ihnen die zur Distinktion gegebenen Säbel und Portepees nehmen wollte". the Haubajonett is laid up in peacetime, so that the NCO can retain what his distinguishes his rank: the sabre and the portepee.

Previously with the Hirschfaenger on the old waistbelt, it would not have been a problem to carry the NCO sabre with its portpee and handle guard.

So, to summarise for these pre-98 Jaeger, it is basically a 1769 style uniform with either the Kaskett (?with plume) or a simple Corsehut with wider brim. There are 20-50% riflemen in a battalion, who carry a "sort of" 1779 Stutzen with a 50-55cm Hirschfaenger bayonet in a scabbard on the waistbelt. The cartridge box is a larger version of the cavalry cartridge box.

The NCOs carried the NCO sabre on the waistbelt and all had Stutzen. They have their jacket open up to the 3rd button to show the simple waistcoat underneath. The cane was carried on the second jacket button by the strap hanging to the right when marching with shouldered arms. Otherwise it was in his right hand.

The trumpeter carried the Waldhorn of the standard issue and an infantry sabre.

The officer wore a standard officer's frock coat and waistcoat with the usual pushed up tricorne and high boots to meet his breeches. His weapon was the officer's sword, but no Feldbinde sash was worn between 1790 and 1798.

The musket carrying Jaeger can be modelled from pre-98 German line infantry.

I cannot agree that the NOCs did carry a Hirschfänger and a NCOs sabre (Prima Plana?) there at least my source – in that case Karger – is clearly stating otherwise.

How should the NOCs carry a Hirschfänger (as long as an infantry sabre) and a Prima Plana sabre on the waistbelt – to speak of carrying two sabres?

There the Austrians did want to have at least in the Revolutionary Wars – the option to fix a side arm to the rifle – the Hirschfänger would do easily for the NCOs – as for rank and file.

Only when the Haubajonett was introduced – the NCOs would take on the NCO sabre and the Jäger hitherto equipped with a Hirschfänger as well the normal infantry sabre.

The 20 – 50 % Jäger being equipped with rifle – is speculation or based on what sources???

You deny that Karger's assumption of 21 per company is that valid.

But then I would be also interested how you derive a figure of 20 to 50 %

You are confusing the problem areas – the 67cm Haubajonett (665g) could be carried with the 53cm infantry sabre (700g). The Hirschfaenger was only 55cm (1000g) and the NCO sabre was 58cm (900g). The ordinary bayonet was only 40cm long (630g) and so, useless as a sabre.

If you have a Hirschfaenger, there is no need to carry a sabre as a defensive weapon, but an NCO needs one as otherwise, he has no distinctions beyond his cane. You cannot hang a portepee on a Hirschfaenger as it has no handle guard and would be a nuisance when fitting the Hirschfaenger to the Stutzen. Karger only says that Stutzen men did not also carry sabres – his only comment about NCOs is that they could not carry their sabre with the haubajonett on the new crossbelt. While weight was a small factor, the real problem is the wide blade of the Hirschfaenger and the guarded crossbar of the NCO sabre. That is why NCOs did not wear both.

Karger provides no source for the 21 men per company, when we know that on dissolution in 1808, IR64 was a wholly Stutzen-armed regiment. Given where these men are coming from and the presence of Windbuchse and Doppelstutsen, 21 is too low – just 1/6 of the average FK company.

There is only a drawing in Dolleczek about the Hirschfänger, NCOs might have different ones.
A handle guard would be sufficient to fix a Port – epée – similiar to a Prussian Faschinenmesser.

Any idea how how you would carry a Hirschfänger and a sabre on the waistbelt?

Very easily – the Hirschfaenger only has one parrying bar, so that faces away from the sabre and you are left with a long bayonet.

The Austrian equivalent of the Faschinenmeser was the Sapper/Pioneer sabre, of which there was a separate Prima Plana version. It was also not used as a bayonet.

Found it! The German Jaeger used the green cords for Jaeger and the black for the Sharpshooters, who were presumably the ones armed with rifles. It was men in this unit, not the Le Loup, who also had some Doppelstutzen.

Gentlemen

We have moved a fair distance away from the Jäger horns I original asked about, but in light of the above discussion one further question has occurred to me.

Does anyone know exactly how the Hirschfänger attached to the 1779 rifle?

I am guessing (perhaps rashly!) that the longer arm of the plain Hirschfänger cross hilt fitted over the end of the barrel (by means of a ring socket – but not possible to discern from the side-on illustrations) and the handle of the Hirschfänger somehow located / slotted into the body of the rifle?

I am especially interested to know what the position / appearance of the Hirschfänger would have been (when fixed) in relation to the rest of the weapon.

Did the Hirschfänger ‘hang' below the barrel in line with the vertical plane of the rifle like most modern bayonets, or did it perhaps clip to the side of the barrel so that the blade of the Hirschfänger jutted out to one side of the weapon (with the blade effectively ‘flat' and at right angles to the rest of the weapon)?

I hope that makes at least some sense!

PS Dave – your last post? What are these cords you are referring to?

John
Eureka Miniatures

Most likley like the sword bayonet of the Baker rifle or also for the Prussian Jäger rifles.

In the grip of the Hirschfänger should be a slit – which fitted overo a bar (usually placed beneath the right side of the barel at the stock)

you could slide the Hirschfänger over it.

Due to the construction of the old Stutzen it was not possible to fix a bayonet over the barrel, there the barrel and the stock were ending in the same level, that is stock ended where the muzzle ended.)

I will try to find illustrations to make this clearer, here a link of a Prussian Jäger, in case you go for a pose – stressing the markesmenship such a sharpshooter pose would be very aprobriate.

picture

I would agree with that – the Baker Rifle was (like the whole Rifleman uniform/concept) based on the experience of the First Coalition War and the meetings with Austrian troops. It was based on a standard German design. The drawing in Dolleczek is not clear, but does appear to show the metal bar on the right side at the muzzle and a matching slot in the Hirschfaenger above.

The cords and tassles were worn on the left shoulder by the German Jaeger, but there are no other descriptions showing them. However, the 1801 consolidation into IR64 did require a green cord with green tassles on the right hip for all the rifle-users, from which the powder horn was slung. You have to carry the powder horn on something, so these cords/tassles must be that, but if the German Jaeger had two colours, it is hard to know whether all had rifles or it was also decorative. Duffy doesn't mention the tassles in his Instrument of War book on the 7YW, but he does suggest that all the Jaeger units were fiully rifled armed.

Thank you once again gentlemen. Most helpful.

Last night I was looking closely at Ottenfeld's illustration of the 1779 rifle and Hirschfänger and noticed that the artist seems to have been at pains to emphasize what looks like a bar (with a short L shaped end) running along the right side of the rifle between the stock and barrel (exactly as described by vW), and that this bar matches, in length and L shaped end, the slit Ottenfeld has carefully drawn in the handle of the Hirschfänger. So I am now satisfied the Hirschfänger fixed to the right side of the rifle.

Dave – so with these cords? From what you are saying, we don't have to worry too much about depicting them on Tyrolean Freikorps Jägers for c.1792-98? Also – do we need to give them powder horns for the same period? I was wondering about this, but I had come to the conclusion they were a later (1798 +) addition.

Yes indeed, stupid enough not to check Ottenfeld as well – from my side – sometimes there is some usefull information – after all.

Sometime you wish you hadn't mentioned some things! This powder horn is quite interesting. it developed of course from the old 17th century weapons, but it does seem that the cords/tassles would carry the horn for riflemen.

picture

shows the 1798 Jaeger and you can see that the figure on the left has the cords on his back, leading down to the horn, which appears to be in a rear pocket. I don't think it is anywhere near as big as might be imagined – the old Hinchcliffe Jaeger powderhorns were huge.

So, that would make sense as this was probably existing practice, if Mollo is showing it in 1798. The horn is on the long green cord, which is tied off on the left shoulder under the shoulder strap, which also supports the cartridge box. So, the tassles then hang down in front of the left shoulder as a decoration as per the German Jaeger in the 1795 drawing. I think Mollo is trying to show the tassles, but can only show them on the figure's back.

There is an 1823 Jaeger hornist in Allmayer-Beck, whose horn is on a long cord running round his back and just the tassles are on the short side of the horn. Ottenfeld is also right in showing these tassles on the shoulder of a 1798 Jaeger with the knot clearly also visible. The hornist has the horn on his right siode with a long cord.

So, you will need a horn and cords for the Stutzen troops. It may be that where Karger says 21 Stutzen armed men per company, he is talking about the German Jaeger with the black-cord sharpshooters. The other Jaeger also armed with Stutzen still of course need the cords, but in standard green.

On powderhorns, there is not a lot. Karger notes the Grenzer Scharfschutzen had horns made of white metal, although they seem to have been carried in the bag.

Dolleczek notes that loose powder was carried in a horn. Examples from around 1700 are only 20cm/8in long. They poured the powder into a Pulvermass, which is a powder measure to get the right size of charge.

It is a difficult topic, there the Jäger also used cartridges – the Horn – I don't know if it was ever used in practise – maybe for priming the pan (wit very fine powder) – but otherwise in combat I blieve they used the cartridges and did not pour from a powder measure.
It should be in the 1767 Adjustierungsvorschriften – but seemingly I missed it.

Karger clearly specifies that the Jaeger in 1798 had them and the Pulvermass. It was a curved flattish box, rather than a true horn. It would not be in the 1767 Okonomie as there were no Jaeger units at the time.

One should think however that the Grenzscharfschützen had that item as well – at least the Doppelstutzen and equipment – wait a minute …

Yes the powder flask can be seen at the Doppelstutzen.

See also Blätter für österreichische Heereskunde 1 / 1985 – an article by Baer : 1769 – 1779 – Ein Jahrzeht neuer Waffensystemen, there is a plate showing the Doppelstutzen and all the equipment for it.

There is also an article by Edmund Wagner in Depesche about the same subject.

Sometime you wish you hadn't mentioned some things!

Sorry Dave! :)

I must admit I am in two minds about the presence of powder flasks without any direct evidence (pictorial or otherwise) for the earlier 1792-98 period. I appreciate the uncertainty, with the Jägers being part of the Freikorps at this time and therefore not really covered by the official regulations of the army. Admittedly the fact that the regulations say the Grenzscharfschützen carried them (as vW says) at least confirms powder flasks were part of the Austrian equipment roster at this time. So it is not beyond the realms of reason that the Jägers carried them as well. However, so far, the closest reconstruction I have seen is a grainy reproduction of Ottenfeld's picture of a Jäger in 1778 (page 21 of Haythornthwaite's Osprey #280 on Austrian Army 1740-80: Specialist Troops). He almost looks the part (aside from the Hungarian breeches) with 1767 jacket and proto-coreshut style hat etc but I see no sign of cord tassels on his left shoulder or the presence of a powder flask (OK – only Ottenfeld and you can't see the rear of the figure…)

So just to make sure I have understood you correctly Dave – is it that you are saying that the sources for the 1792 Freikorps Jägers DO refer to them having cords, and so by logical deduction the question arises as to the purpose of those cords – and the obvious answer to that must be to suspend a powder flask? QED

Sorry about all the questions, but I'm looking for some reassurance here!

Meanwhile, we have decided to do a horn blower for our Jägers. He will carry the appropriate hunting horn, suspended on his right side (or we might have him blowing the thing) by a tasselled cord that will go around his body, secured under the strap behind the left shoulder. He will be given a sabre and we assume he should have musicians ‘swallows nest' epaulettes? Should he keep his cartridge box?

Many thanks
John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures

To start with the hornist, he would only have a Hirschfaenger in a scabbard, so he does not have a cartridge box. I doubt they had the Schwalbennester pre-98. It was a decoration, which began life some time before 1700 and comes from a time, when various things were starting for the purpose of showing allegiance – waistsashes (later Feldbinde), oak leaves, coloured neckstocks, when the Inhabers had significant influence on uniforms. The musicians also tend to have NCO uniforms, so this is a "regular" way of showing the difference. These units were hastily raised, lacking both drummers and fifers, so I doubt these hornists would have them.

Ottenfeld and Knotel were rather fond of turning any blue-ish trousers into something Hungarian! That illustration derives from a set of plates from the time of the 1788-9 Potato War with Prussia, when a Tyrolean and a Moravian-Silesian Jaeger batt were raised. I haven't seen them, but they sound like the 1792 Schematis drawing vW mentioned above. They are only meant to show the basic look and colours.

It is more instructive to consider the weapon. If you have a Stutzen, there are several patterns in service, but unlike the 14.5mm bore in most, the 1779 was 17.6mm, plus other weapons being hunting weapons of local production. The weapon itself right through the period required a "plaster" (a piece of material) to stop the ball rolling out. Initially when these units were raised from 1759, the Jaeger loaded his weapon with the powder horn, then put the ball into the linen or leather plaster and knocked it in. In 1769, the Grenzer sharpshooters and subsequent Jaeger units got 30 rounds in cartridges – but the powder horn was retained as a reserve, hence why it is so small and fits in the back pocket of the 1798 Jaeger. The cartridges had a brass housing with a divider in the centre, so one half held the charge and the other the ball in the plaster. The pan was still loaded from the horn. This drill is not in the 1769 regs, but was set out by FML Unterberger (he of the 1790s reform commission). It mentions that the ramrod was carried on a ring – this is the style adopted by later Jaeger and Freikorps (eg: the 1809 Moravian in MAA299) of strap attached to the crossbelt with a metal ring on the end to support the ramrod's wider wooden head.

In 1798, the number of brass cartridges was reduced to 12 per man and in 1808, they were abolished. Brass was expensive and so, it is quite likely that many irregular Jaeger never had a full set of these rounds. When the brass rounds were abolished in 1808, they received the Pulvermass to make paper rounds or just measure the amount of loose powder, although the 1801 reg talks about the Mass being on a short strap on the crossbelt, so it existed before 1809.

In summary therefore, the powder horn was always in use and was on that cord with the tassles worn as a badge on the left shoulder as a badge of a rifleman. However, it was quite small and could fit into a rear pocket or worn on the right hip.

Why would you place a powder horn, which you have to use all the time when loading the rifle, in a pocket –
question : do the Austrian coats have a outside pocket – or was this just decoration as in most other armies at that time and the real pocket was in the lining of the coat tails??

For the Schwalbennester – I am not sure, the line had it – for the Jäger – that leaves us on the ground of pure speculation.

In case – I would depict a powder container, I would use the dimensions as in the Adjustierungsvorschriften and also fix it with cords, slung over the left shoulder, so that the powder container is hanging at about the right hip.

As to the blue trousers of Grenzer – it is also shown by the anonymous series of about 1787 in the Brussel Army museum and the Berner Bilderhandschrift and by Seele, the same for the Hungarians – there only one unit is shown in red ones.

Well, I am still a little nervous about the presence of flask and cords. For example I would point out that the Artaria series plate of a 1792 Jäger that vW supplied above –

Here I attach a picture of a Jäger from the Artaria series of 1792

picture

- does not show any tassels on the left shoulder or any sign of cords.

However, Dave's argument concerning the technical aspects of loading the rifle and the need for a powder flask is a compelling one, so OK – you have just about convinced me!

I now have to advise our sculptor as to what it looked like…

vW – I think you have previously sent me the plate showing the Doppelstutzen with all its equipment which does indeed include a powder flask, (with stopper and what looks like a vent clearing pin attached to the flask by cord or chain). This flask is oblong in shape (presumably a sort of flat bottle – smaller but roughly similar in appearance to the metal water bottle?) From the illustration I estimate its body dimensions to be about 14.5cm by a little over 8cm, and the spout with stopper perhaps 4cm long. However, this is a little at odds with Dave's description of a "curved flattish box". If I could prevail upon you gentlemen a little further and pick your brains once more – can either of you offer me a picture of a suitable powder flask that might at least be close to what we might need?

Otherwise, I think we are OK with everything else. My intention is to instruct our sculptor to locate the powder flask somewhere on the right side, close to the cartridge box and attached to a cord. The cord (double length) will be suspended from the strap (used to restrain the cartridge belt) just behind the left shoulder, and will pass across the Jäger's back for the other end to be secured to one of the buttons on the back of the 1767 jacket. The flask will hang from there (based on the later, post 1798, example in Mollo). Mind you, as I type this it does occur to me that it might have been more practical (easier to reach) if the bottom end of the cord was secured to one of the three pocket buttons on the right side of the 1767 jacket? Returning to the ‘top' of the cord – two short tassels will cascade over the front of the left shoulder.

Well, at least that's the plan at the moment.

I much appreciate the time and patience you have both put into this discussion.

John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures

For the horn blower, while I agree with Dave that it is probably less likely that the Jäger had the Schwalbennester for the reasons he states, these are wargames figures and to make the horn blower a little more distinctive and interesting to paint I think we will retain the swallows nest epaulettes.

Finally, with a little help from Photoshop, I mocked up this picture to show our sculptor how the 1779 rifle should look with the Hirschfänger fixed. (The black arrow indicates where the end of the muzzle is behind the handle).

picture

(I hope that works – I'm not good at linking to things…)

Admittedly this means that this long bayonet seems to protrude rather incongruously from the end of the rifle, held in place by just the short bar/slot configuration along only two thirds of its handle length, but never-the-less this is apparently how it worked and was strong enough to hold the bayonet in place.

John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures

Yes – a good illustrations.

As for the Equipment of the Doppelstutzen, please also check the Depesche at Markus Stein's napoleon-online.de

I agree that this is a rather bigish one – but so far – the only one at hand – primary source.

It could be specific for the Grenzer however as well and the Jäger might have carried different ones.

So far I did not come accross other good illsutrations – they are out there – I am quite positive, but one has to find them.

The powder flask on the right hip is quite a good position in my view – how did the Rifles attach theirs?

As for the fixed Hirschfänger – as written above – I would not fix it for the usual shooting, skirmishing poses, other than when defending against attacking cavalry as last ditch resort.

My wish – get also the gaiters and the water bottle right ;-)

The Graz exhibition catalogue unfortunately only shows the early 17th century horn models, which are flattened cattle horns really. Drawing on Baer, they do say that the Doppelstutz was used by the Grenzer s/shooters and the Tyroleans, presumably with this oblong horn design. We know tha some German Jaeger had the DS too. However, if you look at the powder horn on the 95th at the left top, you can see more of a curve in it. They copied a lot of kit from the Austrians after the Belgian campaigns and this design would seem similar to the one suggested in the Mollo 98 picture.

link

Anyway, it is something distinctive, which modellers would want to see, so hang it on the right hip, although the cords would meet on the left shoulder in a knot before the tassles. The hammer for the ramrod is probably on the cartridge box as per post-98.

I would agree with vW on the Hirshcfaenger – it was clipped on in that way for quick attachment, but would not be there during firing. I would leave it in the scabbard.

Thank you both again (and especially for the reminder about the hammer Dave – I'd forgotten about that!)

No problems concerning the Hirschfänger – your earlier comments in this thread had already been noted gentlemen and we have no intention of attaching them to the rifles on the "skirmishing" figures. However, we thought it would be interesting to add a couple of extra figures in more aggressive "close combat" poses which WILL have the Hirschfänger fixed (…just for something a little different).

This will only be a small range of Tyrolean Jäger riflemen – perhaps four figures in skirmishing poses, the two close combat variants mentioned above, and a horn carrier. (All available in a choice of either kaskett hat or proto-corsehut round hat depending on the customer's preferred historical interpretation).

For Jäger with musket I'm afraid people will have to make do with our line infantry figures – although once again we might add some special ‘Jäger' variants wearing the Tyrolean style round hat. We knew we didn't need drummers specifically for the Jäger, but we are taking this opportunity to add both Austrian and Hungarian officer figures in ‘action poses' (sword drawn – pointing – shouting orders etc) to the range. These can of course be simply used with the line regiments, but the Austrian ‘action' officers can double up as Jäger officers, while the Hungarian ‘action' officers can be called upon to command Grenz skirmishers.

Incidentally – talking of Grenz – we are going to recommend that gamers and collectors simply use our standard Hungarian figures to represent the regulation Grenzer field uniform (Feldmontur). However, quite frankly, we thought this was a bit boring – so our intention is to also offer some Feldmontur Grenzer figures wearing a peakless Klobuk / Tschakohaube shako (these will be conversions of the existing Hungarian figures).

My only dilemma is how much adornment we should put on these early versions of the Grenzer Klobuk? Illustrations vary between some showing a completely plain undecorated ‘Fez' like appearance, to the example in Dave's Osprey, Men at Arms #413 (Plate E, figure 2, on the right) who has a proper yellow/back roundel and oak leaf field sign on the top edge of the shako. My personal preference is for something more along the lines of Dave's description (in the same Osprey) of a relatively crude "yellow cloth roundel…" (more like a rosette Dave?) "…at the front, voided in the centre to reveal the black underneath." This sounds to me more in keeping with that sort of ‘homemade' Grenz look! We would put these on the centre front of the shako – rather like these examples (just visible)

picture

picture

vW was kind enough to send me this picture from his files a while ago –

picture

but to my eyes this looks like a later version of the Grenz Klobuk (minus its peak) judging by the decoration on it which is very reminiscent of that worn by the line infantry on the much later Napoleonic wars shakos (?)

John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures

You can take your pick really! There would not have been a lot of kit around as they took heavy casulaties in he Turkish wars. The authorities only provided two companies' worth of kit per field battalion every two years, so no battalion was "uniform" before 1805 anyway.

I think vW's pic is more likely to be a Hussar shako – with the Grenzers some have the central roundel, some have the pom-pom, the Hausmonutur has nothing, but generally they seem to have had the central roundel, so that the NCOs could clearly have the top ring to show rank (copied later on the line shakos of course).

Musket Jaegers in line uniforms will be fine – it is not clear how many were wearing the plume on the Kaskett anyway. I can see the point on the drummer wings and I suppsoe gamers can file them off they don't want them.

At the moment immageshack is down, so I will send the links later.

In my view – the Klobuk did change and may well have looked differently in 1792 and in 1799 ( I will show contemporary material on that).

Also – again – in my view only the Grenz Scharfschützen did wear the Klobuk – at least against European armies, the rest the usual Kasket.

In case to show some realy dashing Austrian style, give them Kaskets wearing back to front – I will supply a photo on this as well.

I don't share that pessimistic view of Dave Hollins about the uniformity of the Grenzer battalions before 1805 – they were in my view as uniform as the line units – otherwise I have to convinced by quotes or contemporary picture material.

spanner in the works here:
windbuschen
on special issue as required?
There are several at the Copenhagen Tojhussmuseet-fantastic things, they have several including a cavalry version. Anyone do miniatures with them and how would they feature in the jager?

Here Klobuks of

a Grenzscharfschützen
and
Strozzis Freikorps

compare the shape with those of Artaria and Gerasch

picture

quite close to the photo of the original Klobuk.

also – look at those Austrian POWs
some maybe with Klobuk?

picture

finally – I would wish some figures with a dashing non regimental wear of the Kasket like this

picture

Ladehammer – yes or no -

as for M 1807

Der nicht in der Waffe versorgte Ladestock hat einen gedrechselten Kopf aus Hoz zum Ansetzen der Kugel und als Handhabe …

Gabriel , pag 226

I wonder – maybe the old Stutzen had a similar system?

Yes, they would need a hammer as the wooden-topped ramrod was already in service. The ramrod was moving from the Hirschfaenger scabbard to the crossbelt strap ring by this time.

Those Klobuks are a little exaggerated – it was a very simple tube at this time.

In the old models the ramrod was in the stock, this changed with the later ones.
Up to the M 1779 – the ramrod – of metal was placed in the stock this changed with the introduction of the M 1795 – where no ramrod was in the stock and had to be carried elsewhere.
So I would be interested – if the Jäger could screw on top of the ramrod a wooden piece – serving as a Ladehammer.

My interpretation of Gabriel is – that they did not need a Ladehammer but would use the wooden head of the ramrod for that purpose for the 1795 and later models.

for the Klobuk – I can only show my sources and must draw from them my assumptions – for me there is a change in shape.

I must check Seele and Kobell on that – otherwise I stay to my research based on primary sources – unless you come up with better sources.

Yours firm in research

to add from Demian – Erster Theil – Waffenlehre

" Der Lad- oder Wischstock bey den Einfachen sowohl als bey den Doppelstutzen ist 2 Schuh und 1 Zoll land, von eisen, und 19 Loth schwer. er ist unten mit einem messigenen Ansatze versehen, an den der Wischer und Kugelzieher angeschraubt wird. Dieser Ansatz ist etwas hohl ausgesenkt, damit er die Kugel besser faßt. Oben ist ein hölzerner Knopf aufgenietet, um damit die Kugel in die Mündung treiben zu können. Bey den Doppelstutzen steckt der Ladestock nicht im Schaft, sondern der Scharfschütz hat ihn an sich hängen."
p. 51

A pity that this work is printed in 1807. Still Demian is suggesting (which is wrong for the post M 1779 models) that the ramrod was still carried in the stock for the usual one barelled Jägerstutzen.
He describes however that there is no need for a Ladehammer – at least for the later models – neither for a starter – due to the very clever construction of the ramrod.

I would be interested if this could have been done also with the 1779 model – where I have some doubts there the wooden head fixed on the ramrod (carried in the stock) would be a nuisance.

Any ideas and quotes on that would be highlty appreciated.

You are right on the ramrod – the drawing of the 1779 is not good, but the ramrod is there under the barrel. Dolleczek says the 1769 was the one with the ramrod on the Hirschfaenger scabbard, but I cannot find any illustration of it. The 1795 and the Doppelstutz brought the wooden top ramrod in, worn on the strap ring. I suppose that by 1807, when the old patterns were in service, perhaps they were using a ramrod with awooden knob and the hammer. Dolleczek does give a drill with the ramrod initially pushing the ball in, but then it is beaten down further with the "Setzer". However perhaps it would be better to forget the hammer as the eviodemnce for it is not good?

The lower, wider headgear is the 1768 Tschakohaube/Czackelhaube, which has the outer wrap around and so, looks wider. The Klobuk is a simple tall fez and you cans ee them clearly on Kuhnel's 1778 illustration.