"Russian strelki platoon kiwer" Topic

1812-1815 Russians, 1st and 3rd battalions fielded 3 musketeer companies plus 1 company made up of a grenadier platoon plus a strelki platoon.

The musketer kiwer had a pompom only, the grenadier kiwer a thin plume and a pompom. What did the strelki platoon kiwer have? Some internet sources seem to imply a pompom only while others are silent, but many internet pictures of wargames figures appear to have troops on the flanks i.e the grenadiers and the strelki with plumes.

Strelki platoon kiwer, plume or not?

As far as I can make out from the sources I have seen, the strelki platoon was deemed part of the grenadier company and thus had the long plume and the triple grenade badge. Their distinguishing mark was a pom-pom based on yellow rather than the 'proper' grenadier's red.

These had plumes ….

- everbody in guard heavy infantry regiments and, presumably, the army's life-grenadier regiment

- both grenadier platoons and marksmen platoons of the grenadier companies in the army grenadier regiments; and possibly the same in the marine regiments at least until March 1813 (when the marines' marksmen platoons may have lost authorization for plumes upon incorporation into the Land Forces)

- only the grenadier platoons in the grenadier companies of army infantry and jäger regiments and (from 1811) the guard light infantry regiments

Seroga,

How did these units identify the 1st from the 2nd from the 3rd BTN in regards to pom-pom? Did they all have a solid colored red pom-pom?

I understand the Musketeers had white w/green center for the 1st, Green w/white center for the 2nd and med blue w/white center for the 3rd ….with the flank platoons w/various comb red, grn, Blue [for the Grenadier platoon] and same (but replace the red with yellow) for the Strelkei platoon.

Seroga, thanks for that very comprehensive answer.

@marshalGreg

Our colleague "Greystreak" provided this nice image:

This should be correct for 1811-1814.

I would be less sure of 1815, by the way – and by 1817 there was implemented the new system of color distinctions.

Seroga,

just to be clear-What I see is for the grenadier regts and guards.
So I could see musketeers from a 1st Battalion in White with green center and a 1st Grenadier battalion with same but with the tall black plume ?

Greg

Dear Greg,

There was nothing correctly callled "grenadier battalion" after the change to regimental organization made by the order of 12 October 1810. The Army battalions thereafter were called:
-- "fusilier battalion" in grenadier regiments
-- "musketeer battalion" in musketeer regiments, which were re-named infantry regiments in February 1811
-- "jäger battalion" in jäger regiments and the grenadier-jâger regiments named in April 1814
-- "marine battalion" in marine regiments.

With one exception, each battalion was composed or 1 grenadier compnay and 3 center companies called fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine.
The exception was the Life-Grenadier regiment, where all companies were called "grenadier".

With one exception, the 1st Shef's battalion would be composed of:
-- 1st grenadier company : pompom all red for the grenadier platoon and all yellow for the marksmen platoon
-- 1st fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom white with green center
-- 2nd fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom white with green center
-- 3rd fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom white with green center
With one exception, the 3rd Commander's battaion woould be composed of:
-- 3rd grenadier company : pompom red over yellow base for the grenadier platoon and yellow over red base for the marksmen platoon
-- 7th fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom red with yellow center
-- 8th fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom red with yellow center
-- 9th fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom red with yellow center
The exception was, as before, the Life-Grenadier regiment : the company naming was different, it seems that they all had plumes (as in the Guard), but they followed the regular pompom distinctions for the Army.
The 1st Shef's battalion and the 3rd Commander's battaion were called the "active" battalions and typically served together.

Recall that for plumes ….
In Grenadier regiments (in all 3 of their Fusilier battalions) : the whole grenadier company of each battalion has plumes.
In Musketeer/Infantry and Jäger regiments (in all 3 of thier Musketeer or Jäger battalions) : only the grenadier platoon of their grenadier companies have plumes.

===================================

The 2nd Replacement battalion (pompom green with yellow center) and the 4th Reserve battalion (no pompom for recruits) played different functions.

The 2nd Replacement battaion would be composed of:
-- 2nd grenadier company : pompom red over green base for the grenadier platoon and yellow over green base for the marksmen platoon
-- 4th fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom greeen with yellow center
-- 5th fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom green with yellow center
-- 6th fusilier/musketeer/jäger/marine company : pompom green with yellow center

The 4th Reserve battaion would be composed of:
-- 1st recruit company (no pompom for recruits – others per parent company)
-- 2nd recruit company (no pompom for recruits – others per parent company)
-- 3rd recruit company (no pompom for recruits – others per parent company)

While there was nothing called exactly "grenadier battalion", there was such a thing as a "Combined Grenadier battalion".

Most infantry divisions collected the 6 grenadier companies from the 2nd Replacement battalions of the 6 regiments that composed the division. These 6 companies were organized into 2 Combined Grenadier battalions, each of 3 companies.
These were usually composed as follows, but there was some variation:

1st Combined Greandier battalion
-- 2nd grenadier company of the senior jäger regiment of the division
-- 2nd grenadier company of the senior heavy infantry regiment in the 1st brigade of the division
-- 2nd grenadier company of the junior heavy infantry regiment in the 1st brigade of the division

2nd Combined Greandier battalion
-- 2nd grenadier company of the junior jäger regiment of the division
-- 2nd grenadier company of the senior heavy infantry regiment in the 2nd brigade of the division
-- 2nd grenadier company of the junior heavy infantry regiment in the 2nd brigade of the division
Note that the color of the shoulder straps for each company would vary : the shoulder straps (actually the entire uniform) of the parent regiment were retained.

You know Seroga I think the wargaming fraternity could do with a new / updated 2 volume book set with colour plates on the Napoleonic Russian Foot, Horse and artillery – an early and late period for each. The mine of information you have access to warrants such an exercise….

Thank you for your helpful and informative answers and for sharing with the masses.

Thank you so much for your very kind comments! I do not deserve praise but am very happy to try to help and answer questions.

Really, I am no "expert" or "historian" – just a gamer who can read Russian. Russian sources and thus Russian gamers mangle most everything about the British armies, for example of the same effect in reverse.

I agree about the difference between early and later period for Russians. Or even very-early/early/late. The Russians were in many ways quite a different military, especially for the infantry, for 1796-1801 vs. 1802-1809 vs. 1810-1815. Gaming Russians with a good regard for historical accuracy is like hitting a moving target.

I think Dr. Summerfield may help us with the artillery. His work is breath-taking good, in my opinion.

The cavalry probably evolved the least and is the least mangled in English sources.

There was also a series of notable changes in armament, logistics, recruiting, higher command organization, etc. – but these elements are usually not represented on the gaming table or are very abstracted.

Thanks again!

I do have perhaps a new-comer's question about the TMP.

I still don't know what I did to get 3 complaints of "stifle". Is there some way to know and then make appropriate apologies or corrections? I did not get any email notifications or private messages. The demerits just appeared in my profile.

I am sorry if this is understood already by everyone else, or is in some FAQ that I can't seem to find.

Seroga,

Alas, you cannot offer more than generic apologies to those who have stifled you, since you cannot know who did the deed. And since those who have stifled you cannot see your posts, then it would be of little consolation.

Many take it as a badge of honor to have expressed themselves so passionately to have evoked the stifling ire of others. But in reality, there are some with such thin skin and prickly natures, that it would be impossible to say "Good Morning" without offending some.

Having read many of your posts with great interest, I cannot image what you could have said to elicit stifles. After all, who would not want to be illuminated by your revelations about Russian uniforms, organization and history – only the most die-hard Frankophile, I should imagine! :-)

Truly, without fail, your posts are helpful and germane to thread. What more could one ask of fellow list member?

Regards,

Rob

Basically it means you are posting too much, Seroga. You should strive for a post to Stifle! ratio below 2.

Wow Seroga!
A simple yes is all I sought. I feel I have taken way too much of your time. I applaud your efforts and I second the comments from Great Hall Games.
What you have presented has been awesome. Especially for a Frankofile like myself (who has gotten a little green in me blood and had to build a Russian army from scratch since Nov of last year).

Being the picklier for correct uniforms, I scratch my head now on what to do with all the third Battalions, of all the regiements I have NOW with the blue pom-poms per the three sources (English apparently?!)I have used. Hmmmm!

MG

Thank you again, dear Colleagues, for the kind comments.

Really, it does not take long to write – and I need the practise, as I seldom have occasion in my work or life to write in any human language.

As for blue disctinctives in 3rd battalions ….
It was also thought so in Russia until about 10 years ago. There was an arror in the Viskovatov and everyone copied it until the archives could be checked more easily after the Soviet government ended. Viskovatov took a proposal of 1811 as implemented Imperial order, when actually this law was really in 1817.

However, the Land Forces Department may have started circulating it earlier. The Klein images from 1815 show the blue, either by error or by early adoption or because Klein did his coloring later.

In general, the regimental shef's got this kind of thing wrong with some regularity. These color changes were likely rather annoying to them. And the inspectors were sometimes noting wrong shoulder strap colors, or other errors in the distinctives. Or the shef would write to the ministry and say "I now have no idea how to do these colors that you have changed – please fix my confusion."

They are your "men", order them as you see fit and tell the inspectors to report to the Devil!
(My 3rd battalion of 2nd Marines still have the blue, by the way – it matches the "colored" flag and I like it that way!)

I am also very much a Francophone and Francophile …. I have parts of the the maréchal Oudinot's IIe corps + 3e division de cavalerie, and am thinking of maybe having some of the Viceroy's Franco-Italian IVe corps. I would answer questions about late period Frenches with equal happiness, but others seem to answer well before me.

Dear Colleague Hew – I must try harder to cause complaints, I suppose.
:-)

Seroga, I have no idea why those 3 silly people stifled you.

Speaking for myself, I love your informative posts and look forward to reading them each time you post.

Please do not feel the need to apologize to anyone.

Seroga:

Let me add my name to those who find your posts quite informative.

BTW, have you seen the figures I mention in this post?

TMP link

I'm still puzzled why Elite would sculpt them like that.

I have not seen the figures in life, nor could I find images of them here link
So, I will have to go by the description given in the linked TMP topic.

It sounds like they just used the older style of belts, from the reign of Emperor Paul for cuirassiers.
From ~1800

30 April 1802— Confirmation is given to a new table of uniforms, accouterments, and weapons …. The crossbelt is deerskin, whitened, 3 3/4 inches wide, with welts at the edges; for the carbine it has a brass buckle, cross piece, and end piece, with an iron hook; for the cartridge pouch it has two brass rings …. these items remain the same as they were in the previous tsar's reign, with the only change being that the cartridge pouch is directed to be worn not over the right shoulder, but over the left, and not on its own strap, but on the same crossbelt used for the carbine, i.e. in that form which was used for dragoons under Emperor Paul I

But, this seems to have taken a while to implement, as contemporary illustrations show. The belts had a ~10 year wearout period, and the new style might be delayed for wear-out of the old unless someone approved the extra expense.

From ~1805 from the Voltz "Augsburger Uniformserie", dragoon and cuirassier with crossbelts.

Next, from 1807, Guard heavy cavalry (Chevalier Guards, I would think), by Alexander Sauerweid. Troopers with crossbelts. Note that they seem to be in court dress with the parade emroidered over-vest of the Chevalier Guards -- but the officer with sash in the center is showing the crossedbelts of an Austrian style front-only cuirass. Note also the very strange (and to me attractive) classical helmets. Note also the one-piece North-German style boots. Sauerweld is really rather draftsman-precise. I think we see an improvised form of court parade dress, just after the Friedland campaign for the ceremonies at Tilsit. However, this is the last/latest illustration I could find showing the older method of two crossed belts.

As dragoons were generally less well kept than the more elite cuirassier regiments, it is possible some still had the "old" crossed belts until perhaps even 1810, especially in Siberia and the Caucasus. However, there are the Orlovskiy drawings of 1808 with the correct, Alexandrine belt. These are not so great copies of the originals, but the best I could find online.

From the Goddard-Booth, from 1810. Note no cuirass yet (issued as the army went on campaign in 1812), likely the new helmet style (a little hard to tell from the rear, but the brass scales on the chinstrap are diagnostic), double belt over the left shoulder with hook/clasp for a long weapon, two shoulder straps puts this after April 1809, the rings on the cartridge pouch put this before September 1811.

10 November 1812 – Carbines are withdrawn from all Cuirassier regiments, and subsequently the only firearms left are pistols and 16 rifles in each squadron.
15 September 1814 – Carbines are re-issued.
I would think that for 1813 and 1814, you might see some of the regiments removing the (now empty) second loop on the crossbelt for the (now withdrawn) carbine and using it for leather repairs while on campaign. This could lead to a nice scandal with the inspectors after the Peace.

Sergoga@ Think of stifles as a sort of human tree rings. The longer you're here the more you get. Keep posting, you're a great help for us collecting Russian Armys.

Seroga:

Excellent, as usual. Thanks.

In my view the "cross" belts in the first immage are just only the straps to fix the curiass, at this time still the cuirass was worn, which then disappeard but resurfaced in 1812.

to add the "cross belts" rear view of the first picture, but this is seemingly an officer, the right hand cuirassier of course wears cross belts.

According to Viskovatov, the guard regts. were given crossbelts from the start. I'm wondering what they did with their then useless carbine belt at the end of 1812. I assume the cross belts gave valued style points…

@von Winterfeldt
Thank you for the clarifications. I agree completely with you, and should have perhaps commented this way when I posted the images.
The first image is indeed from the era of the half-cuirass and the back-view shows its attachment straps.
The officer from the 1807 image shown from the rear seems to wearing a half-cuirass also. This would be qute singular, as these would be withdrawn. The chevaliers-guards (troopers) on the right seem to display crossed belts. If we do not think we have an error from this usually reliable illustrator, then my only guess is that the officer wears perhaps as Austrian half-cuirass or some such, perhaps painted for the occassion, in default of the heavily embroidered over-vest usual in court parade form for the Chevalier Guards (whihc he is not wearing, since the back seams of the kolet are clearly and correctly shown). It is overall a rather "shocking" illustration, and I have wondered about it many times, perhaps most for the helmets. For most artists I would just dismiss the "shocking" elements as errors. But this is not so easy to do with Sauerweid.

@Hew Johns
Aiy, aiy, aiy! You are right! You are very, very good!
:-)

From Viskovatov ….
17 March 1802 – Cavalier Guardsmen had the following …. Crossbelt (for the carbine) and pouch belt – white (deerskin), trimmed at the edges with narrow silver galloon with crimson cloth piping, and worn crosswise over each other
29 December 1802 – for the Life-Guard Horse Regiment …. the hook [for the carbine] and the pouch had their own belts worn crosswise, as related above for the Cavalier Guards [but without the galloon and piping, if I read the Viskovatov correctly – and the Russian text reads the same to me as Mr. Conrad's excellent translation]
14 March 1804 – Confirmation was given to a new table for the Cavalier Guard Regiment …. for all uniforms, accouterments, and weapons …. to be the same as for the Life Guard Horse Regiment except: white buttons; black collars and shoulder straps …. [I read this as de-authorizing the galloon and piping on the crossbelts of the Chevalier Guards]
--> so, 2 crossbelts for the Guard cuirassiers
12 January 1809 – The newly formed Life-Guard Dragoon Regiment was ordered to have …. accouterments, and weapons was prescribed to be the same as used in Army Dragoon regiments
29 December 1802 – for the Life Guard Hussar Regiment …. accouterments, weaponry, and horse furniture as Army Hussar regiments
--> so, 1 crossbelt for the Guard hussards

That said, I do not fully trust the Viskovatov on this. For example, we have the Life-Guard Horse trooper in the Goddard-Booth illustration from ~1810 shown above. And I cannot find an contemporary image of the Guard cuirassiers with 2 belts after the one from 1807 posted above.

Also if we look at PSZ 24.027 (12.XII.812 OS), table II., line 98 et. seq., we will see:
- a "wide" crossbelt for the carabine in the Guard cuirassiers and hussars for 50 ruble 8 kopek
- a "narrow" crossbelt for the cartridge box in only the Guard cuirassiers for 75 ruble 8 kopek
- a "wide" crossbelt for the troopers [use not specified] in only the Guard dragoons for 75 ruble 8 kopek
- hardware for 2 belts for the cuirassiers and 1 belt for the hussars and dragoons.
At first look, this appears to suggest that the cuirassiers used to 2 belts. But, then there should be a difference between the the one provided to the hussars, which should carry the carabine and the cartridge box, and the one for the cuirassiers.
link

Perhaps the Guard cuirassier troopers were issued an addtional belt, to be used on full dress occasions only?

@Seroga
Do you have more of those very interesting Sauerweid plates?
His helmets are a bit different to the usual immaginations of Russian early heavy cavalry helmets.

I think you will have seen many of these, but ….
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link