eptingmike | 21 Oct 2013 1:27 p.m. PST |
Okay, total newb question/topic: So I bought four boxes of Warlord Games 1809 Russians as they were cheap and I like 'em! However, I am not sure what to use them for! The box states 1809-1815 and I believe that I have read that some units were not re-uniformed due to supply issues so I guess Borodino and Leipzig? That said, I am more interested in the earlier range of years but am not sure who they should fight. The Ottomans? Border skirmishes? Thoughts? Thanks! mike |
huevans011 | 21 Oct 2013 2:43 p.m. PST |
Well, they fought Swedes in 1810(?) and Austrians in 1809 and Turks in 1811. |
Daniel S | 21 Oct 2013 3:33 p.m. PST |
Russo-Swedish war of 1808-1809 |
eptingmike | 21 Oct 2013 3:39 p.m. PST |
Austrians? Huh, that is a new one to me. I assume that had to do with the peace treaty between Bonny and Alex? |
dBerczerk | 21 Oct 2013 5:03 p.m. PST |
Ottoman Turks and Central Asian tribes would definitely be cool. I know Dixon Miniatures had a small range of 28mm Ottoman figures -- not sure if they are still in production. Wargames Foundry did 28mm Bashi-Bazouks in their Crimean War range -- they'd also work as Turkish light cavalry. Perry Miniatures Sudan Range also has some potential. Eureka also has some 28mm Ottomans. It certainly would be a colorful army. |
Sho Boki | 21 Oct 2013 5:15 p.m. PST |
Russians change the grenadier plume to thinner version in 1811 and closed the collar. Thats all. So called 1812 year kiwer was nonregular item. Warlord shakos are too tall. Against Austria in 1809 Bonny and Alex was allied. In same way, as austrians are allied with Bonny in 1812. All the time goes Russo-Persian wars, until in 1813 persians lose Georgia and Azerbaijan. |
Jeigheff | 22 Oct 2013 4:59 a.m. PST |
Years ago, I read a biography of Tsar Alexander I. The book's author stated that the Russians were very reluctant to support Napoleon in the war against the Austrians in 1809. The Russians were under orders to avoid combat with the Austrians if possible, and succeeded. That would explain the total of three(!) Russian casualties for the whole campaign. |
summerfield | 22 Oct 2013 7:21 a.m. PST |
The M1809 Russian Uniform were still in use in 1814. Most of the contemporary prints do not show the closed collar and Kiwi Shako until 1813 at the earliest. THe M1809 uniform was not much different to the M1803 except for the rosette on the shako. Been heavily involved into look of the changes for the Leib-Garde Cossack Regiment and the book is being sent to the publisher next week. Stephen |
eptingmike | 22 Oct 2013 6:11 p.m. PST |
So, to further the discussion a bit, what was Warlord thinking when they made this set? I love the figures, don't get me wrong, but it seems an odd business choice when most of the opponents are minor players and/or not easily obtainable figures(Austria being the exception). Thoughts? |
summerfield | 23 Oct 2013 3:13 a.m. PST |
Dear Mike The 1809 Russians are the correct uniform for Borodino. Very few if any of the regiments had the 1812 uniform. This uniform was still in use in 1814. The 1812 uniform was replaced in 1816. So some regiments went from the 1808 uniformto the 1816. Stephen |
Fish | 23 Oct 2013 4:52 a.m. PST |
If you decide to go the way of the older uniform, here is little info on the Russo-Swedish War of 1808 in Finland that I put together for our club. |
von Winterfeldt | 23 Oct 2013 5:02 a.m. PST |
I agree that a lot of 1809 tpye of uniforms was still in use in 1812 – as well as in 1813, but also the new style appeared already in 1812 and 1813. There are 3 very good contemporary sources which confirm this : Meißner Bilderhandschrift Landecker Bilderhandschrift Elberfelder Bilderhandschrift Also the Dömitzer Bilderhandschrif (covering the Russo German Legion) All 4 are in print and available Otherwise there is an anonymous print – showing the 1812 shako model was well and of course in the prints by Klein (1815) Ulinow discussed this subject also in one of his books about Russian Infantry So – the Russian Army – as well as others (French) was in a transition period. It would be interesting to see also units largly uniformed in the grey conscript uniform |
eptingmike | 23 Oct 2013 5:50 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the responses everyone. To clarify a bit: weren't the large grenadier plumes gone by Borodino? Wouldn't that make the figures unsuitable for that battle without modification? If that is the case, then it again begs the question as to why Warlord produced them as such. Regardless, I like the figures very much(I have four boxes in the stash!). |
summerfield | 23 Oct 2013 6:40 a.m. PST |
The shakos were kept. The issue over the plume is interesting and difficult to answer. Most contemporary prints do not show either of the large plumes on campaign from my recollection. I would think the M1808 shakos would not have taken the new plume so the old plume is valid for those. If you are worried have some with plume, some without and some with the new plume. Remember Russia struggled to supply its army with uniforms and this was even more of a problem in 1813. As von Winterfeldt stated, the Russian army was still in transition. I can bore you to tears over the Leib-Garde Cossack regiment as I have just finshed a 150 page book on this single regiment. The variation of uniform depicted is huge. I have presented the regulation unifrom changes for 1796, 1801, 1809, 1812 and 1814. Even in 1814, elements of the 1809 dress was in use. link Worry less about what is correct as your colleagues know less about it than you. Stephen |
Marcus Maximus | 23 Oct 2013 8:06 a.m. PST |
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, there is a publication due out soon from a our Russian friends on this topic. use the Warlord Russians they are fit for purpose for the the period you wish to re-fight. I would sprinkle the odd later uniform in for the later campaigns, as for minor countries, the Ottoman empire wasn't
..and gave the Russians (veterans as well) a rough handling! |
summerfield | 23 Oct 2013 8:38 a.m. PST |
Can you tell me more of the Russian publication. Stephen |
Hugh Johns | 23 Oct 2013 11:38 a.m. PST |
It's an unfortunate choice on Warlord's part. Probably bad research. They supply two heads with covered shakos, not a common Russian practice, two musketeer/jaeger heads, and four grenadier heads without shako cords which were mandated at the start of 1809. |
eptingmike | 23 Oct 2013 12:14 p.m. PST |
Not sure I would call the choice 'unfortunate' but perhaps 'odd?' :) It would certainly make more sense if they were doing platic Ottomans or Swedes but that seems veeeeeery unlikely to happen, from any manufacturer really. I do have some Old Glory Ottomans for a future mid-1700s project. Looks like they may do double duty! I wasn't aware that the Russians didn't cover their shakos in the same way as other armies. Supply? Cultural? |
huevans011 | 23 Oct 2013 12:38 p.m. PST |
Steven, why would the new plume not fit the 1808 shakoes? It would appear to be slimmer and more convenient to fit than the old, fat one. The 1812 shako was not authorized until January of that year. It's difficult to see how many items could be manufactured and issued by the time the French invaded in June. Just imagine: – The hatter's patterns would have to be drawn up, copies made, transported to the various factories which made uniforms and then test items made and examined before manufacture even began. And then the new shakoes would be handed out when existing stocks of the old shakoes were used up. If it took the British a year or 2 to issue their 1812 Belgic shako, it must have taken the less industrialized, less prosperous Russians at least that long. |
summerfield | 23 Oct 2013 2:51 p.m. PST |
I have seen no evidence of the thinner plume being used. The answer is I do not know. Stephen |
huevans011 | 23 Oct 2013 3:47 p.m. PST |
|
von Winterfeldt | 23 Oct 2013 11:06 p.m. PST |
The Elberfelder Bilderhandschrift shows such a greandier, old model shako with thin plume. Any yes, I would assume that the thin plume was worn along with the old type shako – there is nothing which speaks against it. |
Sho Boki | 24 Oct 2013 4:58 a.m. PST |
"The 1812 shako was not authorized until January of that year." May I ask, authorized by who? Do you know any document about authorization this "kiwer"? |
von Winterfeldt | 24 Oct 2013 5:17 a.m. PST |
we would need urgently the advice by people like Saroga |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 5:39 a.m. PST |
@ Sho Boki. I am just going by what is written in the standard texts. I believe that changes to uniform were authorized by Imperial Edict. |
summerfield | 24 Oct 2013 6:30 a.m. PST |
This is all documented in Viskovatov. Mark Conrad translated this over a decade ago. Stephen |
Sho Boki | 24 Oct 2013 6:35 a.m. PST |
Imperial Edict must be signed by Czar. Yes? But Czar himself once pointed, that this "kiwer" is not authorised. Actually there are no documents about authorization this type of shako and after returning to homeland 1814-1815 all russian troops get authorised proper 1808 shako. Rumors about authorization begins many-many years after Borodino, when for propaganda reasons war suddenly was called the "Great Fatherland War" and myth about 1812 "kiwer" was established. 1812 "kiwer" was actually the same 1808 shako, manufactured locally on colonels level initiative. And what happen, when russian military men get free hands to shape his own headgear, we have seen by example of last years of soviet empire – generals and officers wore peaked caps with half a meter in diameter. |
Sparta | 24 Oct 2013 7:09 a.m. PST |
|
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 8:07 a.m. PST |
von W, I queried Seroga about the topic of shakos some time ago. He indicated that the 1812 model shako was worn in 1812, but that its use would vary from unit to unit. It was part of a general thread in which Seroga commented on and corrected the painting instructions in the Perry plastics box. As set out above, I am skeptical that its use would have been widespread before 1813. The Guards and hussars may well have had preference in distribution, I am guessing. |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 8:12 a.m. PST |
@ Sho Boki Why would there be a specific authorization for a shako which did not exist? Or is your position that there was no such authorization? Not trying to attack you. Just trying to get to the bottom of what might be an interesting topic. Here is the passage in Viskovatov: link link |
Sho Boki | 24 Oct 2013 9:55 a.m. PST |
"1812 Kiwer", as such, exist. Probably mostly manufactured in Germany in 1813. But was never authorized as official headgear. Viskovatov quotes, that units get new shakos in 1812.01.01. There was many debates about this and today historians presumed, that Viskovatov probably wasn't right in many questions. There are plenty of documents about 1808 shako for entire period, but no one about 1812 "kiwer", says historians. Therefore I think, that what Viskovatov says, is that in 1812.01.01 all troops eventually get his 1808 shakos. "Lower than before, with a greater spread or widening toward the top and indented sides" – exactly 1808 shako, compared to 1803-1805 shakos. We may check, that Viskovatov don't mention the 1808 shako at all.. from 1805 shako he goes directly to shako, finally distributed to the end of 1811. Russian goverment was not able to supply all his troops with new 1808 shakos and therefore many chiefs of regiments gets rights or duties to organize funding and manufacturing 1808 shakos to his troops by himself. Occasionally the result was "1812 kiwer". Leading russian historians about russian shakos, Alehin and Uljanov, wrote, that distributing 1808 shakos to all troops finished on beginning 1811. ("Sergeant" No.36 (3/2006)) About topic. Warlord figures wear not 1808 shako, but, as Viskovatov says – "Beginning at this time (19.12.1807), to make them more sturdy, the shakos introduced in 1805 were trimmed at the top and on the sides with black leather, and the visor was sewn on, and subsequently they received the name kiver."
|
Marc the plastics fan | 24 Oct 2013 10:55 a.m. PST |
Wow, so the dipped top Kiwer that we are all used to is not official , and not that widely used! And that is why I love this period – all the time new research being done, and myths/preconceptions challenged and verified/debunked. Thanks guys – I will follow this with interest |
Hugh Johns | 24 Oct 2013 11:39 a.m. PST |
Sho Boki, Have the regulations for closed collars and lengthened booting been found? |
Marcus Maximus | 24 Oct 2013 11:53 a.m. PST |
Hi Stephen please drop me an email at trajanic AT gmail DOT com thanks. |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 12:21 p.m. PST |
Interesno, Sho Boki. Ok, the description of the shako authorized in January 1812 could fit the "1808 shako". Are you aware of any contemporary art or drawings showing a low shako with an indented top similar to the what wargamers usually call the "1812 kiwer"? |
Sho Boki | 24 Oct 2013 12:25 p.m. PST |
"Have the regulations for closed collars and lengthened booting been found?" I never studied this question. Therefore I don't know. ___ "Are you aware of any contemporary art or drawings showing a low shako with an indented top similar to the what wargamers usually call the "1812 kiwer"?" Yes, of cource. There are lot of them. "Ok, the description of the shako authorized in January 1812 could fit the "1808 shako"." Viskovatov don't say, that this shako was authorized in 1812. Only, that distribution finished, all units get new shako. Therefore the authorization must be much earlier (summer 1808). |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 12:35 p.m. PST |
To return to the original question: The Foundry India range is interesting and could be used as Persians in a Russo-Persian game. I do not know if they would be usable with the new Perry cossacks. link |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 1:07 p.m. PST |
Viskovatov don't say, that this shako was authorized in 1812. Only, that distribution finished, all units get new shako. Therefore the authorization must be much earlier (summer 1808). @ Sho Boki Yes, you could read Conrad's translation of Viskovatov in that way. He says "all combatant ranks are given"
. It's a poor translation. We don't know if the original Russian implied "distribute" or "authorize". When I say "contemporary", it means art made in the period 1812-1815. I'm not sure if I made that clear. There are many, many pictures of the concave-top kiwer, but they have been made long after the Napoleonic Wars. If there are many, many pictures of the same headgear made in the 1812-1815 period, it would suggest that the shako was very common at that time. |
von Winterfeldt | 24 Oct 2013 1:10 p.m. PST |
I have no clue about the regulations, all I can say that there exist contemporary prints showing it – as well as the old style (which seemed to be the majority in 1812 / 13)
and the last one from the excellent book of Peter Schuchhardt about the Elberfelder Manuscript
|
Hugh Johns | 24 Oct 2013 1:28 p.m. PST |
That's a bit presumptuous, Hugh. How would you translate: всемъ строевымъ чинамъ даны кивера новой формы,
? |
Greystreak | 24 Oct 2013 1:33 p.m. PST |
He says "all combatant ranks are given"
. It's a poor translation. Translated a lot of Russian, have you huevans011, compared to Mark Conrad's output? Perhaps it does not tell you what you want to know, but that hardly means that Mark's translation work was poor. If you'd like a link to Viskovatov in the original Russian, let's see how you do better: listat.ru/T10/T10_sod.htm . |
Sho Boki | 24 Oct 2013 2:12 p.m. PST |
My russian are on same level as my english – poor, but satisfied me. âñåìú ñòðîåâûìú ÷èíàìú äàíû êèâåðà íîâîé ôîðìû = to all ranks and file are given (distributed) kiwers with new form (pattern, shape) ___ "If there are many, many pictures of the same headgear made in the 1812-1815 period, it would suggest that the shako was very common at that time." Yes, the so called "1812 kiwer" became very popular in Europe in 1813. Not only for russian, but for minor German states too, as I heard. Probably because the kiwers were made by local german manufacturers. |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 2:59 p.m. PST |
Translated a lot of Russian, have you huevans011, compared to Mark Conrad's output? Perhaps it does not tell you what you want to know, but that hardly means that Mark's translation work was poor. If you'd like a link to Viskovatov in the original Russian, let's see how you do better @ Hew Johns and Greystreak: Since I don't claim to translate Russian, your comments are irrelevant. I'm sure Mark put in a lot of hard work and his translation is – I'm sure – very good by and large. But the fact that the translation is ambiguous on 1 essential point, means that it is lacking is this particular respect. That is just an objective comment, not a personal slight on Mark. Challenging me to do better is silly. I can't. If I pointed out – for example – that a kitchen cabinet had a wonky handle on one of the drawers, the fact that I am not a carpenter and could not have assembled the cabinet as well as the craftsman who made it is not a relevant or useful rebuff. But thanks for your "contributions" anyway. I assume I'm in for another 9 or 10 posts of vitriolic sarcasm from both of you for responding. So fire away. |
Hugh Johns | 24 Oct 2013 3:18 p.m. PST |
|
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 3:39 p.m. PST |
TMP. Sigh. Well, actually I took your quote and I did spend 5 minutes translating it with my Russian grammar and dictionary. Mark translated the piece word for word literally and the translation is fine in that regard. The problem is that the word "dany" – since I don't have a cyrillic keyboard, I am writing the accepted Latin script form – is simply the past perfect participle of "give". It would probably take a native Russian speaker to interpret whether the word has an accustomed meaning of "hand out" or "grant" in this context, as both meanings are set out in my dictionary. We probably need Seroga or another Russian expert. |
Greystreak | 24 Oct 2013 4:04 p.m. PST |
No one is 'flaming' you, huevans011. Mark translated the text accurately, and the fact that it does not tell you what you want to know is obviously disappointing, but it is no justification to impugn his skills. Don't take it out on Mark, particularly when he has contributed so many freely available translations of Russian materials to assist hobbyists and historians across a wide range of periods for so many years. |
eptingmike | 24 Oct 2013 4:12 p.m. PST |
Come now everyone, this is a great thread, so lets try and refrain from insults/sarcasm whether true or percieved. It is hard to translate one's tone via text, obviously. That said, while 'poor translation' may be a bit harsh, if it is true that it is a word for word literal translation, I could see where that might cause an issue. It seems that that often nuance and such are lacking in much the same way as trying to communicate via text on the internet. :) |
Sho Boki | 24 Oct 2013 4:16 p.m. PST |
Dear huevans011, I assure you, that in this context word "dany" may be the short version at word "vydany". But any way, only Viskovatov assure, that this happen on 1812.01.01. All others simple trusted him, until at the end somebody checked and discovered, that no such things happened. No confirming documents whatsoever. When developing, coordinating, confirming, authorizing, manufacturing and distributing such complex item as "kiwer", there will be a huge amount of documents. Not one document, which may disapear, but many-many documents. We have lot of this kind of documents about 1808 shako, but no one about "1812 kiwer". Only words from Viskovatov. |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 5:02 p.m. PST |
@ Sho Boki "Vydany" = "to give out, issue, produce" and that would support your interpretation. But there is no reason to think that Viskovatov simply short-cutted – again, unless I am missing something thru lack of Russian skills. |
huevans011 | 24 Oct 2013 5:05 p.m. PST |
When developing, coordinating, confirming, authorizing, manufacturing and distributing such complex item as "kiwer", there will be a huge amount of documents. Not one document, which may disapear, but many-many documents. We have lot of this kind of documents about 1808 shako, but no one about "1812 kiwer". Only words from Viskovatov. So no Russian expert has actually found a regulation or decree authorizing the "1812 kiwer"? Are you sure? |