green beanie | 15 Aug 2014 9:00 p.m. PST |
what type of head gear is a kiwer? how does it differ from a shako? |
lewis cannon | 15 Aug 2014 9:13 p.m. PST |
Like a shorter shako with a curved top. lc |
Glengarry5 | 15 Aug 2014 9:20 p.m. PST |
Kiwer is Russian for shako, so yes, it's a shako. What we generally mean by a kiwer is the 1812 shako which is kinda hard to explain in words. It's concave… uh, it dips in the middle. The between the front and rear facings it is dished. During 19813-1814 even some non-Russians wore the kiwer as it was considered cool… |
Sparta | 16 Aug 2014 2:13 a.m. PST |
Look up the recent discussions on this forum. It woul seem that soom of are ideas about this are wrong. From what I have read, russian sources seems to indicate that the model worn in 1809 was in use for all excpet a few units throughout the war, an dperhaps the idea we have about the rounded top i just plain wrong!! Paging Sasha |
Sho Boki | 16 Aug 2014 2:33 a.m. PST |
Kiwer is Russian term for shako. It was at first copied from 1806 French shako and called 1808 kiwer. With this kiwers they fought on Borodino 1812 and march to Paris.
"1812 kiwer" is later russian propaganda myth. This kind of shakos was locally and selfishly manufactured in Germany 1813 for officers and never officially approved. |
Marcus Maximus | 16 Aug 2014 2:45 a.m. PST |
@Sho Boki – that is quite a definitive answer on the 1812 Kiwer – has any material been published on this conclusion? |
Sho Boki | 16 Aug 2014 3:06 a.m. PST |
@Marcus Maximus The best evidence in case about "1812 kiwer" is that there are absolutely no one official documents about this kiwer. Plenty of documents about 1808 and later kiwers, but about 1812 – none. |
von Winterfeldt | 16 Aug 2014 3:46 a.m. PST |
I don't see it like this, there are plenty of contemporary prints showing Russian troops with the concave shako top, and yes Russian units such as Russian Jäger by Klein. I agree that the 1808 modell was the predominant one, but the other modell was worn as well and not restricted to Guard units. The discussion by Russian experts is completly ignoring the non Russian iconography |
Sho Boki | 16 Aug 2014 4:01 a.m. PST |
von Winterfeldt. But nobody don't say, that concaved shako don't existed. Only that 1. this is not official kiwer (no official documentations) 2. first maked in Germany in 1813 by initiative local officers By the way.. as I understand, Guard have it's own kiwer pattern, not "1812" one. |
jeffreyw3 | 16 Aug 2014 6:15 a.m. PST |
Sasha should be here soon… :) |
14Bore | 16 Aug 2014 6:21 a.m. PST |
Who knew this was a can of worms. My take was the new model of 1812 not issued to every unit on that date. Some may never have received it, some recruit may have got one on his first day. The difference I look for is the cords. |
Sho Boki | 16 Aug 2014 8:04 a.m. PST |
There are no documents about producing or issuing "1812 kiwers" to any unit, says historians. 1811-1812 last units get his new 1808 kiwers. Recruts may get "1812 kiwers" only if they marched to Germany in 1813 without uniforms and are dressed there. Cords are identical for both. We all know and repeat about "1812 kiwer model" thanks to words of Viskovatov only. |
xxxxxxx | 16 Aug 2014 9:52 a.m. PST |
Overall, I would tend to agree with *both* Sho Baki and von Winterfeldt. First, the name of the the thing : in the singular nominative case (именительный падеж) in the old spelling : киверъ . It comes into use from the end of 1807 when a new cover, closely modelled on the French shako, is ordered. If you transliterate the word for English speakers, you get : kiver . If you transliterate the word for German speakers, you get : Kiwer . The word had been used before, to describe covers for hussars – the visorless conical type wrapped in in a distinctive cloth. The prior etymology is not clear, but seems to have roots in words used to describe turban style headresses, passing into Old Russian in the late 14th century to denote a type of bridal headress of a wrapped or turban style. I suppose that English-speakers will want to then write "kivers" for the plural, but adding an "s" is not the way to make a plural in Russian – which would be kivery or kivera or kiverov in transliteration for English speakers (Russian plurals are a little funky, as the case endings vary with the usage). :-) The "concave top" model was indeed never ordered officially. After the peace, there were even specific instructions against it and the next model actually ordered (~1817, I think) was flat topped and taller than the prior model (not shorter as was typical for the concave top style). It was certainly used by quite a few line units in 1813-1815, as it shows up in many period images drawn from life, along with the flat topped design. I am going to say that it appears more with Army jäger units and hussars than heavy infantry. But that could be just a coincidence of which units were being drawn and which images survived. I really don't think we know that units were equipped with the concave model *only* when made in Germany. But, it is likely that the vast majority of such cases occurred in Germany, as the larger Russian suppliers would find it more difficult to make non-regulation equipment and get it sold to the government. But Russian military administration was not perfect, and a prominent and/or rich regimental "shef" might have tried to get the more fashionable style made in Russia, possibly at his own expense. A shef might even have had the regulation models converted by the regiment's non-combattants and/or an artel' (a kind of commissary service made up by the men that would also have its own small businesses). The new style appears to have started in 1812 as a fashion for Guard officers. Then Army officers. Then units. Were any units using this model in 1812? I think there is only one image that may have been late 1812 or early 1813 that shows it. So, for 1812, one would be most accurate to have figures in the flat top model that was so similar to the French. By the way, I think I understand the reason that the fashion caught on somewhat generally, and perhaps more with "light" units : it made the outline of the head different from the French. Wellington once wrote that he didn't care what covers were issued as long as they did not look like the enemy. I am of the opinion that the Russians liked the new fashion kiver for the same reason. In any case, the actual use of the concave top kiver is still being discussed and researched. - Sasha P.S. The cords and other decorations were exactly the same, regardless of the style of the kiver. |
von Winterfeldt | 16 Aug 2014 10:36 a.m. PST |
There complete units did get it – I just cannot believe it was a private issue of officers or makeshift productions. Evidently a lot of contemporary pictures are of German origin when the Germans observed the Russians fighting and marching in Germany in 1813, but there concave kiver is also to be spotted in French uniform plates of 1814 and 1815. Again I won't argue that the majority of Russian headress in 1812 was the conventional "old" flat topped shako, but the concace kiver came up, it couldn't come from nowhere – whole regiments demand a good production line. |
Widowson | 16 Aug 2014 12:49 p.m. PST |
Viskovatov disagrees, and cites the introduction of the "coal shuttle" style shako, or "kiver" in a regulation dated January, 1812 (from Mark Conrad's translation site): "1 January 1812— All combatant ranks are given a new pattern shako [kiver], lower than before, with a greater spread or widening toward the top and indented sides, with flat brass scales on chinstraps; as was already the case for officers, the shako no longer has the sewn-on earflaps and neckflaps (Illus. 1323). Along with this, the previous high, open collars are changed to low ones closed in front with small hooks and eyes. . . . " Interestingly, the regulations dropped this style shako in 1815 and returned to the French style. |
xxxxxxx | 16 Aug 2014 12:52 p.m. PST |
von Winterfeldt, You add a useful detail that I neglected – I have not seen units (the men) shown in period images with both models in the same unit (or even the same image). As to private purchase, a "rich" Russian officer (or his family) could be very, very rich. The income distribution was very very unequal, even among the nobility. The price of a kiver (complete with cords, grenade(s), chinstraps, pompons, etc. was about 1 ruble. It would have cost well less than 1,000 rubles (about the annual pay and allowances for a regimental shef) to outfit a regiment with new "bare" kivers. This was a pretty modest sum for a rich family (the richest among them having incomes above 100,000 rubles/year). By the way, in addition to German and French artists, there are Russian contemporary images of the concave top style. An artel' having as a business tailoring was rather common. Haberdashery I do not know of, but it is not too unreasonable – especially for converting existing covers. - Sasha |
xxxxxxx | 16 Aug 2014 1:05 p.m. PST |
Widowson, Viskovatov rather vaguely sources the passage you quoted to "Ukase of the Military College, for 1812." – without any specific date. No one has ever found this document or one like it specifying a uniform change. Indeed, TOE, wear-out dates and prices for uniform items were *proposed" by the Military College and then, upon approval, *enacted* through "Laws" ("Zakony"). and there is no such law about a new style shako. One can look through all the Zakony here : link Further there is no record or surviving example of patterns, models or instructions for manufacturing a new style. There would have been several large government manufactories and quite a few private contractors – each of which would have received patterns, models and instructions and some of whose archives seem to have survived well. To all appearances, the Viskovatov reports in error, possibly taking a proposal for a new regulation as if "enacted" (an error of this type is committed with regard to unit distinctions such as pompoms). - Sasha |
jeffreyw3 | 16 Aug 2014 1:09 p.m. PST |
Sasha's last post points out the difficulty with this discussion…and you had no idea this was a can of worms, 14Bore… :-) |
xxxxxxx | 16 Aug 2014 1:27 p.m. PST |
Jeffrey, Yeah …. and think of all the back-and-forth you get on this topic among re-enactors, many who have spent for them really large amounts of money on one style or the other. I think one of the yeger units in Moscow wears the concave style still for 1812 …. and they are indeed purchased by the rather rich founder/leader of the "regiment". Here is 13 pages of posts on the topic from re-enactor.ru : link It *is* an interesting question. :-) - Sasha |
von Winterfeldt | 16 Aug 2014 11:58 p.m. PST |
@Alexandre It is good to point out that due to Viskovatov a "distorted" immage of all Russian infantry with concave shako tops was created, it reminds me on the proposed facing colours of Austrian infantry in Ottenfeld and Teuber which was taken on as the real thing and caused havoc in modern publications. I also don't deny that some Russian aristocrats were very very rich and could easily outfit their unit with the concave top shako. I ask myself who produced them and where and yes, some instructions must have existed, even private contractos couldn't produce anything out of the air. Also – was there a possibility that officers equipped their units on their own whim with such a shako, without asking for permission?? The discussion of the Russian re-enactors – there is too much dogma, the concave shaped top shako did exist – Klein is a too serious artist with very fine eye to detail to be ignored |
Major Bloodnok | 17 Aug 2014 2:30 a.m. PST |
If one reads about some Swedish, units in 1813-1814, getting "Russian Kiwers" it could just as easily be flat topped as coal scuttle shaped? |
summerfield | 17 Aug 2014 2:52 a.m. PST |
It is interesting the number of German States regiments and the Swedes using this "Kiwer" shako. There is a strong suggestion that it was made in Northern Germany possibly. Remember the Russian supply lines. Most of the contemporary illustrations that I have seen are 1813-14. I like the suggestion that it was military fashion. Remember that the M1816 uniform was modelled on the Prussian M1814 uniform. The Prussian M1816 uniform was then modelled on the Russian with more of a bell shaped shako. The changes in fashion was marked in the occupation of Paris 1814 then 1815-19 when the Tsar and King of Prussia admired the uniforms of the other. Stephen |
14Bore | 17 Aug 2014 11:35 a.m. PST |
I read through about 1/4 of Alexandre's link having to get my computer to translate takes a lot more time. Lots of pictures more towards the latter pages. My point is figures come as they are, if I want pre 1812 or post 1812 the only difference I look for is cords or no cords. |
von Winterfeldt | 18 Aug 2014 5:12 a.m. PST |
It is an interesting topic also for Sweden, Mörner shows only officers with concave topp, the same for Russians,for infantry only officers with concave top – Russian hussars however with concave top, the Elberfelder pictur manuscript, only two of Russian German Legion, the rest conventional shako, the Landecker only conventional shako, Cappi – concave top, Klein, also concave top. |
14Bore | 18 Aug 2014 12:05 p.m. PST |
That's what I gathered from the link. some opinion seems that the favorite concave was limited but a few artists may have tipped the scales somewhat. |