"SYW Austrian Jaegers" Topic

These were raised starting in 1758, ten companies by 1760, according to Osprey. They wear the casquet (usually associated with French Revolutionary Wars) and high boots with otherwise normal looking infantry uniform, rifle armed. Does anybody make these guys in the modern larger 15mm? I actually hope to use them for the French Revolutionary Wars.
Thanks,
Phil

Something seems confused about this description. The Austrian Jaeger uniform was medium grey with green facings, not white like line infantry. The cut of the coat was like the line infantry. Another distinction was their hirschfanger hunting sword.

SYW Jaegers wore a kasket, but it was different in some visible details from the kasket worn 25 years later in the French Revolutionary Wars. Personally I wouldn't use SYW Jaegers for FRW Jaegers. But, if those are the figures you want, I think Old Glory has them in their 15mm Austrian Light Infantry bag, along with a bunch of Grenzers.

Thanks Zippy,
Of course on the color of the coat, but it's not different on unpainted figures…
I was asking about SYW because I've looked high and low for Revolutionary Wars and those ranges are pretty thin. My fallback, I think is to use German line infantry and cut the muskets down. They still carried the sabre so it could be "close enough" (ie as close as I'm going to get).

Do you have any recommendations for the right jaeger?
Thanks

I wish I could be more helpful. FRW is not one of my strong subjects. I have little reference and don't know where to source figures.

It looks like there wasn't any regular Austrian Jaegerkorps at the time of the FRW. In the old Uniforms of the World, Knotel, Knotel and Sieg wrote (p.22), "During the Seven Years' War, a Feldjagerkorps was formed (Fig. 8g) but it did not last very long…Several Jager corps existed around 1800, but they were volunteers. The first Jager battalions were raised in 1808. The Tyrol Jager Regiment was formed in 1816."

Bassett-Powell and Crantz Uniformology book The Austrian Army 1630-1840 Vol. I is stated to have been reprinted from an 1850 original, but B-P & C don't credit the original(!). Plate 6 Jaegers includes a figure dated 1800 wearing the 1800 uniform including the German combed helmet. He has large fringed epaulettes. It's hard to say what color his uniform is – this plate seems to be missing the red overlay (sigh). K K & S show this same guy in Fig. 8h, but only in b&w and only from the shoulders up. I guess he's a 'volunteer' Jager, I wonder from which unit? But 1800 is really too late for FRW anyway.

The best source I have on this subject is Osprey MAA 299 Hollins & Younghusband Austrian Auxiliary Troops 1792-1816. Hollins doesn't treat the Feldjagerkorps as a seperate subject. He illustrates a number of volunteer Jaeger from the 1790s whose uniforms are mighty various. Among them is a 'Tyrolean Sharpshooter' of 1792, pumping up an air rifle, who looks an awful lot like a SYW Koenigsjaeger, but his kaskett must have the flat top and the button (sigh).

Hollins indicates that infantry scout and sniper duties in the Austrian armies of the FRW were covered by the Grenzer, especially the Grenz Scharfschutzen companies, but that's a whole different subject from Jaeger.

Email me your surface address. I have a small batch of 15mm Grenz Scharfschutzen in kaskett that don't fit my collection, might fit yours. I think they're old Mike's Models figures (!), so older and smaller, but bigger than Gen1 Minifigs. My email is zippy-at-fuse-dot-net.

Zippy, sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I appreciate the offer, but already have the Grenz scharfschutzen with the doppelschutz with my AB Grenzers.
My source for early feldjaeger is on the German version of Napoleon Online – contemporary illustrations, I think.
Schema aller Uniform der Kaiser. König. Kriegsvölkern aus dem Jahre 1793
Feldjaegercorps and Tyrol Schutzen is one of the cards and wears the uniform I was describing. I don't have the Austrian Auxiliary troops title, but have the earlier infantry title by Haythornthwaite that mentions the Tyrolean Jager regiment raised 1801 and "Prior to this date jagers had been deployed in individual companies, with the 46th Regt. possessing two six company battalions, and a four company rifle battalion recruited from the Tyrol…" I understand this to mean that the 6 company battalions were standard line infantry, with rifle battalion added. It seems to suggest that jagers existed, but were not employed in battalion sized elements. Further info would definitely be helpful. I'm guessing that the card I mention above is likely of the 4 company battalion of th 46th, though not explicitly labelled as such.
Thanks,
Phil

link
This is the link to the cards I mention above. I got it from somebody's earlier thread here on TMP.

Phil, you have better information than I do re the Tyroler Schutzen. This is evidently the same unit that Hollins illustrates. Scroll down this link to page 172, you'll find a contemporary painting of the SYW KuK Jaegerkorps, courtesy of Dr. Stephen Summerfield:

link

The uniforms are very similar, but there are some detail differences.

First, I think both figures are wearing shoes with long black gaiters, not boots.

The Tyroler doesn't seem to have a sword.

The SYW coat is a bit longer and more full than the Tyroler's coat. A detail.

The detail differences in the kasket are more difficult to see. The SYW kasket has a rounded crown, and a front that's just a bit taller than the crown. The Tyroler's kasket is the standard model for his era, with a flat crown and a front standing several inches taller. Also, the 1790s kasket has a prominent button on the left holding the plume that is absent from the SYW kasket. The 1790s plume is also rather bigger.

Details. I guess you cold try to file down the crown of the SYW kasket flat without damaging the plume. Or just squint at the SYW figures and call it all good. They're your toy soldiers, so do what you like and have fun.

I pasted and copied a discussion on this topic

"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.

von Winterfeldt
18 Nov 2010 11:56 p.m. PST

"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.
Here a picture
it is from Dollezcek, that one with 1784 in the centre
picture
von Winterfeldt
19 Nov 2010 8:33 a.m. PST

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??
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21 Nov 2010 6:43 a.m. PST

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.

von Winterfeldt
21 Nov 2010 10:26 a.m. PST

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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21 Nov 2010 3:32 p.m. PST

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.

von Winterfeldt
22 Nov 2010 5:55 a.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
23 Nov 2010 10:30 a.m. PST

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.

von Winterfeldt
23 Nov 2010 11:09 a.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
27 Nov 2010 2:03 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
28 Nov 2010 12:45 a.m. PST

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 %

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
28 Nov 2010 5:26 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
28 Nov 2010 8:34 a.m. PST

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?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
28 Nov 2010 1:55 p.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
03 Dec 2010 2:37 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
06 Dec 2010 6:15 a.m. PST

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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
06 Dec 2010 9:03 a.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
06 Dec 2010 4:50 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
07 Dec 2010 2:38 a.m. PST

Yes indeed, stupid enough not to check Ottenfeld as well – from my side – sometimes there is some usefull information – after all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
07 Dec 2010 5:18 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
07 Dec 2010 7:33 a.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
07 Dec 2010 8:47 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
07 Dec 2010 2:09 p.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
07 Dec 2010 11:35 p.m. PST

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
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
08 Dec 2010 6:05 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
08 Dec 2010 6:48 a.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
08 Dec 2010 10:43 p.m. PST

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
Duke of Plaza Toro
08 Dec 2010 11:18 p.m. PST

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
von Winterfeldt
09 Dec 2010 3:01 a.m. PST

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 ;-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
09 Dec 2010 5:28 a.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
09 Dec 2010 5:19 p.m. PST

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
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10 Dec 2010 4:24 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 7:46 a.m. PST

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.
22ndIndependent
10 Dec 2010 9:24 a.m. PST

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?
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 1:52 p.m. PST

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

von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 2:49 p.m. PST

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?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10 Dec 2010 3:10 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 4:23 p.m. PST

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
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 4:44 p.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
11 Dec 2010 7:33 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
11 Dec 2010 10:08 a.m. PST

One has to be a bit carefull with Dolleczek, a photo of an original in Gabriel shows a M 1769 Stutzen with an iron ramrod at the stock – the only one which did not have a ramrod at the stock – was evidently the Doppelstutzen (with the possible exception of those made by Spöck – for that see Gabriel page 222 / 223.
One part of the ramrod was so constructed that it could be used as a Setzer – or starter in English.
Der nicht in der Waffe versorgte stählerne Ladestock hat einen gedrechselten Kopf aus Holz zum Ansetzen der Kugel und als Handhabe und einen Setzer mit Innengewinde zum Einschrauben eines Krätzers, Wischers oder Kugelziehers.
Gabrie p. 220 about the ramrod of the Doppelstutzen
The barrel of the Stutzen was usually "blued" – while the lock and the ramrod stayed bright metal.
For the M 1795 and later – I would opt for no Ladehammer, due to the special construction of the ramrod – but that still leaves the question open for the earlier ones – where this wooden head couldn't be attached permanently.
You would certainly need a construct to hammer the patched ball into the barrel, at least I have to do this with my re construtcted civilian Jäger rifle, I need a hammer and a starter, there the ramrod is of wood, to load a patched ball.
Any ideas for the early Stutzen on that?

In case you don't have the book by Gabriel – it was one of my better buys.
About the Klobuk, I certaily would agree with the earlier ones on that – but could it be that it changed due to fashion as other headgears as well?
I don't have unfortunatly Kuhnel's 1778 illustrations, only some of about 1767 – which show a Kasket.
As to the Klobuk worn only by Grenzscharfschützen – I may be wrong, there Seele shows also a usual Grenzer with a Klobuk as well.

Still some Grenzer oder usual Infantry with back to front Kaskets would be quite an original idea.
You might find that interesting form the Abrichtungsreglement of the Jäger – alas Napoleonic – that the powder flask and the powder measurment is described, so a sort of powder container was in use.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12 Dec 2010 7:39 a.m. PST

I know Gabriel, but don't have a copy myself. Anyway, the ramrod would be on the Stutzen, but I presume this Setzer is a bigger, flat end to the ramrod? That way, when you first extract it, you can push the ball in a bit with the bottom end as it emerges from the barrel ring and then turn the ramrod round and get greater effect by pushing with the more solid, wider top end? These weapons are about 1.1m long, so with the ramrod out, maybe 1.8m or the height of a tall man. You would have to push it in some way before using a hammer, even ramming at an angle.
On the powder horn, this is an illustration from 1809 of Vienna Freiwillige etc. (not 1805) and shows the horn clearly.
link
(Courtesy of Steven Smith)
The Seele painting of Balkan irregulars is in MAA2099 and shows the seated Gyulai (Croat) FK in a Csackelhaube, but the Wurmser Freikorps wear a Bosnian Klobuk. I suspect the truth for the Grenzers was somewhere in between – the Siebenburgen units seem to prefer the Csackelhaube, but the western units do seem to be in a Klobuk rather more like a Hussar shako – ie: just a straight tube with a lid on it and not leaning inwards like a Fez.
The kaskett with the flap is shown in several pics, but would only be used on the march, guard duty etc.
von Winterfeldt
12 Dec 2010 8:23 a.m. PST

The Setzer is no flat end of the ramrod, but the end of it is a bit concave so it fits "over" the ball better.
I did sent you an extract of the Abrichtungsreglement of the Schützen (Napoleonic) – which describes the loading action nicely.
You got the loading sequence completly wrong, you won't hammer down the ramrod, you would start with the hammer – one places the patched ball onto the muzzle of the rifle or Stutzen – it won't fit in, due being patched, then you would need a hammer to hammer it gently in, next step, the patched ball, sitting snugly and square in the muzzle, you then need a starter to push it down a bit further – let's say 3 to 4 inches, then you would push with the ramrod the patched ball down.
All should be done gently – not to deform the patched ball.
Let me know if you got the part of the Abrichtungsreglement.
As for the powder horn, being a sceptic – it might be ok for a Freiwilligen – or Tyrolean – but was it like this for a regular Jäger (i.e. delivered item) – one should see it on illustrations of the Jäger – even in later Napoleonic period.
von Winterfeldt
12 Dec 2010 9:43 a.m. PST

finally I found a photo of a painting by Kobell about the Austrians 1805 including the rear view of a Jäger – showing the cords.
these are purely decorational and are fixed from the shoulder down to a button on the rear, I will provide a photo in due course.
Otherwise Tranquilo Mollo might show Jäger in his 1811 series??? – which I don't have in full.
As for the powder horn, the Jäger re-enactment unit of Vienna – who take it quite seriously are showing also one and also very nicely the ramrod with the wooden top (looking indeed like a hammer)
research has to continue
von Winterfeldt
13 Dec 2010 6:57 a.m. PST

annoying – no powder horn
picture

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
13 Dec 2010 11:10 a.m. PST

I think Kobell produced that picture from the Mollo drawings.
von Winterfeldt
16 Dec 2010 6:26 a.m. PST

I don't think so – Kobell did a lot of original research – he did a similar painting about the Bavrian army, anyway just for fun
Austrians in Germany 1800

picture

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
18 Dec 2010 4:13 a.m. PST

If you look at the figures, they are all copies of Mollo – indeed that jaeger is a copy, but coloured incorrectly. he did not go to a camp and paint it.
Your other pic is interesting – the two at the front appear to be Wurmser Freikorps.
von Winterfeldt
18 Dec 2010 6:03 a.m. PST

the catalogue of Kobell's works says:
Lustlager der österreichischen Infanterie bei Simmering, Neugebäude und Kaiserebersdorf 1805, Wien Albertina, Graph. Sig., Inv.Nr. 14758
For me it is not a copy of Mollo, for example Kobell got the headress right and he doesn't show the exerimental helmet.
Duke of Plaza Toro
20 Dec 2010 10:28 p.m. PST

Gentlemen
Can I ask you both if you have any comments on this picture of a Tyrolean Jäger c.1792? (After Albert Grégorius, Musée de l'Armée. Bruxelles)
picture
There are a few problems (belt worn under the coat and an ordinary sword rather than the Hirschfänger) but I'm particularly interested in the appearance of the cord tassels, – in this case located on the RIGHT shoulder(?)
otherwise a nice impression of the round hat being worn (brim turned up at the rear in this example).
Cheers
John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures
von Winterfeldt
21 Dec 2010 2:56 a.m. PST

Moreover he is wearing English boots – unlikley for rank and file and not that common for the Austrians at all.
I think that on the right – should be epaulettes and not cords and tassels.
I would not sculpt a figure from that source.
Looking at other Austrians from that source – he shows also the waistbelt under the coat for the infantryman – missing a belt buckle, – also observe the front of his kaskett – all brass, too slim cartridge pouch belt, the detials not that convincing.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21 Dec 2010 5:21 a.m. PST

Gregorius seems to have been a portrait painter, based in Bruges, so this is probably quite a Schematic pic, similar to Mollo and the Artaria, in that they are only impressionistic. There ios no real intention to convey detail.
On his right shoulder is the single epaulette of a 1769 style tunic, but it is worn open like the 1795 Schematis drawing of the German Jaeger and of course, he has a simple Corsehut with the cord band at the bottom of the crown. If the jacket were worn open as this one (?Le Loup jaeger or German Jaeger), then it would be right to wear the waistbelt buckled across the waistcoat.
Assuming this is Belgian revolt or early Rev wars, then these uniforms are less regualted anyway, so English boots would not really be a surprise – the Le Loup and German Jaeger were individual volunteers, whereas the Tyroleans were volunteers from the standing local militia, whose kit would have been close to the regualr army. Thus the first ones would be wearing an assortment of kit anyway and it seems with the tunics open.
Duke of Plaza Toro
21 Dec 2010 6:54 p.m. PST

According to my source Albert Grégorius drew the picture (labelled "Chasseur tyroliens, 1793") and around 60 other water colours FROM LIFE of French and Imperial / Allied troops who passed through or were stationed in Bruges during the 1792 – 1793 campaigns.
I accept what you are both saying about some of the details – and no, we do not intend to base our sculpting on this one picture, but to play devil's advocate for a moment I would point out that Grégorius was good enough an observer to at least get some of the important details correct (such as the distinctly blue shade of the ‘Pike Grey' uniform during this early period). So perhaps the "impressionistic" label is a bit harsh? An artist misinterpreting the exact way a belt is worn is easy enough or exaggerating the size of the plate on the front of the Kaskett (as in his other drawing of Austrian infantry mentioned by vW), but it seems to me that the location of a distinctive detail peculiar to this troop type (the cord and tassels) – which he took the time and trouble to draw – would have been harder for him to get wrong.
I am not sure I quite understand Dave's comment about this figure having the single epaulette on the right shoulder of a 1769 style tunic. Surely the 1769 infantry jacket had no epaulette on the right shoulder (only the strap on the left that retained the cartridge belt?) Mind you, having said that, if Grégorius was correct in showing the tassels on the right shoulder it does raise the tricky question as to what the tassels were attached to if there was no right epaulette. So maybe this is further evidence that Grégorius put them on the wrong shoulder?
As I said – playing devil's advocate here really. You have convinced me that the tassels should be hung from the left shoulder strap (as they were after 1798), but I just thought this picture was interesting and wanted to know what you both thought. After all, it is the ONLY picture I've seen so far, with a reasonably reliable provenance, which confirms a Jäger rifleman wearing the tassels and cords in 1792-93. Just a shame they are on the right shoulder! (Perhaps for the Austrian Jäger, being part of the Freikorps at this time and therefore only partially regulated until 1798, they chose to wear the cords and tassels attached to whichever shoulder took their fancy?)
And Grégorius' watercolour also backs up Dave when he says some Jäger wore the Tyrolean style round hat – as opposed to the regulation Kaskett hat.
Once again Dave and vW – many thanks.
John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures
von Winterfeldt
21 Dec 2010 11:43 p.m. PST

As to round hat versus kasket – the question would be – what Jäger – as Dave stated before some different Jäger units exist at the same time.
Grégorius seemed to be strongly influenced by the French army, depicting details, like for the Prussian, a musket with rings or a typical French cuff, instead of a Prussian one, this source as all others need interpretation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22 Dec 2010 5:15 a.m. PST

Sorry – I should have checked which strap it was! Hpowever, looking closely at it, it is the tassles, not an epaulette. I think that it is down to one of a few things – either the man is not carrying pack (as it is not shown) and so has slung his cord the opposite way round or an artistic error or just that some may have preferred to keep it on the right shoulder so the cords are looser, leaving the left shoulder style for parades (beinga s you suggest non-regulated).
There is a tendency to classify irregulars by well-known units, so he may be a German jaeger rather than actually Tyrolean, but we would have to look at the OBs to be sure. Don't forget the 1795 Schematis clearly shows the German Jaeger with the tassles on the left shoulder and likewise for the regulated 1798 Jaeger.
von Winterfeldt
22 Dec 2010 8:18 a.m. PST

can you be so kind to show us a Jäger of the 1795 Schema?
I don't have it.
For me it is next to impossible to determine if that piece is an epaulette or something else – far from clear.
A lot of details are wrong, look a the immense amount of small buttones at the front of the coat and no waist – coat buckle.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22 Dec 2010 10:51 a.m. PST

It is in MAA299, but I don't have a copy either! Perhaps John would put it up. It is the cords as you can see from the way it narrows at the ends. I think it is impressionistic – hence the lack of a buckle and too many buttons, although Bruno did mention that the Luttich Volunteer/Archduke Charles uniform was an old Belgian rebel pattern and so, maybe this is a le loup?
von Winterfeldt
22 Dec 2010 1:29 p.m. PST

I had a look at MAA 299 which suffers badly from the illustrations of Younghusband, I cannot find any Jäger of 1795 Schema . all I can see is a Jäger of Mahoney Freikorps at page 17, by the way who clearly shows the ramrod with the "Birne" and how it was attached, he is wearing a round hat – but he is not a Tiroler Jäger.
Very interestingly he is wearing his side arm with a cross belt and not a waist belt, which might be ok for campaign dress.
He is wearing heavy cavalry boots as well.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22 Dec 2010 5:21 p.m. PST

Yes that is it – German Jaeger as the Tyrolean is in the colour plates, based on the Artaria. He is wearing over-knee gaiters IIRC.
von Winterfeldt
22 Dec 2010 11:40 p.m. PST

The colour plates are not good in my view – not to be used as sculpting aid showing very odd proportions of uniform and equipment.
The Tiroler Jäger is loading a Girandoni air gun in those plates – or trying to do so – no cords visible there at all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
23 Dec 2010 5:40 a.m. PST

That is because he was copied from the Artaria plate above and I was not fully aware of the pre-92 cords situation. It is the Mahoney/German jaeger, which is more helpful.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
23 Dec 2010 9:12 a.m. PST

On second thoughts, if he is pumping an air gun bottle, he would not have a powder horn!
von Winterfeldt
23 Dec 2010 3:32 p.m. PST

in my view the cords were purley decorative – a sort of distinction and have nothing to do with a powder horn at all.
A "Schützen"schnur – starting at the left shoulder strap and ending at the right rear waist button, some cords and tassels hanging down from that button.
Duke of Plaza Toro
23 Dec 2010 8:10 p.m. PST

A "Schützen"schnur – starting at the left shoulder strap and ending at the right rear waist button, some cords and tassels hanging down from that button.
This is pretty much what we are going to go with. Tassels at both ends – maybe with a powder horn / flask attached behind the right hip. We probably will not have them wearing packs – so as not to obscure too much of the distinctive cords!
Many thanks to you both. This has all been extremely helpful.
I hope you both have a great Christmas and a happy New Year.
John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures
von Winterfeldt
24 Dec 2010 12:29 a.m. PST

Give them packs, they are on the hip at the left, the Schützenschnur would run over the pack or around it.

TMP link
link

link

"

I pasted and copied a discussion on this topic

"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.

von Winterfeldt
18 Nov 2010 11:56 p.m. PST

"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.
Here a picture
it is from Dollezcek, that one with 1784 in the centre
picture
von Winterfeldt
19 Nov 2010 8:33 a.m. PST

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??
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21 Nov 2010 6:43 a.m. PST

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.

von Winterfeldt
21 Nov 2010 10:26 a.m. PST

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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21 Nov 2010 3:32 p.m. PST

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.

von Winterfeldt
22 Nov 2010 5:55 a.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
23 Nov 2010 10:30 a.m. PST

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.

von Winterfeldt
23 Nov 2010 11:09 a.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
27 Nov 2010 2:03 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
28 Nov 2010 12:45 a.m. PST

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 %

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
28 Nov 2010 5:26 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
28 Nov 2010 8:34 a.m. PST

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?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
28 Nov 2010 1:55 p.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
03 Dec 2010 2:37 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
06 Dec 2010 6:15 a.m. PST

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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
06 Dec 2010 9:03 a.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
06 Dec 2010 4:50 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
07 Dec 2010 2:38 a.m. PST

Yes indeed, stupid enough not to check Ottenfeld as well – from my side – sometimes there is some usefull information – after all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
07 Dec 2010 5:18 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
07 Dec 2010 7:33 a.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
07 Dec 2010 8:47 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
07 Dec 2010 2:09 p.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
07 Dec 2010 11:35 p.m. PST

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
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
08 Dec 2010 6:05 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
08 Dec 2010 6:48 a.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
08 Dec 2010 10:43 p.m. PST

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
Duke of Plaza Toro
08 Dec 2010 11:18 p.m. PST

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
von Winterfeldt
09 Dec 2010 3:01 a.m. PST

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 ;-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
09 Dec 2010 5:28 a.m. PST

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.
Duke of Plaza Toro
09 Dec 2010 5:19 p.m. PST

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
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10 Dec 2010 4:24 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 7:46 a.m. PST

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.
22ndIndependent
10 Dec 2010 9:24 a.m. PST

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?
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 1:52 p.m. PST

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

von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 2:49 p.m. PST

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?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10 Dec 2010 3:10 p.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 4:23 p.m. PST

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
von Winterfeldt
10 Dec 2010 4:44 p.m. PST

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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
11 Dec 2010 7:33 a.m. PST

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.
von Winterfeldt
11 Dec 2010 10:08 a.m. PST

One has to be a bit carefull with Dolleczek, a photo of an original in Gabriel shows a M 1769 Stutzen with an iron ramrod at the stock – the only one which did not have a ramrod at the stock – was evidently the Doppelstutzen (with the possible exception of those made by Spöck – for that see Gabriel page 222 / 223.
One part of the ramrod was so constructed that it could be used as a Setzer – or starter in English.
Der nicht in der Waffe versorgte stählerne Ladestock hat einen gedrechselten Kopf aus Holz zum Ansetzen der Kugel und als Handhabe und einen Setzer mit Innengewinde zum Einschrauben eines Krätzers, Wischers oder Kugelziehers.
Gabrie p. 220 about the ramrod of the Doppelstutzen
The barrel of the Stutzen was usually "blued" – while the lock and the ramrod stayed bright metal.
For the M 1795 and later – I would opt for no Ladehammer, due to the special construction of the ramrod – but that still leaves the question open for the earlier ones – where this wooden head couldn't be attached permanently.
You would certainly need a construct to hammer the patched ball into the barrel, at least I have to do this with my re construtcted civilian Jäger rifle, I need a hammer and a starter, there the ramrod is of wood, to load a patched ball.
Any ideas for the early Stutzen on that?

In case you don't have the book by Gabriel – it was one of my better buys.
About the Klobuk, I certaily would agree with the earlier ones on that – but could it be that it changed due to fashion as other headgears as well?
I don't have unfortunatly Kuhnel's 1778 illustrations, only some of about 1767 – which show a Kasket.
As to the Klobuk worn only by Grenzscharfschützen – I may be wrong, there Seele shows also a usual Grenzer with a Klobuk as well.

Still some Grenzer oder usual Infantry with back to front Kaskets would be quite an original idea.
You might find that interesting form the Abrichtungsreglement of the Jäger – alas Napoleonic – that the powder flask and the powder measurment is described, so a sort of powder container was in use.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12 Dec 2010 7:39 a.m. PST

I know Gabriel, but don't have a copy myself. Anyway, the ramrod would be on the Stutzen, but I presume this Setzer is a bigger, flat end to the ramrod? That way, when you first extract it, you can push the ball in a bit with the bottom end as it emerges from the barrel ring and then turn the ramrod round and get greater effect by pushing with the more solid, wider top end? These weapons are about 1.1m long, so with the ramrod out, maybe 1.8m or the height of a tall man. You would have to push it in some way before using a hammer, even ramming at an angle.
On the powder horn, this is an illustration from 1809 of Vienna Freiwillige etc. (not 1805) and shows the horn clearly.
link
(Courtesy of Steven Smith)
The Seele painting of Balkan irregulars is in MAA2099 and shows the seated Gyulai (Croat) FK in a Csackelhaube, but the Wurmser Freikorps wear a Bosnian Klobuk. I suspect the truth for the Grenzers was somewhere in between – the Siebenburgen units seem to prefer the Csackelhaube, but the western units do seem to be in a Klobuk rather more like a Hussar shako – ie: just a straight tube with a lid on it and not leaning inwards like a Fez.
The kaskett with the flap is shown in several pics, but would only be used on the march, guard duty etc.
von Winterfeldt
12 Dec 2010 8:23 a.m. PST

The Setzer is no flat end of the ramrod, but the end of it is a bit concave so it fits "over" the ball better.
I did sent you an extract of the Abrichtungsreglement of the Schützen (Napoleonic) – which describes the loading action nicely.
You got the loading sequence completly wrong, you won't hammer down the ramrod, you would start with the hammer – one places the patched ball onto the muzzle of the rifle or Stutzen – it won't fit in, due being patched, then you would need a hammer to hammer it gently in, next step, the patched ball, sitting snugly and square in the muzzle, you then need a starter to push it down a bit further – let's say 3 to 4 inches, then you would push with the ramrod the patched ball down.
All should be done gently – not to deform the patched ball.
Let me know if you got the part of the Abrichtungsreglement.
As for the powder horn, being a sceptic – it might be ok for a Freiwilligen – or Tyrolean – but was it like this for a regular Jäger (i.e. delivered item) – one should see it on illustrations of the Jäger – even in later Napoleonic period.
von Winterfeldt
12 Dec 2010 9:43 a.m. PST

finally I found a photo of a painting by Kobell about the Austrians 1805 including the rear view of a Jäger – showing the cords.
these are purely decorational and are fixed from the shoulder down to a button on the rear, I will provide a photo in due course.
Otherwise Tranquilo Mollo might show Jäger in his 1811 series??? – which I don't have in full.
As for the powder horn, the Jäger re-enactment unit of Vienna – who take it quite seriously are showing also one and also very nicely the ramrod with the wooden top (looking indeed like a hammer)
research has to continue
von Winterfeldt
13 Dec 2010 6:57 a.m. PST

annoying – no powder horn
picture

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
13 Dec 2010 11:10 a.m. PST

I think Kobell produced that picture from the Mollo drawings.
von Winterfeldt
16 Dec 2010 6:26 a.m. PST

I don't think so – Kobell did a lot of original research – he did a similar painting about the Bavrian army, anyway just for fun
Austrians in Germany 1800

picture

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
18 Dec 2010 4:13 a.m. PST

If you look at the figures, they are all copies of Mollo – indeed that jaeger is a copy, but coloured incorrectly. he did not go to a camp and paint it.
Your other pic is interesting – the two at the front appear to be Wurmser Freikorps.
von Winterfeldt
18 Dec 2010 6:03 a.m. PST

the catalogue of Kobell's works says:
Lustlager der österreichischen Infanterie bei Simmering, Neugebäude und Kaiserebersdorf 1805, Wien Albertina, Graph. Sig., Inv.Nr. 14758
For me it is not a copy of Mollo, for example Kobell got the headress right and he doesn't show the exerimental helmet.
Duke of Plaza Toro
20 Dec 2010 10:28 p.m. PST

Gentlemen
Can I ask you both if you have any comments on this picture of a Tyrolean Jäger c.1792? (After Albert Grégorius, Musée de l'Armée. Bruxelles)
picture
There are a few problems (belt worn under the coat and an ordinary sword rather than the Hirschfänger) but I'm particularly interested in the appearance of the cord tassels, – in this case located on the RIGHT shoulder(?)
otherwise a nice impression of the round hat being worn (brim turned up at the rear in this example).
Cheers
John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures
von Winterfeldt
21 Dec 2010 2:56 a.m. PST

Moreover he is wearing English boots – unlikley for rank and file and not that common for the Austrians at all.
I think that on the right – should be epaulettes and not cords and tassels.
I would not sculpt a figure from that source.
Looking at other Austrians from that source – he shows also the waistbelt under the coat for the infantryman – missing a belt buckle, – also observe the front of his kaskett – all brass, too slim cartridge pouch belt, the detials not that convincing.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21 Dec 2010 5:21 a.m. PST

Gregorius seems to have been a portrait painter, based in Bruges, so this is probably quite a Schematic pic, similar to Mollo and the Artaria, in that they are only impressionistic. There ios no real intention to convey detail.
On his right shoulder is the single epaulette of a 1769 style tunic, but it is worn open like the 1795 Schematis drawing of the German Jaeger and of course, he has a simple Corsehut with the cord band at the bottom of the crown. If the jacket were worn open as this one (?Le Loup jaeger or German Jaeger), then it would be right to wear the waistbelt buckled across the waistcoat.
Assuming this is Belgian revolt or early Rev wars, then these uniforms are less regualted anyway, so English boots would not really be a surprise – the Le Loup and German Jaeger were individual volunteers, whereas the Tyroleans were volunteers from the standing local militia, whose kit would have been close to the regualr army. Thus the first ones would be wearing an assortment of kit anyway and it seems with the tunics open.
Duke of Plaza Toro
21 Dec 2010 6:54 p.m. PST

According to my source Albert Grégorius drew the picture (labelled "Chasseur tyroliens, 1793") and around 60 other water colours FROM LIFE of French and Imperial / Allied troops who passed through or were stationed in Bruges during the 1792 – 1793 campaigns.
I accept what you are both saying about some of the details – and no, we do not intend to base our sculpting on this one picture, but to play devil's advocate for a moment I would point out that Grégorius was good enough an observer to at least get some of the important details correct (such as the distinctly blue shade of the ‘Pike Grey' uniform during this early period). So perhaps the "impressionistic" label is a bit harsh? An artist misinterpreting the exact way a belt is worn is easy enough or exaggerating the size of the plate on the front of the Kaskett (as in his other drawing of Austrian infantry mentioned by vW), but it seems to me that the location of a distinctive detail peculiar to this troop type (the cord and tassels) – which he took the time and trouble to draw – would have been harder for him to get wrong.
I am not sure I quite understand Dave's comment about this figure having the single epaulette on the right shoulder of a 1769 style tunic. Surely the 1769 infantry jacket had no epaulette on the right shoulder (only the strap on the left that retained the cartridge belt?) Mind you, having said that, if Grégorius was correct in showing the tassels on the right shoulder it does raise the tricky question as to what the tassels were attached to if there was no right epaulette. So maybe this is further evidence that Grégorius put them on the wrong shoulder?
As I said – playing devil's advocate here really. You have convinced me that the tassels should be hung from the left shoulder strap (as they were after 1798), but I just thought this picture was interesting and wanted to know what you both thought. After all, it is the ONLY picture I've seen so far, with a reasonably reliable provenance, which confirms a Jäger rifleman wearing the tassels and cords in 1792-93. Just a shame they are on the right shoulder! (Perhaps for the Austrian Jäger, being part of the Freikorps at this time and therefore only partially regulated until 1798, they chose to wear the cords and tassels attached to whichever shoulder took their fancy?)
And Grégorius' watercolour also backs up Dave when he says some Jäger wore the Tyrolean style round hat – as opposed to the regulation Kaskett hat.
Once again Dave and vW – many thanks.
John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures
von Winterfeldt
21 Dec 2010 11:43 p.m. PST

As to round hat versus kasket – the question would be – what Jäger – as Dave stated before some different Jäger units exist at the same time.
Grégorius seemed to be strongly influenced by the French army, depicting details, like for the Prussian, a musket with rings or a typical French cuff, instead of a Prussian one, this source as all others need interpretation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22 Dec 2010 5:15 a.m. PST

Sorry – I should have checked which strap it was! Hpowever, looking closely at it, it is the tassles, not an epaulette. I think that it is down to one of a few things – either the man is not carrying pack (as it is not shown) and so has slung his cord the opposite way round or an artistic error or just that some may have preferred to keep it on the right shoulder so the cords are looser, leaving the left shoulder style for parades (beinga s you suggest non-regulated).
There is a tendency to classify irregulars by well-known units, so he may be a German jaeger rather than actually Tyrolean, but we would have to look at the OBs to be sure. Don't forget the 1795 Schematis clearly shows the German Jaeger with the tassles on the left shoulder and likewise for the regulated 1798 Jaeger.
von Winterfeldt
22 Dec 2010 8:18 a.m. PST

can you be so kind to show us a Jäger of the 1795 Schema?
I don't have it.
For me it is next to impossible to determine if that piece is an epaulette or something else – far from clear.
A lot of details are wrong, look a the immense amount of small buttones at the front of the coat and no waist – coat buckle.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22 Dec 2010 10:51 a.m. PST

It is in MAA299, but I don't have a copy either! Perhaps John would put it up. It is the cords as you can see from the way it narrows at the ends. I think it is impressionistic – hence the lack of a buckle and too many buttons, although Bruno did mention that the Luttich Volunteer/Archduke Charles uniform was an old Belgian rebel pattern and so, maybe this is a le loup?
von Winterfeldt
22 Dec 2010 1:29 p.m. PST

I had a look at MAA 299 which suffers badly from the illustrations of Younghusband, I cannot find any Jäger of 1795 Schema . all I can see is a Jäger of Mahoney Freikorps at page 17, by the way who clearly shows the ramrod with the "Birne" and how it was attached, he is wearing a round hat – but he is not a Tiroler Jäger.
Very interestingly he is wearing his side arm with a cross belt and not a waist belt, which might be ok for campaign dress.
He is wearing heavy cavalry boots as well.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22 Dec 2010 5:21 p.m. PST

Yes that is it – German Jaeger as the Tyrolean is in the colour plates, based on the Artaria. He is wearing over-knee gaiters IIRC.
von Winterfeldt
22 Dec 2010 11:40 p.m. PST

The colour plates are not good in my view – not to be used as sculpting aid showing very odd proportions of uniform and equipment.
The Tiroler Jäger is loading a Girandoni air gun in those plates – or trying to do so – no cords visible there at all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
23 Dec 2010 5:40 a.m. PST

That is because he was copied from the Artaria plate above and I was not fully aware of the pre-92 cords situation. It is the Mahoney/German jaeger, which is more helpful.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
23 Dec 2010 9:12 a.m. PST

On second thoughts, if he is pumping an air gun bottle, he would not have a powder horn!
von Winterfeldt
23 Dec 2010 3:32 p.m. PST

in my view the cords were purley decorative – a sort of distinction and have nothing to do with a powder horn at all.
A "Schützen"schnur – starting at the left shoulder strap and ending at the right rear waist button, some cords and tassels hanging down from that button.
Duke of Plaza Toro
23 Dec 2010 8:10 p.m. PST

A "Schützen"schnur – starting at the left shoulder strap and ending at the right rear waist button, some cords and tassels hanging down from that button.
This is pretty much what we are going to go with. Tassels at both ends – maybe with a powder horn / flask attached behind the right hip. We probably will not have them wearing packs – so as not to obscure too much of the distinctive cords!
Many thanks to you both. This has all been extremely helpful.
I hope you both have a great Christmas and a happy New Year.
John Chadderton
Eureka Miniatures
von Winterfeldt
24 Dec 2010 12:29 a.m. PST

Give them packs, they are on the hip at the left, the Schützenschnur would run over the pack or around it.

TMP link
link

link

"

Take in mind that most of the Jäger carried a musket