"trophies austerlitz" Topic

can i asume the rest of the column 1 regt bear the 1800 model the rest as wel 1800? s narva 1797 model rest as wel in same column?

Russian/ Allied 'columns' were simply ad-hoc formations of convenience and not permanent or administrative in any way.
Thus no logical affiliation between units and their regimental flags can be induced.

It appears to me, to be simply like a childrens playground- appoint leaders and split into groups to play games… at least thats how I read it- and the supposed anguish and friction it caused [between Allies] in this particular campaign.
regards d

This article by Robert Goetz explains the Russian military inspectorate system:

Rissian Inspectorates – Napoleon Series

Regimental allocation to inspectorate

IIRC at this time each musketeer regiment was colour-coded according to its precedence in the inspectorate.

You could consider using the inspectorates as a basis for flag model allotment.

in the second column kursk and vviborg lost both 1797 models just random ?

To Bring up-to-date
The OP title being "trophies austerlitz" asking about what 'trophies' the French captured, meaning colours.

I have no concise list to hand of these, however tomorrow I'll post here the account of artillery pieces taken 'for the record' at the battle from a return at the SHAT/ SHD

link .

my they've cleaned it up since I was last there, sigh…

‌m03Ch de Vincennes

d

As promised, a missive from the past.
-------------

SHAT C2-470 [1984]
Grande Armée – Artillerie
30 frimaire AN 14
21 Decbre 1805
Etat des bouche au feu en principeaux Objets d'Artillerie de la grande armée en … places conquiser.

Tables. Under relating to the army corps and emplacements taken from the Austrians, are notes ‘Observations';

Dans le fort de Brünn sont compris:
1 p de 12
20 p de 6
1 de 3
9 obusier de 5p 3l .

Note: Bouche au feu autricien pris a la bataille d' Austerlitz. [31]

De faut y ajoutier:

26 p de 12
68 p de 6
13 obusier de 5p 9l
35 obusier de 4p 8l .

Note: Bouche au feu russe. [142]

Some information about corps, and mostly emplaced or captured artillery and ordnance pieces included.

----end-

It appears to me, to be simply like a childrens playground- appoint leaders and split into groups to play games… at least thats how I read it- and the supposed anguish and friction it caused [between Allies] in this particular campaign. say what ???????????? childrens playground-

As for Russian flags:- cross reference TMP link and the last couple of entries- explains why some 'gamer/modeller' books have been wrong for a few decades.
And where to find 'correct'info online.
d

esorry i still resent of you teling me appears to me, to be simply like a CHILDRENS
playground- appoint why? do not like earlies?

There is no rhyme or reason to Russian flags. Some units were still flying the 1797 model flags in 1812, including the Guard infantry. Regiments would be issued model 1800 (rare), 1803, 1806 at any point, and the number of flags issued, as well as the year they were issued, were somewhat random. There was a general issue of 1803 model flags to many regiments IN 1803, but many regiments were left out of that issue, and you'll see a list of issues, by year, of various model flags in various years throughout the era.

Here's the best guide I know, and you have to take it line by line in the "flags" section of the article. You'll find model 1803 being issued in 1809, 1812, whatever.

link

The Russian army is very challenging for this and many other reasons, like they never numbered their Infantry Regiments and you'll never find them even listed in alphabetical order.

No idea about the "childrens playground-" but a better description is organised chaos. A bit like modern 'art'; dance and paintings, these things are largely unfathomable to mere mortals.

That a country was divided into districts, then regiments 'made' to be created in or transferred to and/or named for those districts, which may not equate to geographical 'regions' is the first step.

Flags that existed avoid rules. Then, rules are brought in, but like flow chart processes, variations occur over time. Thus, were they lost or damged?, then replace. Was there some masterful event?, then replace. New regiments, new issue. We are already down the 4 iterations corridor of this complex!

SO I don't believe you are correct W. with your first comment. Just like the mitres lasted with the famous Preobrezenski Grenadiers till 1917, so flags that had no reason to change inter alia, didn't.

When an 'event' took place, sometimes a change/ new issue did too (that is part of the erratic nature we observe).
The failure of gaming historical literature to spot and address it this has gone on far too long- however their job is sales not accuracy I note. Conrad and the other vexillogy sites do so very well to clear up the matters, to my mind.

Like all 'regulation'- its what someone would like to happen, not what necessarily did.
The problems we have and the blindside is, that in this era of instant gratification, and gong back 150 years with the industrial revolution collaboration of purchasing power and products, we automatically expect things to change and quickly.

Therefore paradigms exist that get trotted out time and again- like French legere always [expected to] fighting in skirmish order; line always fighting in line (or worse columns "because we saw them do it") etc.

The summation you made on flags however, is relevant and correct I feel. Going back over the same subject 6 years ago I see: TMP link

Happy days.
I'll create the cross-referencing index now,
cheers d

Point of order SHaT- it was the Pavlovski Grenadiers (later Pavlovski Lifeguards) who retained the mitre. The point there was that the regiment was granted by the Czar the special privilege of NOT changing its headgear- as opposed to there being no reason to change.

More generally- one thing I've noticed is that while the transition in the Russian army from one pattern of flags to another seems to have proceeded with little urgency or identifiable plan (many units apparently skipping some flag patterns altogether)- those units granted 'St George' flags for distinguished conduct seemed to have got them pretty quickly. I wonder if this indicates a bigger role for the Regiments themselves in procuring the new flags?

Another factor affecting when flags were issued was that, as is still the case, getting them was a pretty big day for the Regiment. New pattern flags were not the same as new pattern mess tins. A Regiment might deliberately wait until a visit by one of the Army's great and the good for its new colours ceremony, to lay on a real show which would reflect well upon it and its Colonel.

it seems while p.o.w. exchange a rusian soldier hide a flag in his uniform dont know the book any more don't know his name any medal?

Sir,

Point of order SHaT- it was the Pavlovski Grenadiers (later Pavlovski Lifeguards) who retained the mitre.

I concede you are correct of course. I must look these matters up before commenting! Simple really.

However, I respectfully disagree with these issues-

one thing I've noticed is that while the transition in the Russian army from one pattern of flags to another seems to have proceeded with little urgency or identifiable plan…
(many units apparently skipping some flag patterns altogether)- …
those granted 'St George' flags for distinguished conduct seemed- got them pretty quickly

1] There was a plan, it was neither all encompassing nor homogenous. I tried to highlight the 'linearity' above.
From reign to reign the impetus to change varied.
Unlike N. who issued 'army and state wide' colours and aigles with the 'declaration of Empire, the Russian hegemony retained the 'value' of flags [and other artifacts- mitres!] ]like religious 'Icons' for the military in all regiments.

2] "Skipping" because there was no loss or damage, or other incentive to replace them. As far as I have read (sources cited above) few regiments that 'moved' Inspections received replacement standards (i may have read about one regiment that did).

3] On St.Georges all I understand is that 'nominations' were recommended and some were approved. In at least one case from post-Austerlitz, a regiment that was to be so-honoured
had the award frozen when it was discovered they had subsequently become 'dishonoured' because they lost 4 of their remaining flags in battle. [A quick flash back through sources, plus badly translating an Andolenko article referenced cleared this up – it is the Azov Regiment]. One action erased another so to speak.

The award of honours, as important as these are/were in the military was in part a public relations exercises and excessive enthusiastic pomp really gets out of control.

Alexander exercised such in order to boost his own self-esteem as he continued to watch his back during the 'wars' to shore up his popularity and 'enlightened' autocracy.
Perhaps some were issued quickly- I imagine in the '12 and following conflicts, there were 'on hand' to dish out. I may have read that in 'Yermolov' recently.

Isn't he alleged to have brought the Eastern strain of flu that killed after his visit, the Creole (who otherwise had been in isolation for several years) in 1814?
cheer d