Dispatches
Letters to the Editor
from First Empire Readers
 |
German Infantry Officer ranks... Dear Dave, Regarding John Cook's letter in #18, some additional remarks on German infantry officers' ranks (without doubt Peter Hofschröer will have a lot more to say): In the Napoleonic era, "Obrist" and "Obristlieutenant" were possible variants of Oberst and Oberst-lieutenant. "Hauptmann" had long been supplanted by "Kapitän" but was on the way in again (Prussia officially adopted "Hauptmann" in 1842), probably due in part to some German nationalists want-ing to get rid of foreign words (much like the French government today). In Napoleon's time there was the additional rank of Stabskapitän (staff captain) just below Kapitän (ordered abolished in Prussia on 7th June, 1815). The real equivalent of Ensign was Fähnrich (alternate spelling: Fähndrich), then in a grey area between commissioned and non-commissioned ranks. In the old Prussian army there were two ranks: Fährrich (officer) and Portepée-Fähnrich ("swordknot-ensign", NCO). The former rank (and that of Fahnenjunker, aspirant officer) was abolished in 1807, leaving the Portepée-Fähnrich as the only kind. A point of interest: in the Hanseatic Legion, the Fähnrich's cavalry equivalent, Cornet (modern spelling: Kornett) was still the officer's rank below Secondelieutenant, while apparently there were none at all in the infantry. Unter and Souslieutenant (-leutnant) in the context of the early 19th century must be equivalents of the Prussian Secondelieutenant. Most armies later officially adopted common parlance used "Oberleutnant" for the senior lieutenant and "Leutnant" for the junior (which led to the enduring confusion with the English Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant and French Lieutenant/Sous-lieutenant). To further complicate matters, the GDR had the ranks of Oberleutnant, Leutnant and Unterleutnant, following the Soviet example. Tilman Stieve Aachen-Orsbach, Germany Bons Baisers de Russie Dear Sir, I have followed your correspondence on field officers with interest and have the following observations to make. Oberst-Wachtmeister, or more properly, ObristWachtmeister was replaced by the term Major in the Austrian service by 1757; just as the term General-Feldwachtmeister had been displaced by General Major in Napoleonic times. (See Christopher Duffy: The Army of Maria Theresa, and Gunther E. Rothenberg: Napoleon's Great Adversaries, The Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army 1792-1814) To turn now to the matter of Russian ranks, they are as follows:
(Note; sh and ch are pronounced as in English) Try to be consistent in your transliteration of Cyrillic into Roman, whether it be a French, German (there are at least two) or English (several); but this does not meal you have to abandon familiar forms such as Alexander I. The remarks about French pronunciation highlight the dangers of trying to explain pronunciation in non-technical language. As a guide the final s or t is not pronounced and er is pronounced in the same manner as é. C is pronounced as s before i and e. The habit of sticking otiose rs in would not make sense North of the Tweed. Thus we would have Soult (Sou), Murat (Mura), and Oudinot (Oudino); however, the nasal in Friant causes problems about explaining this to a general audience. Yours faithfully Bavarian Ranks... Dear David, Following John Cook's letter in FE18, in which he gave a list of French and German officers rank titles: General der Infanterie/der Cavallerie
This list is taken from 'Rangliste der könglich bayerischen Armee für das Jahr 1811' (Hubschmann, Munich, 1811), reprinted by Biblio Verlag, Osnabrück, 1982 Yours Sincerely, Questions on Tactics... Dear Dave, Can I take the opportunity to ask a question or two of the great and the good regarding John Cook's excellent articles on infantry drill and tactics. My interest is in creating a set of tactical wargame rules that distinguish between the different national armies based only on identifiable real differences in the way they were organised and fought. George Jeffrey appeared to offer such a point of difference in his booklet "Tactics and Grand Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars". His simple approach to this issue is significantly en-riched by John Cook's analysis. However there is one point which has not emerged from John's articles. In George's book much is made of the introduction of wheeling on a moving as opposed to a fixed pivot. John simply says that the moving pivot was progres-sively introduced from the latter part of the 18th Century. What was the status of the different armies in this respect? Did all armies use the moving pivot during the period 1790-1815? Alternatively, is the use of the fixed pivot the reason the British manoeuvred in open column but changed formation via the close column? Similarly the Osprey "Aspern & Wagram" Campaign booklet implies that the Austrian Mass formations manoeuvred in open order, closing up to face cavalry? My final question relates to John's key point that armies dif-fered more in the tactical use of drill rather than in the drill itself. Thus, he suggests that a key difference between the French and, for example, the Prussian infantry in 1806 was the willingness of the former to manoeuvre in column formation while under fire. My question is how in this circumstance is the "under fire" to be interpreted, does it mean within range of small arms or in range of artillery? In the foregoing I have tried to react to the articles without sight of any of the relevant drill manuals - a risky, if not naive, venture although hopefully a faster route to the truth. Thanks for a producing such a high quality journal. Best Regards, Anyone help with Maps? Dear Dave, I wonder if you can help. I like to refight battles, and of course get my information from standard accounts as they become available. It is usually a time-consuming task trying to piece a scenario together as I have to consult all the accounts, with their different and often slightly contradictory bits of informa-tion. One thing I like to get right is the terrain on which the battles were fought. However, the maps in most books are usually an interpretation of the ground which often do not give the full picture. This is why I like the staff map included in Petre's account of the 1809 campaign. It would be nice to have copies of maps such as this, not only to recreate the actual battles but to fight fictitious campaigns. Currently all we appear to have is board-games which cannot have that level of detail. Do you know of a source where copies of such maps could be obtained? Finally, a word about the magazine. The review section is an excellent idea and most helpful for those of us without access to the bigger shops etc.. Many times I have sent for things that I wish I had not. Also, I like the articles on campaigns, battles and tactical development and the readers' letters are very inter-esting. Personally, I would like to see more wargaming but then that is something I should be writing about myself, so I can't really criticise. Perhaps you could field this as a letter in the magazine if you can't help. Maybe a continental source could come up with the goods? Yours sincerely, Russian Infantry Organisations... Dear Mr. Watkins, I am not sure if Mr. Michael Jones' questions from issue 5 were fully answered since, but I see similar questions asked by Mr. Drinkhall in issue 14 as well as the current issue of another journal, so I thought this note might be useful. The information generally comes from the exceptionally complete Zweguintzow, W. L'Armee Russe. Vol. 3 1796-1800 (Paris, 1970). From May 12, 1802 to October 24, 1810 Grenadier regiments were composed of 1 grenadier battalion and 2 fusilier battalions; Musketeers of 1 grenadier and 2 musketeers; and Jägers of 3 Jägers battalions. The few references to a grenadier company as part of musketeer, fusilier, or Jäger battalions of this period are surely errors evidenced by their absence in uniform descriptions and, as Michael Jones noted, by TOE numbers. After this period, all battalions had a grenadier company composed of a grenadier platoon and a sharpshooter platoon, and 3 companies of fusiliers, musketeers, Jägers, or marines. The later designation of some Jäger regiments as Jäger-Grenadiers, did not change this. The Guard was always considered either grenadiers or Jägers as were the men of the Leib-Grenadier Regiment. At the same time the battalions were reorganised, the 2nd battalion of each regiment was designated as a depot rather than field battalion. The grenadier companies were stripped off and combined into three company battalions. However, Riehn, R. K. 1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign (New York: McGraw Hill 1990) notes that the Danube Army campaigned with all three battalions. The fusiliers acquired the plumed shako at the same time the grenadiers did, and wore it throughout the period. Initially they also had the single-flamed grenade, but it was rescinded on June 24, 1805. On July 26, 1808 grenadiers acquired the triple-flamed grenade, while the fusiliers and musketeers acquired the single- flamed grenade. The Jägers acquired the single-flamed grenade on January 21, 1810. The grenadier companies, both grenadier and sharpshooter platoons, in all battalions wore the triple-flamed grenade as confirmed by the order of April 20, 1811. On February 16, 1811, the plume was authorised for Grenadier regiments and grenadier platoons. (Apparently to the sharpshooters of the Jäger regiments as well, but that was rescinded on March 6th). Therefore, a sharpshooter of a Jäger regiment would not wear a plume, but would wear the triple-flamed grenade on the shako, while carrying the regiment's number on his cartridge box as all men of the Jäger regiments. The foot received the shako as follows: artillery on August 31, 1803, the rest of the Guard on October 31, 1804, the Line on February 25, 1805 except the Jägers who received it on October 8, 1807. Previously the Guard wore an elaborate helmet with a leather front, a transverse comb, and a stocking cap bag reminiscent of the Spanish grenadiers. They never wore a mitre. The Guard Jägers had worn the top hat since September 28, 1802, having worn the bicorn for only a short period since May 12, 1802. So the Minifig 1802 Guard light infantry figure is quite correct. The grenadiers and fusiliers of the Line had previously worn mitres. The fusilier's mitre was probably a little shorter, did not have a pom-pom, and the bag, rather than being piped and attached to the tip of the plate, was supported by metal bands which were joined just behind the tip of the plate. The Pavlovsk Grenadiers were allowed to wear the mitre for their actions in 1806-7. Apparently when they entered the Guard on April 25, 1813, they all wore grenadier mitres with brass scale chin straps added. Until then, one can assume they continued to use the fusilier mitres as well, although what happened during the reor-ganisation is unknown. The officers had never worn the mitre, so wore either the bicorn or after December 18, 1809, the shako as in other regiments. The Guard undoubtedly wore the shako at Austerlitz because the helmet, which had been kept for parade dress, was recalled on March 27, 1805. The Pavlovsk Grenadiers were not at Austerlitz, but according to Gayda, M. and Krijitsky, A. L'Armee Russe sous le Tsar Alexandre 1er de 1805-1815 (Paris: Les Editions de Ia Sabretache, 1955), when they were reissued the mitre before 1914, the plates still had the bullet holes from Eylau. I do not know if any other regiment retained mitres in these years. Finally, on the size of Russian horse, it has been alleged in another journal that, based on the translation of "arsines (sic)" from the text of "Zweguintzov (sic)", Russian horses were under-sized. I can only conclude their math is as atrocious as their spelling. The correct translation from Zweguintzow of arshins (28 inches) into hands is:
Dragoons: 14 hands 3 1/2 inches to 14 hands 1 3/4 inches Hussars and Lancers: 14 hands 3 1/2 inches to 14 hands In other words, quite in keeping with European practise. Sincerely Unusual Flag Translation Dear Dave I enjoyed, as usual, the latest issue of First Empire. However, I was disappointed to see no translation of the wording contained on the unusual French flag on page 21 (FE 16). So I contacted the parent of one of my son's friends, who just happened to be French, who gave it the following translation. I thought it would be nice to pass it on to other First Empire readers, who, like me, might not be fluent in another language.
LA MORT NOUS SUIT = Dead (or Death) Follows us PREMIER CORPS FRANC de la MEURTHE = First French Corps of the Meurthe VAINCRE OU MOURIR = To Conquer onto Death Hope this can be of help to someone. Also, I wondered if First Empire was planning to do any articles on Napoleon's early Italian Campaigns, 1796-1800 and the various armies involved? Looking forward to next issue. All the best. Editor: Time to make my usual plea, anyone out there prepared to have a go at the Italian Campaigns. It would be good to hear from one of our many Italian readers on this subject. Come on Italy the First Empire needs you! Any information on St. Hilaire... ? Dear Sir, As an avid reader of First Empire from the first issue, I have watched its development with interest. On the whole I approve of the changes which have certainly given the magazine a more pro-fessional appearance. Issue 17 achieved a particularly good balance of articles. My personal preference is for battle and campaign (real or imaginary) articles as opposed to the uniform information type. I only wish you could eradicate the infuriating 'toping errors'. (Ed. I down't now wat yu min!... Seriously though we are attempting to overcome this problem!) I was interested to read Mr. Senior's letter about the French Commander's Study Group. Having progressed from being merely interested in the 'hard pounding' side of battles, I now find the personalities the most fascinating element of Napoleonic warfare. As a Bonapartist, I have read more deeply into the lives of the French paladins. The military conduct of Marshal Davout surely makes him one of the most capable subordinate commanders in history. I have some questions regarding one of his generals that have long puzzled me and would appreciate it if any one could provide any more information than is given in Chandler or Petre. St. Hilaire performed admirably in 1809 and was promised his baton on 22 April. When he was killed at Aspern on 22 May he had still not received it. Marmont, Macdonald and Oudinot, by comparison, received their promotion only 6 days after Wagram. Poniatowski received his on the field of Leipzig. Was this due solely to the availability of batons? Did Napoleon usually carry round a few spare ones 'just in case' and was St Hilaire just unfortunate? I would also be interested to know what was his background prior to the 1805 campaign. Editor: I would imagine that if The Emperor wanted to make you a Marshal on the spot, then regardless of availability of a baton, a Marshal you would become. It should be borne in mind of course that Poniatowski's elevation to the marshalte, and also the creation of the Polish Guard Battalion, was a political gesture to help encourage loyalty and morale amongst the Polish troops at a time of crisis. The other Marshal you mention received their batons upon the close of the campaign. As for the life of St. Hilaire, surely this is a golden oppportunity for the French Commanders Study Group to get in on the act? Come on boys research is of no use to anyone if you don't share it! How Good were Those Hanseatic Legionnaires? Dear Sirs, With reference to Mr. Tilman Stieve's excellent article on the Hanseatic Legion 1813-1815 I would like to add some comments on these forces on the lower Elbe in 1813. According to Mr. Stieve's account the general quality of the Legion was fair or average, but according to most Danish contemporary sources the Hanseatic troops were regarded as ill-trained and especially ill-disciplined. If compared with the remaining forces of Walmoden's corps as the Lützowers, Hanoverians, Mecklenburgers and the Russo- German Legion they do not fall markedly below in troop quality, but compared with von Vegasack's Swedes and the K.G.L. Hussars and horse artillery, they certainly do. On the other side only the Danish Auxiliary Corps was of far better quality, while the bulk of the French troops were the typical 1813 class conscripts. A remark on Davout's cavalry on page 17 might deserves comment as half of his cavalry brigade was made up of the excellent Polish 17th Lancer Regiment, which later, as part of the Danish Corps, participated in the defeat of Walmoden in the battle of Sehested 10th December 1813. Troop quality is many times an almost subjective question and I hope my remarks on the Danish viewpoint can add to the article. More on Mounted Officers... Dear Dave, Further to John Cook's note in FE18 and D. Drinkhall's request on mounted officers, Austrian infantry ranks were as follows: Regimental Staff
Oberstlieutenant (ditto) Lt-Colonel Major Major Company Staff
Oberlieutenant 1st Lieutenant Unterlieutenant 2nd Lieutenant Fahnrich Ensign Certainly in the later campaigns, the only mounted officers were Majors and above, the 1st Major commanding the 1st (Leib) Battalion, the 2nd Major the 2nd (Oberst) Battalion and the Lt-Colonel the 3rd (Oberst-Lieutenant). Capitan-lieutenants commanded the flank companies in place of the Hauptleute - the two senior companies of the 1st and 2nd battalions plus the senior (right) company of the 3rd. As a rank, Capitan-Lieutenant seems to have been abolished between the 1807 Exercier Regulations and the start of the 1809 campaign, reverting to Hauptmann. Additionally, Austrian companies were divided into 2 Halb-companies, which subdivided into 2 Zuge (platoons) each. Leutnant is the modern version of Lieutenant. Wachtmeister was a cavalry rank only, corresponding to Lt-Colonel in Oberstwachtmeister and senior NCO (Sergeant-major) as Wacht-meister. Beyond Dr. Rothenberg's 'Napoleon's Great Adversaries', material on this is not easily accessible in English, although the De Bello book on Austrian Infantry 1805-14 has some. One has to read the regimental histories and regulations, but additional refer-ences in German are the Mitteilungen des Kriegsarchivs Series 2 Vol 4, a useful article on the army in 1792, and the Supplement to this Series, usually known as Wrede's 'Geschichte der oester-reichischen Armee' is a good general guide, (recently republished if you have a spare £ 400). In the light of this and other items, I enclose an article about the material available on the Austrian Army in English with a commentary about the relative value of each. Whilst I would agree with your comment that there is no need to be abusive, being 'cordial' shouldn't become an unintended brake on debate. What can be said about people who just haven't bothered to read any-thing or as in the case of Arnold claim to have read important works when they clearly haven't? I hope it will also encourage enthusiasts to think a bit more about what they are reading, rather than accepting it all at face value. Regards, Editor: Dave's article will appear in issue 20. In defence of British Historians... Dear Mr Watkins, As a modern writer of British military history, and on behalf of other British writers, I must say that I take great exception to the remarks [review] made by Mr Peter Hofschröer in issue 18 of your magazine. To claim that we all 'attain certain levels of mediocrity' is quite an astonishing statement, despite his 'with certain exceptions' rider. He may well be an authority on German military history but he ought to think twice before wading in to attack British writers with such absurd generalisations. I can only assume that he is pointing the finger (yet again) at British writers who choose to handle German subjects, an opinion based upon the fact that it has become almost impossible to open a Napoleonic magazine these days without coming across one of Mr Hofschröer's letters, criticising British historians who touch upon German subjects without having an adequate knowledge of the German language. This is fair comment on his part, although it is an obvious one and, indeed, is one that I am surprised editors allow to take up so much space. I wonder why it bothers Mr. Hofschröer so much? I don't suppose too many of us would claim to have an in-depth working knowledge of the French language but this does not appear to bother French readers (I assume First Empire has readers in France) in spite of the large number of articles on Napoleon's army. Give it a rest, Peter, you're beginning to sound like that old 'well worn 78rpm record' which you refer to when criticising yet another British writer in issue 13 of The Age of Napoleon magazine. Yours Sincerely, Editor: I have received two letters relating to the review by Peter Hofschröer in issue 18. Readers I hope will excuse me for not printing the second as it carried the same sentiment as the above and was to say the least well outside the criteria I laid down in FE18 page 37. The offending phrase, for those who missed it, was "Whilst, with certain exceptions, modern British works on military history, tend to attain certain levels of mediocrity, American works tend to either be scholastically excellent or very poor indeed." I neither intend to attack nor defend Peter's position, but I will say that unless you know what the certain exceptions are, how on earth can you take offence to the level that you have. I can name the following modern (i.e. Post 1945) British authors who stand out above all others, Chandler, Howarth, Haythornthwaite, Duffy. Not much of a list is it? But then again I don't claim to have read every book ever published nor do I claim that my opinion should be held above all others. Perhaps its 'mediocrity' that has caused the stir. There is in, modern parlance, some stigma to this word. Mediocre - or of average quality - surely is better than down right third rate! (By the way don't bother writing in with alternate definitions of mediocre!). Whilst I am fully aware that Peter Hofschröer appears to be embarking on a one man crusade to right the wrongs done, to the Prussians and Germanic states, by historians since 1815 surely he is allowed to voice an opinion. As an aside nobody wrote into defend American authors, who appear to fall into two categories. Excellent or dismal. Perhaps this is because it may be true? I have certainly found it to be the case. A Sharpe Observer... Dear Dave I read with interest in FE18 the letter by David O'Connor concerning the acclaimed Sharpe series. Whilst I also enjoyed these dramas, I share your concern the Central T.V. seem to be rushing through the books all too quickly. In future they could remedy this, failing the long running series which you mentioned, by splitting certain stories into two parts. For example, the "Waterloo" novel would undoubtable be justified if shown in a three hour episode spread over two weeks rather than just trying to rush through it in an hour and a half or so! I've also noticed how many regular characters from the books only appear in one or two episodes of the series. Major Hogan and Captains Leroy and Frederickson are notable examples, as is the French master-spy, Pierre Ducos. (Indeed he could have been the villain in the next episode if in the "Honour" programme the producers had not insisted on killing him off!) While I understand why they probably did this (so as not to leave any loose ends for the next series, which, if it does materialise certainly won't hit our screens until at least mid-95) I do feel that they are wasting some potentially meaty character roles! I trust that your regular article contributor, Richard "Rifleman" Moore, will keep us posted of any further developments on the Sharpe front as and when they occur? Yours Sincerely, Editor: Actually I'm afraid he can't... as he is currently up to his neck in muck and bullets in the darkest Crimea, with me old mate Sean Bean - I know all the stars you know, honest, I do really... well Okay I was in the same pub! Filming on the new Sharpe is well under way and will as you predict appear half way through next year. Hinchliffe & Connoisseur Collection stolen... Following a recent burglary at his home, Mark Ashby of Blackheath, London asks First Empire readers to keep a watchful eye out for his collection - after all there are more of you than in the West Midlands Police - I just wish there were as many readers as there are Metropolitan Police - it would appear that these figures were been stolen to order as nothing else was taken. The figures are 25mm Hinchliffe and Connoisseur figures all were painted and mounted on metal stands with textured bases. Each base is labelled on the underside in permanent black marker - regimental names or numbers as appropriate. In brief, the following units were stolen, Infantry
Russian; Infantry (144 figures mix of green uniforms and brown greatcoats) Croatian (48 figures) Russian (black undercoat - 24 figures) Cavalry
Russian; Cuirassiers (24 figures), Hussars (16 figures - Grey uniform), Cossacks (9 figures) Artillery
Russian; Line (7 guns - 28 crew), Horse (2 guns - 8 crew) And the following command groups all mounted on metal bases and labelled as follows; Eugene de B. , Nansouty, Platov and finally Bagration. The Nansouty piece is distinctive as it contains one mounted figure, one extra horse and a seated figure. If anyone can shed any light on this matter please contact the editor. All information will be treated confidentially. Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #19 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com |
