[ISIII] Units Documents needed

[wangrin]

Chronologically, Potemkine regulation will be the last of the three uniforms evolution (1=Great Northern War( 1700-1720 regulation), 2=Seven Year War (1741-1761 regulation), 3=Potemkin regulation (1786-1796)).
The question is if we add some 1796-1800 units or if we simply end with Potemkin uniforms, but we will skip the 1761-1786 regulations.

[HighOnTea]

Actually, grenadier hats like the one in your pic were very rare in the Swedish army in the early period. Charles XII had a very spartan taste, and the colonels themselves would have to pay for it. Grenadiers who wore mitres were in a distinct minority.

As for the early uniform in general, I'm sort of hoping the team will model them after the iconic Carolean soldier, with coat skirts hooked up and so.

I really hope that Caroliner model would resemble or be better than the one made by Danova for Poltava mod.

Ah...mitres look so cool. They should make grenadier companies look better,pitty Charles XII wasn't fond of simplicity in his ranks. Grenadiers were few-12 men per company of 150 men and that makes 48 grenadiers in battalion. They deserve attention.
I guess I'll just hope team goes for mitre caps

[Swerg]

Chronologically, Potemkine regulation will be the last of the three uniforms evolution (1=Great Northern War( 1700-1720 regulation), 2=Seven Year War (1741-1761 regulation), 3=Potemkin regulation (1786-1796)).
The question is if we add some 1796-1800 units or if we simply end with Potemkin uniforms, but we will skip the 1761-1786 regulations.

Well, there were also the uniforms of Paul, which reverted to the German uniform.

Would it be much more difficult compared to making two types of late period troops?

[wangrin]

It's not difficult, it took time when you have to create two models instead of one.
Moreover, as Russia will have 4 different rosters (late XVIIth century, early XVIIIth century (GNW), mid XVIIIth century (SYW) en late XVIII th century (Potemkine), adding a 5th roster is probably a bit too much.

P.S : I've added some pictures in Russia - Graphics Discussion thread

[Swerg]

It's not difficult, it took time when you have to create two models instead of one.
Moreover, as Russia will have 4 different rosters (late XVIIth century, early XVIIIth century (GNW), mid XVIIIth century (SYW) en late XVIII th century (Potemkine), adding a 5th roster is probably a bit too much.

P.S : I've added some pictures in Russia - Graphics Discussion thread

Oh, I don't think that adding a late-era German uniform would require a whole new model, you could probably just copy the SYW era model and do a few minor texture updates. The differences between the uniforms is actually pretty small:
SYW era uniform:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1763-1786 uniform:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You can see the actual cut of the uniform is basically the same, the only major features being added look like another cross strap and turnbacks on the coat. Oh, and a plume replacing the cockade.

Another option would be for Russia to retain its SYW era infantry model until the Potemkin uniform is researched, rather than giving it to them with the era change. Just give their infantry an appropriate stat boost to keep up with the changing technology and all that.

[HighOnTea]

Found some pics on Swedes and Russians of Great Northern War. Home you can find use for them
Early Swedish troops:
Attachment 230603

Attachment 230604

Attachment 230605

Attachment 230606

Attachment 230607
Early Russian troops:
Pikeman of Smolenskiy regiment
Attachment 230611
Smolensk garrison musketier private
Attachment 230612
grenadier
Attachment 230613
Fusilier of marine regiment
Attachment 230614
Drabant
Attachment 230615

[ErikBerg]

Great pics!

One thing is bugging me a bit about the Swedish uniforms, though: looking at the coat features with dual vertical pockets and no collar makes me think that these are probably uniforms from the late 17th century, when the blue-and-yellow uniform was introduced. Now, some older and quite dated sources say that the 1687 uniform is the older Carolean uniform, and that this is what the Swedish troops wore in the early years of the GNW, and that this uniform was later changed into the younger Carolean uniform in 1706, which supposedly is the iconic uniform that we're used to seeing when imagining Charles XII's soldiers.

This might be a simple misconception. A more recent author, Lars-Eric Höglund, in the first book of his trilogy on uniforms and colours of the belligerent nations of the GNW, expresses doubts as to whether a noticable transformation occured as late as 1706. In the second book, he goes so far as to question whether an older Carolean uniform ever even existed. It is possible that this older/younger deal is a simple misunderstanding from the use of old uniforms past 1687 and that these uniforms were erroneously identified with trial uniforms found in the Army museum that were never adopted as real uniforms.

This is what a Swedish blog dedicated to the GNW reports, at least. Normally, I wouldn't trust a blog if it doesn't seem trustworthy and provides good sources and such, but the author of this blog is as anal and thorough about historical accuracy as I am, and I've never had any reason to doubt anything he's written. Apparently, the author of the blog has also spoken with Lars-Eric Höglund on Swedish uniforms at a few occasions, and they seem to agree on a number of points.

Most of my info on Swedish uniforms actually comes from this blog, like what grenadiers wore. Now, the blog is completely in Swedish, but it can be found here:
http://blogg.tacitus.nu/
and the post reporting the misconception about the uniforms is here:
http://blogg.tacitus.nu/?p=769

It would also be great if a French speaker could translate the text on the pics!

A safer bet could be to look to portraits of Charles XII, as he liked to dress himself in simple soldier's uniforms. I've attached a portrait.

[HighOnTea]

Great pics!

One thing is bugging me a bit about the Swedish uniforms, though: looking at the coat features with dual vertical pockets and no collar makes me think that these are probably uniforms from the late 17th century, when the blue-and-yellow uniform was introduced. Now, some older and quite dated sources say that the 1687 uniform is the older Carolean uniform, and that this is what the Swedish troops wore in the early years of the GNW, and that this uniform was later changed into the younger Carolean uniform in 1706, which supposedly is the iconic uniform that we're used to seeing when imagining Charles XII's soldiers.

This might be a simple misconception. A more recent author, Lars-Eric Höglund, in the first book of his trilogy on uniforms and colours of the belligerent nations of the GNW, expresses doubts as to whether a noticable transformation occured as late as 1706. In the second book, he goes so far as to question whether an older Carolean uniform ever even existed. It is possible that this older/younger deal is a simple misunderstanding from the use of old uniforms past 1687 and that these uniforms were erroneously identified with trial uniforms found in the Army museum that were never adopted as real uniforms.

This is what a Swedish blog dedicated to the GNW reports, at least. Normally, I wouldn't trust a blog if it doesn't seem trustworthy and provides good sources and such, but the author of this blog is as anal and thorough about historical accuracy as I am, and I've never had any reason to doubt anything he's written.

Most of my info on Swedish uniforms actually comes from this blog, like what grenadiers wore. Now, the blog is completely in Swedish, but it can be found here:
http://blogg.tacitus.nu/
and the post reporting the misconception about the uniforms is here:
http://blogg.tacitus.nu/?p=769

It would also be great if a French speaker could translate the text on the pics!

A safer bet could be to look to portraits of Charles XII, as he liked to dress himself in simple soldier's uniforms. I've attached a portrait.

Nice blog there . I only read half a page but it's understandable( I know Norwegian,luckily). Good info backed up by simple examples on toy soldiers.
I also got your point on grenadier hats. The most common headwear for grenadiers should work for the in-game unit. But the team could include Guard grenadiers with brass plate or some other regiment's grenadiers with more distinct mitre caps to diversify roster

[ErikBerg]

Nice blog there . I only read half a page but it's understandable( I know Norwegian,luckily). Good info backed up by simple examples on toy soldiers.
I also got your point on grenadier hats. The most common headwear for grenadiers should work for the in-game unit. But the team could include Guard grenadiers with brass plate or some other regiment's grenadiers with more distinct mitre caps to diversify roster

Actually, the blog also reports that the Life Guard grenadiers specifically didn't wear mitres at all.

Diversity is a very good point, though. And while the Life Guards didn't wear mitres, they did occur in a small number of regular infantry regiments. Obviously a choice has to be made, and the arguments for and against each side are good in their own way.

Without mitres: Because the historical evidence available only shows mitres for a very low number of regiments.
With mitres: While few regiments wore them, they did exist, and it would make for a more diverse roster.

If the team should decide that mitres is the way to go, I could probably dig up something appropriate - pics, description, that sorta thing. Something that looks very general and not too regional.

[HighOnTea]

Actually, the blog also reports that the Life Guard grenadiers specifically didn't wear mitres at all.

Diversity is a very good point, though. And while the Life Guards didn't wear mitres, they did occur in a small number of regular infantry regiments. Obviously a choice has to be made, and the arguments for and against each side are good in their own way.

Without mitres: Because the historical evidence available only shows mitres for a very low number of regiments.
With mitres: While few regiments wore them, they did exist, and it would make for a more diverse roster.

And about the older and newer uniforms. I think the best choice would be to have the never uniforms for all regular line units-just because they look better and more accurate for major part of the GNW. On the other hand,older style uniforms could be used for militia units ,irregulars. I've read that when regular units got never uniforms,older ones were usually stored or retailored(storing is cheaper) and when it came to urgent need to equip a newly raised unit of regulars or land militia,they would get the old uniforms first. This is how it was in Russian and some other countries. Enlighten me on how it worked in Sweden,please

[ErikBerg]

And about the older and newer uniforms. I think the best choice would be to have the never uniforms for all regular line units-just because they look better and more accurate for major part of the GNW. On the other hand,older style uniforms could be used for militia units ,irregulars. I've read that when regular units got never uniforms,older ones were usually stored or retailored(storing is cheaper) and when it came to urgent need to equip a newly raised unit of regulars or land militia,they would get the old uniforms first. This is how it was in Russian and some other countries. Enlighten me on how it worked in Sweden,please

I agree on having a modern and proper uniform for regular units. This would better reflect the state of the Swedish army in 1700; well-drilled, well-equipped and ready for war.

As for uniforms, the soldiers had two sets of uniforms. One was the livmundering (difficult to translate, let's just call it main outfit) which was the blue-and-yellow uniform and the other was the släpmundering (which roughly means working outfit) which was a gray uniform, sometimes with blue facings. In peacetime, the main outfit was locked away in a chest, the soldier was only allowed to wear it in case of regular regimental excercises, at all other occasions, the working outfit was used. When the main outfit had to be replaced due to wear, a new outfit was acquired, and the old was kept as working outfit.

In the event of war, the soldier would only bring with him the main outfit, the working outfit was kept at home. Should the soldier die while on campaign, his old working outfit would be given to the recruit who replaced him.

If a completely new uniform model was introduced, like the 1779 model, new recruits would be issued the new uniform, the older soldiers would have to retailor theirs themselves to match the new cut.

In the war with Russia 1788-90, reserve units and free-corps were mobilized. A royal proclaimation dictated that these temporary units were to be issued all-blue uniforms. In all probability, however, not everyone received a uniform, and individuals had to settle for what was available, which meant that these troops were clad in a mixed bag of different uniforms ranging from the 1779/83 and 1765 models and civilian clothes.

After the defeat at Poltava, surrender at Perevolochna and Danish invasion of Scania in 1709, time was short to mobilize a new army in Sweden proper and some of the newly-raised regiments didn't receive their uniforms due to lack of time, and had to march south wearing their civilian clothes. Their uniforms would probably have been gray, as gray is simply undyed wool, and this would be the absolute cheapest.

Militia was simply not uniformed. At least not the land militia regiments in the German provinces.

[Flaviuss]

The Cossacks.
http://anthropolgames.ucoz.ru/forum/25-114-1

[wangrin]

Some books about XVIIIth century field fortifications :

Clairac, M. le Chevalier de. The Field Engineer, to which is added, Remarks on Marshal Saxe's New System of Fortification, Proposed in His Reveries, or Memoirs on the Art of War. Translated from the French of M. le Chevalier de Clairac, by Captain Charles Vallancey. Dublin: Philosophers Heads, 1758.

Tielke, J.G. The Field Engineer; Or Instructions Upon Every Branch of Field Fortification: Demonstrated by Examples Which Occurred in the Seven Years War between the Prussians, the Austrians, and the Russians; with Plans and Explanatory Notes. Translated from the Fourth Edition of the German Original of J.G. Tielke . . ., by Edwin Hewgill. Two Volumes. London: J. Walter, 1789.

The Science of Military Posts. (1761)

Loches, Lewis. Elements of Field Fortification. London: The Author, 1783.<dhagist@...>

De Martemont, C. Malorti. The Theory of Field-Fortification. London: T.Egerton, Military Library, 1810.

Muller, John. A Treatise of Fortification Containing the Elementary Part of Fortification, Regular and Irregular. London: 1746 [Reprinted by Museum Restoration Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1968]. {No. 675 of 700}

Muller, John. A Treatise Containing the Practical Part of Fortification. Facsimile reprint of 1774 edition.. Salem, MA: The Nova Anglia Company, 1999?

Clairac, Louis-Andre de La Mamie, chevalier de. The Field Engineer of M. Le Chevalier de Clairac . . . Translated from the French with Observations and Remarks on Each Chapter . . . by John Muller. Second Edition. London: Printed for John Millan, 1773.

Clairac, Louis-Andre de La Mamie, chevalier de. The Field Engineer of M. Le Chevalier de Clairac . . .
Translated from the French with Observations and Remarks on Each Chapter . . . by John Muller. Second Edition. London: Printed for John Millan, 1760.

Pleydell, J.C. An Essay on Field Fortification: Intended Principally for the Use of Infantry, Showing How to Trace Out on the Ground, and Construct in the Easiest Manner, All Sorts of Redoubts and Other field Works . . .
Translated by J.C. Pleydell from the Original Manuscript of an Officer of Experience in the Prussian Service. London: Printed for J. Nourse, 1768.

Struensee, Charles A. The First Principles of Field-Fortification: Containing Concise and Familiar Precepts for the Construction, Attack, and Defence of Field-Works; with a Preliminary Introduction to the Science of Fortification in General. Translated from German. London: Bunney & Gold, 1800.