Viskovatov- Text vs Engravings.

[Kein Prinz]

Gentlemen,

Another enigma appears before me...

Mark Conrad squeezed this enlightening paragraph buried amongst his massive translation site:-

Translator’s note: These are full and complete translations of Viskovatov’s greatest work, and as such follow the original style and organization. I used microfilm made from volumes held by the New York Public Library, the Anne S.K. Brown Collection of Brown University, and the Library of Congress.
All these have monochrome plates, and I know of no colored versions outside Russia. Underneath each plate are the words “Imp Lemercier Paris” and often the names of the artist and engraver for that particular illustration.

I have no reason to think that Viskovatov himself created any of the individual plates or was in any way an artist. Indeed, variations in style and the ways of depicting finer details like lace and insignia are explained by the fact that a least half a dozen illustrators worked on this project. Dates in the text are Old Style, lagging western Europe by 12 days.

Taken from ' https://www.marksrussianmilitaryhist...fo/V10BAll.htm'

So the question remains- the so-called 1812 Kiwer is clearly recognised in an illustration, made presumably by French engravers, not Russian, but not so described in the Viskovatov text in that form.

http://shpl.dlibrary.org/ru/nodes/8951-risunki-odezhdy-i-vooruzheniya-rossiyskih-voysk-ris-1274-1400-b-g#mode/inspect/page/87/zoom/7

And does the Russian text associated tell us anything more?? http://shpl.dlibrary.org/ru/nodes/89...age/427/zoom/7

How do we resolve, or is it even possible?

thanks again
davew

[Prince of Essling]

There was an extremely lengthy discussion (17 pages) on the Russian "Reenactor" website on the whole Kiver issue (from 1808 onwards) - see Reconstruction.rf - military and civil history and reconstruction of the 15th, 17th-18th-19th centuries .

I have read it several times but am still not totally clear!!! The first post refers to Old Zeughaus article about the Finnish Life Guards Battalion (regiment) - at the end of the article there is a portrait of an officer for 1814 and next to him is the infamous Kiver with the sag in it! (copy attached).

Also see discussion on Napoleon Series Archive 2015 The 1812 kiver - Occam's razor

[Kein Prinz]

Ian,
Yes I agree... I'd read that thread when linked from somewhere- here or other I'm not sure...
The NSF Archive is likely a klusterF of mist... from the Russians I like this:

You confuse Kiver "with a collapse" and kiver "with a deflection."

Cams, this is a difference in size between upper and lower diameters.
To make it clear: until now, Kiver with a collapse were introduced in 1817, in fact, a model of such a kiver appeared in October 1814.

Kiverov "with a deflection" has never been introduced.
On their initiative, such Kiver was worn by the guard officers in the period 1813-1814. Were banned by the order of Alexander in September 1814.
In 1812, there were no such things even close.
Confusion in this question was made by the drawings of French artists of the period of 1814-1815. Made not from nature and quite free.
The Klein series of mid-1815: the troops were depicted in the “dilapidated” kivers issued already in early 1813 (everything is described in the regimental shirts of the infantry and cavalry regiments compiled during the period of June-August 1815 during the dressing of the army in France at the expense of the requisitions). Kivera deformed are mistaken for Kiver "with a deflection".
>>

Leonov Oleg

22.12.2011

--------------------

Exactly what he is saying with (translation) "with a collapse" and kiver "with a deflection" I cannot tell.
I have no bit in this argument, but have been asked a number of times for advice one way or the other and am not satisfied either way, as you.
I use the figures we get, and 1813 is a definitely 'play' area where I use Coalition forces based on ancient Hinchliffe figures. No longer pretty, but I have an obligation to bring some unpainted figures to light anyway.

Addition: 2211 hrs_
Fundamentally I see, the thing called a 'new' shako 1812 issue is burdened with the premise that the kiwer shown in 1813/14 is the same thing. Despite, as we have noted, that the 'regulations' for the 1812 edict only lowered the height of the hat, and also widened the top making it more pronouced bell-shaped than the 1808 model, it was supposedly replacing.
Known only from comtemporary artwork, of the Russo-German Legion, equipped in Germany (Berlin?) with German produced, Russian designed uniforms, latched onto by further French and German illustrators post epoch, massaged the vision of them across other regiments, corps, until the Tsar stamped his feet and forbid the Finland Regiment or any other Russian officers from using the design.

The subsequent allocation of such in dioramas, uniform books or biographical histories, between 5 and 150 years after events, anecdotally gifting the design attributes to other corps etc. performs no function beyond that shown.

Thanks, davew

[Prince of Essling]

Hi Dave,

I believe from my readings of the exchanges by the Russians that the meanings for:

"with a collapse" equated to the shape of the shako changing due to poor manufacturing which inturn created a shape similar to the kiver shape; and
"with a deflection" that it was maufactured that way i.e. like for the officers of the Life Guard Regiments.

Two other links to discussions on the kiver/kiwer

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=323817&page=2

[TMP] "kiwer query" Topic

Ian