Hau 009 Eng.Pdf

Magazine devoted to military history, uniformology and war equipment since the Ancient Era until the 20th century

Publishing Director: Bruno Mugnai

Redational Staff: Anthony J. Jones; Andrew Tzavaras; Luca S. Cristini.

Collaborators: András K. Molnár; Ciro Paoletti; Riccardo Caimmi; Paolo Coturri; Adriana Vannini, Chun L. Wang; Mario Venturi; Christian Monteleone; Andrea Rossi.

Cover: Sonia Zanat; Silvia Orso.

* * * Scientific Committee: John Gooch; Peter H. Wilson; Bruce Vandervort; Frederick C. Schneid; Tóth Ferenc; Chris Stockings; Guilherme d'Andrea Frota; Krisztof Kubiak; Jean Nicolas Corvisier; Erwin A. Schmidl; Franco Cardini.

#9–2016

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

None of images or text of our book may be reproduced in any format without the expressed written permission of publisher. The publisher remains to disposition of the possible having right for all the doubtful sources images or not identifies.

Each issue Euro 3,90; Subscription to 11 issues Euro 40,00.

Subscriptions through the Magazine website: www.historyanduniforms.com or through Soldiershop ,by Luca S. Cristini, via Padre Davide 8, Zanica (BG).

Original illustrations are on sale. Please contact: [email protected]

HaU_009_ENG Web Magazine ISSN not required.

Contents:

Warriors and Warfare of the Han Dynasty (part three) Chun L. Wang

Four Centuries of Italian Armours (12 th 15 th century) (part two) Mario Venturi

French Ensigns of the LateRenaissance (part one) Aldo Ziggioto and Andrea Rossi

The Venetian Army and Navy in the Ottoman War of 168499 (part nine) Bruno Mugnai

The Austrian Light Infantry, 17921801 (part two) Paolo Coturri and Bruno Mugnai

Forgotten Fronts of WWI: the Balkans, 1916 (part two) Oleg Airapetov

Book Reviews

The Best on the Net

Dear Friend, Dear Reader!

The Issue 9 is an important turning point for our magazine. With this issue ends the (for someone too ...) long essay on the army and navy of Venice in the 1684-99 war. In fact a magazine would be mainly an agile and able to stimulate the reader for focusing matters and topics, however, the argoument was too wide and above all full of news which would be a shame to compress it in a few pages. It was also a commitment maintained with who knew how this research began several years ago, but due to an unfortunate coincidence, it had not been possible to complete, and thist was really a shame to leave it on the shelf. With the Issue 9 also finishes the series of articles devoted to the armies of the Han Dynasty and that which András K.Molnár wrote on a topic often summarily dealt by the literature on the Napoleonic armies, namely, the Austro-Hungarian light infantry in the age of the first coalition wars. Finally, the excellent Oleg Airapetov takes his leave from us with the second part of the article on the Balkan front in WWI.

Bruno Mugnai #H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Warriors and Warfare of the Han Dynasty (part three) By Chun L. Wang

Soldiers of the Emperor

Painted pottery light cavalryman in breastplate armour and scarlet dress, 1 st 2nd century AD (Authors’ archive)

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Light Cavalryman – This painted pottery is very similar to the figures carved in the funerary reliefs of the Hsiaot’ang in Shandong province. Imperial Guard Ligth cavalrymen and their officer wore a red headgear with feathers for the latters; black headgear for the ordinary ones. Incidentally, some source shows the Han light cavalry without brigandine armour, but in scale armour, covering the chest, abdomen and arms. No shield is to be seen for light cavalry in any fresco and relief of the Han period.

Light Spearman Heavy Infantryman

Light Spearman – This soldier is to be found on the WuLiang tz’u shrines of Shandong Province, specifically ‘Battle of the Bridge’, dated 147168 AD. The spear is shown in two sizes, the Chi Ying Wo (cm. 487) and the Ma Hsiao (cm 243). The shield borne is common to other soldiers in the aforementioned source.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Although there is the possibility of uniform colours prior to this date, by 21 AD the Emperor Wang Mang’s edict decreed that certain colours would denote social class. Infantry, militia, pioneers and commoners were to wear blue and green. Probably these two colour would dominate, though brown, black and greywhite could still be present.

The Battle of the Bridge , 2 nd century AD, (graphic recontstruction)

Heavy Infantryman – This figure represents an enigma. Copied from a funerary relief in Inan, Shandong Province, it is in the later Han dynasty style o 25221 AD. This soldier is lefthanded, as are several others in his group. As lefthanded warriors are also present in the famous ‘Battle of the Bridge’, and a terra cotta statue of the Han period, currently preserved in Paris, this further demonstrates the fighting technique. Finally , similar soldiers are represented on a funerary rubbing dated 147 AD in the Smithsonian Institute. This also shows lefthanded heavy infantrymen. This proves without a doubt that at least some armoured soldiers of the Han’s army fought lefthanded, though no written source will confirm it. The heavy infantryman wore a full tunic of padded leather reinforced with iron rings. The helmet he wore would probably be bronze up to the end of the han period, and iron thereafter.

Convict Spearman – The convicts, the Ch’ih-hsiung were criminals who had opted to serve in the army for a reduced period of time. These should not be confused with convict pioneer troops. The Ch’ih-hsiung s were clothed the same as pioneer troops, but were equipped with javelins and probably shield. They constituted a strong lightskirmishing force, even though poor trained. Construction troops were seldom even armed. The convicts were distinctively dressed in redochre coloured garments with shaved heads and iron collars for neck and ankles.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Convinct Spearman Light Crossbowman

Light Crossbowman – The PeyYuan tomb give us some information about colours that were possibly common for earlier Han soldiers. All headgear were black, tunic and trousers were mixed or matched black, greywhite, vermillion and green. The crossbow of LiKuang li (99 BC) was painted in yellow. During the Han period the crossbow was proven to be an effective weapon. The secret of this weapon, the triple compound lever, was a closely guarded mechanism. Even when other nations captured this weapon, the technology skill of most of them could not duplicate the device. Pieces cast of bronze would be insert into the bow stock. Several types of crossbow were introduced and maintained. They ranged in size from three shih (87,08 kg) pull to ten shih (290,29 kg). A crossbow of six shih pull had an effective range of 255 meters. By 90 BC the Chinese had also developed crossbow that shot several bolts ayt one time.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The prevalence and praise of the crossbow in ancient Chinese texts is so widespread that is possible find this single weapons notable enough to write entire articles cantered on it. No doubt from its inception during the 6th century BC, the crossbow revolutionised Chinese warfare. By the second century BC the crossbow had replaced the bow as the long range weapon of choice for the Han armies. Its power and accuracy were particularly attractive to the Chinese generals, which spurred them to make this a critical component of the armies. It utilized bronze triggers, which would hold the force of the strings behind it until released. The Crossbow was largely adopted and updated by the Han dynasty, although it was one of the primary weapons in Chinese history for a much longer time than the dynasty itself. The Han introduced the concept of massed crossbow attack by line of crossbows, and even mounted crossbowmen. Range would be about 280 meters. Just how powerful a crossbow could be, is glimpsed in the excavated Chuyen slips from which records of crossbow maintenance was kept. From the slips already excavated, a set of record is now available to the scholars. A set shows six crossbows shooting from 168 to 280 meters. Each of this crossbows had only draw weights of 3,5 stone (1,87 kg) as compared to typical Han era crossbow of 6 stone . Of these crossbows, two were tested for their penetration ability, both puncturing a wooden shields at 252 meters, and both achieved good results.

Imperial Guardsman – Distinctive dress of this soldier focused on headgear, armour and weaponry. All of the guardsman were portrayed with red ‘turbans’ about their helmets. The officer were distinguished with black feathers on the headgear. Originally the guardsman carried a shield with the right handm and a halberd in his left. The Han halberd was known as the C’hi Chi . At the Imperial court a smaller version was carried; the Pi Chi . A small pennant usually adorned this weapon. The apparent trim on his armour may be a loose robe underneath the armour, but allowed to protrude from beneath, The edict of 21 AD bestow the colour of carmine red to the Imperial Guard and retainers. The pennant colour would be red, or yellow starting form Empereor Kao Tsu.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Terracotta with original paint coating, China early Western Han dynasty (3rd to 2nd century BC) height cm. 45,5, from the tomb complex of the first Han emperor, Gaozu (206 – 195) or surrounding graves. Imperial Guardsmen from this tomb complex until today remain one of the most favorable finds ever excavated (Author’s archive).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Back view of a Han ceremonial bronze armour , first century BC. The early development of technique and design started from the Qin dynasty

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Four Centuries of Italian Armours (12 th -15 th century) Illustrations from an Unpublished Research devoted to the Development of the Western European Medieval Armours in Italy: a Tribute to Lionello Boccia and Eduardo Texeira Coelho (part two: 1330 – 1370) by Mario Venturi

Fig. 1) Gravestone of Gherarduccio de’ Gherardini (+1331); unknown author, Pieve of Sant’Appiano, Barberino Val d’Elsa (Florence).

Recent readings of medieval history written by the most celebrated experts (Pirenne, Grillo, Ottokar) made me remember what once said Professor Franco Cardini, addressing a speech

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS to an audience of which I was part. As well known medievalist and guest of honor, Cardini had to address a brief greeting to the participants of an historical models exhibition or, as preferred by someones (and me among them), a model soldiers exhibition. On that occasion, the professor congratulated the authors of the models exhibited, insisting that their models explained much more and much better than the scholars’ lection, the focusing of a particular field of 'history', namely the ‘history of materials. In fact, unlike the other disciplines in which articulates the academic studies of history, this matter had not enjoyed the new acquisitions gained from the most recent researches on the matter; except for some appreciable exception. Going back to Pirenne and the aforementioned scholars, if the analysis of the evolution of civil and military institutions due to these authors do not disappoint their public, in the specific field of the war practice the reader may find just some paragraphs about warfare and absolute silence concerning the weaponry. It does not close the discussion by stating that it is a specialized field of study too, because such an argument is not enough to make me accept yet the quote of "shining armuor" referred to a knight of midthirteenth century(!). Many valuable studies have appeared in the last decades concerning the medieval warfare by several authors, also Italian, but less has been done in the specific matter of the history of arms and armour 1. In Italy the death of Lionello Giorgio Boccia and Eduardo Teixeira Coelho has left a great void, only partially filled by Mario Scalini, who is a well prepared scholar but less active than the enthusiasts would have hoped. In Italy, about the study of medieval warfare, and marginally also the history of medieval weapons, there are some great Italian and foreign authors who especially find readers and this aspect cannot be omitted in the public of the historical reconstruction groups and military modelers 2. I operated from about forty years in this latter application, and with this essay dedicated to the two most often mentioned masters, I hope to give a contribution to the study of the armament of the medieval Europe focusing the Italian scenario, at least as a careful attempt for divulging it. This premise does not escape the essence of this work, as already written in the previous articles, namely the use of the contemporary iconography as main sources of information. This method involves an oscillation between doubts and certainties, so neither more nor less occurred in any other method of analysis of the past. However, if the scholars who study Middle Age should not elude a recognition, even small, of the iconographic sources, they could avoid the systematic incurring in terrifying mistakes!

1 Concerning the main works, I refer to a bibliography in the appendix of this article. Written sources relating to specific studies of weapons and armour will be published in one of the next articles. 2 See note 1. One does not forget here the great contribution for raising the interest to the of military history knowledge medieval and not – by the famous series Osprey Man-at-Arms , Guerreros y Batallas and Soldiershop Publishing .

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

1) Gherarduccio de’ Gherardini (+1331), after his gravestone; graphic reconstruction by E.T. Coelho.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The Development of the Defensive Weapons in the 14 th century At the end of the previous article we left our knight equipped with a protective equipment in full transition. In about eighty years the appearance is completely changed. The role of chain mail has been marginalized in favour of rigid leather or metal defences for limbs and body. So, the long age of the hauberk (11001300) has passed away. After a period in which the producers had lost the memory of the Roman lorica harmata , the iron chain mail had become once again prominent coinciding with the Crusades, to the detriment of leather defences and metal plates of the Carolingian and Ottonian era. Now, at the start of the fourteenth century, the hauberk cede up to the development of the multi material experiences. At the same time, for the head, the cumbersome and oppressive great helm was supplanted by the more functional bascinet (or barbuta ) equipped or not of mobile visor. In certain areas of the Christian West, as in Germany, the fundamental conservatism of chivalrous society slows this progress, while in Italy the sets composed of rigid protection have to this date the maximum of experimentation and usage. Within the first third of the fourteenth century the main lines of the evolution are defined and the ways chosen: from these, with some exceptions, the medieval armour will no longer back. In the 13 tables of this third part, Eduardo Coelho represents the ‘full iron' age, which will stabilize in Italy during the last third of the fourteenth century 3. Unlike, the Hundred Years War battlefields will see French Chevaliers and British Knights protected only by metal some year before respect Italy. At this stage the iconographic sources are abundant for the Italian scenario and Coelho dwells only on these in advancing his narration through images. Following this plot, it will allow me through the explanatory sheets describing the various solutions adopted to protect the head, chest and limbs of the knight, or even better the Italian armato (warrior) operating in the central decades of the fourteenth century. The illustrations will be preceded by the necessary investigations, to which postponed in the previous articles, regarding the fourteenthcentury version of the great helm, examination of the components of the bascinet with chain mail and its features as well as the evolution of armours and metal plates.

Protections for the head: helm and bascinet In the previous article we saw how the great helm has passed from the flat forms ( staro helm) to pinned or pointed ones. This profile was maintained throughout the fourteenth century. But if one side helmets

3 The medieval technology was able to produce good quality iron. In the course of this essay the terms metal, steel and iron should be understood as referring in a generic way to the same material.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS floating visor are soon supplanted by the bascinet the iconography rarely shows these helms after the half of the century the most properly so called, namely the closed ones, are characterized by a precise and new system of assemblage. This innovation, also witnessed by at least two preserved items, is the disappearance of the frontal reinforcement in favour of a more simple and effective system, probably made possible by the greater strength of the iron plate, due to the progress of the metallurgy.

Fig. 2 Bascinet, Germany 13701380, Kunstsammlungen, der Veste Coburg.

At the centre of the face, plate forms a 'bridge', which riveted to the front plate, divides the slot into two section of the view (Fig. 2) 4. Some iconographic sources, including the Codex Manesse but especially the Flemish Li Rouman d'Alexandre (fig. 3), dated between

4 This is the so called Prankh helm (13501375) preserved in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna and the Pembridge helm (c. 1375) in the Royal Scottish Museum of Edinburgh.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

1338 and 1344 (Bodleian Library, Ms. Bod. 264), show knight in tournament with flying pieces of helm’s reinforcement, well ahead of the introduction, shortly thereafter, of the great helm for tournament game with spear, in the open or to the barrier, until to the final late fifteenth century forms known like ‘frog's mouth’.

Fig. 3 – Flemish miniaturist of Li Rouman d’Alexandre , 1338 1344; Bodleian Library, Ms. Bod. 264, Oxford, United Kingdom.

At this stage is not possible to ignore the French miniaturist, which diffusely shows large helmets with mobile visor of in the full ‘300 more than anyone cann see in the iconography of the rest of Europe. This is the continuation of the experience already seen on his debut in the frescoes of San Gimignano. ViolletleDuc, in his Mobilier Raisonné , shows us some examples where the mobile visor also adds a plate to protect the neck fixed to the helm. Among all these French iconographic sources, the miniature of the battle of Dorylaeum 5 soars for beauty and interest representing an encounter fought in the Holy Land in 1097. The bascinet, born as a metal cap to wear under the great helm, soon became an autonomous structure, becoming gradually more and more tall, arched, round ending at first, but then smooth tip but also ribbed in the median part; in England is also shaped into wedges 6. The Central European (Germany, Switzerland, etc.) bascinet are often distinguished by a pointed and flared roof tile; a peculiar example is the magnificent helm preserved in the Veste Coburg collection in Germany, testifying the design shown by the miniaturists and reproduced in the gravestone (Fig. 2). In the rest of Europe, as in Italy,

5 Guillaume de Tyre Histoire d'Outremer , Ms. Fr. 352, BNF Paris. 13001330. 6 Brass of John de Creeke, Westley Waterless Church, Cambridgeshire, 1325.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS the median edge is preferred (also on the back) and over the years the top of the roof tile rises and retracts backward until the verticality of the the bascinet’s back around the beginning of the fifteenth century, or sometimes curving in a harrowed apex. The exception is the magnificent ‘warrior’s head’ preserved in Arezzo, whose tile has six edges (Fig. 5). However, the observation of Coelho shows clearly that until 1370, at least in Italy, remained in use the most disparate forms of bascinet.

Fig. 5 Warrior's head (from the Tarlati’s cenotaph), 13271330, National Museum of Medieval and Modern Art, Arezzo.

The camail of chain mail, or more rarely of scales, consists of a section hanging from the bascinet to which it is connected with an ingenious system. A series of rings, called baghette or femminelle , are welded to the tile starting from the ends of the bascinet front edge and then obliquely down for the entire contour of the round neck. A skin strap, in which the slots are practiced, is stitched around the upper edge of the camail. The baghette entering in the slots to then be crossed by a strap thus resulting in suspension of the camail to the bascinet. Not infrequently, especially in Italy, the iconographic sources

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS propose bascinet worn without camail or suspension systems of the latter than the one described above (Ill. 10). Depictions of bascinets without camail confirming some surviving examples, confirm how in Italy the bascinet stretched to protect ears and neck far beyond the baghettes, if still present. A special Italian feature is constituted by so called ricasco alla senese (reinforce of chain mail in Sienese style). It is a knitted flap hanging from the list of skin that connects the camail to the bascinet, going to dub the iron mail layer for protecting cheeks and nape. We know numerous Emilian and Tuscan iconography’s examples dating the middle of the fourteenth century and Coelho represents it four times in his illustrations. (Ill. 9) Not always the link camailbascinet was as described earlier: it is testified in the Gherardini gravestone (Fig. 1), and in not a few Germans funerary monuments. In England, in the period between 1330 and 1350, is largely used a sort of crown of small plates, like small badges, pendants or triangular elements from the lower edge of the bascinet as is possible to see in the beautiful John of Eltham’s alabaster, in the chapel of St. Edmund of Westminster Abbey and dated 1337. The final step in the development of the device bascinet coincide when a protection for the face is added, or rather the portion of it left uncovered by the enveloping camail. It starts with a nasal iron plate. In the first case, it is a narrow strip integral to the camail; in the second, a kind of small concave hull attached to the camail in the mouth area and for protecting the nose. Both versions end up in a discoid plate with a shaped hole through which passes a fixing hook welded on the front of the bascinet. When not in use the flap or the nasal pending below the mouth. (Ill. 12) The next step consists in the adoption of an actual visor. They have the most diverse forms but a pair will follow an evolutionary line, and also testifying the effects of territorial specificities. The action of raising and lowering the visor is obtained by means of one or two pivoting hinges, fixed on the front if one, or in temporal area if two. In Italy, almost to the end of the fourteenth century, the first solution is the favourite (Ill. 11); even more in Germany, where the front hinges is still in vogue in the early fifteenth century. In France and England the two hinges in the temporal area is the solution usually adopted. All these visors are, with rare exceptions belonging to the first half of the century, of the alla sana type , (save), term used when the eye slits are practiced directly in the plate forming the visor. In the case of larger visor, the inevitable ventilation holes are present at the mouth. Regarding the design, ranging from the first vaguely triangular flat visors (front hinges) to the swollen ones; by the last two decades of the fourteenth century, the typical and bestknown form becomes the sharp nose bascinet. So eyes, nose and mouth compose an anthropomorphic mask effect, grotesque and scary at the same time; hence the name

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

‘pig snout' (pig faced), or in Germany Hundsgugel bascinet (dog muzzle). The bascinet will be subject to a further and final evolution from the beginning until the first third of the fifteenth century; topic that will be addressed in the next article.

Fig. 4 From top to bottom, clockwise: a) head of Knight known as 'the Crusader'; b) allegory of ‘Arrogance’; c) Mars; details of the capitellos in the Palazzo Ducale, 13421355, Venice (modern copies).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

2) Graphic recontructions of Men-at-arms , after the capitellos of the Palazzo Ducale portico, 1342 1345, Venice.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

3) Graphic reconstruction of two Men-at-arms after Maso di Banco, c. 1340, San Silvestro’s tales , fresco, Bardi di Vernio chappel, Church of Santa Croce, Florence.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The iconography shows that throughout the period the knight does not disdain the use of iron hat instead of the bascinet. Often in the miniatures depicting masses of figures on horseback iron hats are equally common like the bascinet. The evidence that it is not the intends to represent auxiliary figures or sergeants on horseback, is given by one of the figures recorded in the frame of the Sir Hugh Hastings’ brass. Here the knight Aymeric de Saint Amand appears protected by an iron crested hat integrated by a rigid gorget for protecting the neck and the lower part of the face 7. Everything suggests that the iron hat was popular in Italy like in Spain, where it remained in great favour, and survived for a long time, alongside an iron hat with little roof tile and a modest tense, the cabacete with a gorget like the one just discussed for Saint Amand.

Fig. 6 Maso di Banco, c. 1340. Storie di San Silvestro , fresco (details), Bardi di Vernio chappel, Church of Santa Croce, Florence.

The infantry also made an extensive use of iron hats of various kinds but also bascinets with or without camail, and little iron cap known as cervelliere . French and northern European miniatures show similar cervelliere caps (or secret) made of scales or plates. According to an use virtually disappeared after the midfourteenth century, the surface of the roof tile of the bascinet could be affected by various elements, maybe gold, which could fulfill the dual function, or one of the two, for decoration and reinforcement.

7 Brass di Sir Hugh Hastings, St. Mary’s Church in situ , Elsing, Inghilterra, 1347.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

4) Mounted Man-at-arms, after a Crucifixion of unknown Tuscan artist, c. 1355; painting on wood, Musée du Louvre, Paris.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The custom to decorate the edges of the visor and the same eye slits with gilded metal is already established at the end of the century, and this in the same way as all other armour elements, as will be seen later.

Fig. 7 – Detail with the mounted Manatarms’ back armour depicted in the Crucifixion of unknown Tuscan artist, ca. 1355; painting on wood, Musée du Louvre, Paris.

Chest armours: cuirass, lamellar armour and independent breastplate The study of composite armour for the chest in use for the first three quarters of the fourteenth century can start from what has emerged after the excavations of the tombs of the battle which took place in 1361 in Visby on the Gotland island 8.

8 In July 1361 a Danish army led by King Valdemar IV invaded the island of Gotland and conquered it after a bloody battle took place nearby the city of Visby. The excavations of the graves, performed in the first three decades of the twentieth century, have brought to the light more than a thousand skeletons and, among other things, the remains of as many as 25 examples of transitional armour.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

5) Mounted Man-at-arms; Andrea Pisano’s workshop, allegory of the planet Mars , decorative tile of the base of the Campanile of the Church of Santa Maria del Fiore, 13421347, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Florence.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Excluding just two specimens, both discovered in a excavation campaign, one Venetian breast composite defence from Chalkis (Greece), now preserved in the Metropolitan of New York and another in Zurich, the famous plates ( lamiere ) of Castel Coira (Churburg), only the still scarce pictorial and sculptural representations would offer some information on this matter 9. It is also thanks to the results of this extraordinary discovery that Lionello Giorgio Boccia developed a classification for the chest composite defence into two types. To my knowledge, Boccia recovered very few from the variety of terms used in contemporary documents, such that they can be attributed with certainty to these weapons. Therefore, the classification depends by the number and size of the metal elements composing the armour. In the case of many plates the terms introduced by Boccia is ‘corazza’ (cuirass), in the other case of a few large metal sheets is ‘lamiere’ (lamellar armour). In the aforementioned dictionary of terms written by Lionello Boccia, he describes the two items with this words 10 :

CORAZZA (Cuirass): doublet, originally in the leather (cuir, and hence the name), lined by a system of plates riveted to each other. Plates-plaques (variously sized and shaped according to the part which had to be protected) guaranteed a minimum of independence between them and gave some flexibility to the weapon, arranging themselves in rows partially overlap. They were stagnant to defend against sweat, and rivets heads appeared outside the tissue of which the cuirass was generally coated, forming a geometric design. Cuirasses were of various types, depending on the cut of the doublet. Some cuirasses had only a layer of fabric, with a hole to pass the head and connected on the back; others cuirasses were rather open to the right, and buckled on the shoulder and the left side, according to the rule - always followed - to better protect the most exposed side. The expression 'pair of armour' caught these structural duplications. In use since the midthirteenth century to the end of the fourteenth century.

LAMIERE (Lamellar armour): variant of the cuirass, with internal protection made by lamellar elements instead of plates. The Lamieri were typically structured with lamellae arranged on multiple files, but often they had the high part of the chest two or three shaped plates for better defending the neck. There were also variations with lamellar elements arranged in a band as in the later 'secret', with a tendency to have them ever higher and ever-decreasing in number. Lamieri were the first type of armour to finally get

9 The Coira Castle example will be discussed in the next article. 10 Boccia L. G. (edit by) Dizionari terminologici 2, armi difensive dal Medioevo all'Età Moderna, Florence 1982.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS rid of the leather or the cloth covering them. This happened in Italy shortly after the half of the fourteenth century, marking the affirmation of the full armour.

Fig. 8 – Gravestone of Colaccio Beccadelli, ca. 1340, unknown author, Church of the Sants Nicolò and Domenico, Imola (Italy).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

6) Colaccio Beccadelli, ca. 1340, after his gravestone of unknown author.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

7) Giovanni di Castruccio Castracani (+1343); after his gravestone of unknown artist; Church of San Francesco, in situ, Pisa.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The most significant threedimensional representation of a lamiere is in the funerary monument of a member (Walter?) of the von Bopfingen family, in the Pfarrkirche of Bopfingen (Germany) dated around 1350. (Fig. 9). Also notable is the similar monument of Otto von Orlamünde in the cloister of Himmelkron in Bavaria, dated 1340. In both cases, from the upper chest hang three arms chains. As well as an Italian example which will be examined in the commentary of illustration 4, best representations now a miniature of menatarms dressed with chest armour, corresponding to the Lionello Boccia’s description, are in the aforementioned Li Rouman d'Alexandre in the Bodleian Library A variant not exactly classifiable under one of the types discussed here dating back to the midfourteenth century it is found in a wooden basrelief of the choir of the Bamberg Cathedral. The knight here reproduced, in addition to his exposed chest armour, wear a wide round metal plate; from this plate hang two arms chains. This plate is nothing if not the foreshadowing of what the Englishspeaking scholars call ‘independent breastplate’: namely a metal breastplate composed of a single piece. The information concerning independent breastplate, already appear in more ancient age, however, it is from these examples, and not by the composite armour, which will derive the full armour of plate. Therefore, the discussion of this weapon, through the rare evidences and depictions, even Italian, will follow in the next issue. Also the lamiere of Churburg will be discussed in a future article, considering its widely recognized role as liaison between the fourteenth century composite defence and the full metal armour, which will be structured around the turn of the century. Returning to the composite protections for the chest, in other studies Eduardo Coelho devoted to the Italian iconographic sources proposing armour constituted only from the front and laced behind his back, as it will the independent metal plates discussed before. The distribution of the rivets on the surface of these protections above the garment indicates the presence of metal plates under the fabric. During this age, the use of chain mail worn under the coat remains unchanged, but, lost hood and muffles, and reduced above the knee, it assumes the definitive haubergeon design. Even for the abdomen, rigid protections are overlapped to the haubergeon. About these protections, it is possible to identify three principal solutions which will survive until the third quarter of the fourteenth century, when they will be joined by other weapons which will be subject of later exam. The first type is very simple, because the armour is also extended below the waist and under the bottom and thus protecting the low abdomen. This solution is very common in some miniatures and in the coeval sculpture. However, any armour belonging to this type has been found in Visby: neither cuirass nor lamiere . The items discovered never arrive to protect more than a few centimeters below the waist.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Fig. 9 – Graphic reconstruction (HefnerAlteneck) after the burial monument of Walther Bopfingen (+ 1359), Pfarrkirche, Bopfingen, Germany.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

8) Graphic recontruction of two Men-at-arms , after the Matteo Giovannetti’s fresco, 134445, Chappells of San Giovanni and San Marziale, Palais du Pape, Avignon.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Fig. 10, 11 Left: remains of the graveston of Bernardino de' Baranzoni, unknown author, 1345 1350, Museo Lapidario Estense, Modena, Italy. Right: Unknown Venetian Lombard artist, 1340 1350; Saint George between two holy bishops, fresco (detail), San Zeno Basilica, Verona, Italy.

There are representations of equipment in which the different number of the rivets on the surface characterizes it. Even this time, a single garment – with few rivets above the waist and more below demonstrates the synergistic use of the principles of construction of cuirass and lamiere . If the relationship between the rivets is the one just discussed, but with the rivets located below the waist and separated from the cuirass, we have the second solution. In both cases the abdomen protection is composed of plates, scales or thin metal lamellar elements positioned horizontally one after the other under the waist line. Sometimes the surface is exposed,especially in the later examples. The third solution is the case in which the abdomen protection makes use of metal plates placed in a vertical pattern, still pending from the waist, or same shaped leather straps reinforced by metal studs (Ill. 7). All these solutions concerning the protection of the abdomen are clearly visible in many British, Italian and, especially, Germans funerary monuments of the fourteenthcentury. The exposed metal armour is more widespread in Germany, and the German gravestones represent the greatest contribution to our knowledge for the development of the chest protection throughout the fourteenth century and beyond. In fact, Visby apart, the German statuary, thanks to its just discussed features, and well distributed over the whole century, allows the uninterrupted reading of the evolutionary process.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

10) Manfredo Pio (+1352), after a details of his burial monument of unknown author, Pieve of Santa Maria in Castello (La Sagra), Carpi (Modena).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

11) Knight of the Obizzi (or Obizi) family , 135560, after the gravestone èpreserved in the Church of San Francesco, in situ , Pescia (Pistoia).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

12) Galeotto Malaspina (+1367); after his gravestone of unknown author, Church of San Remigio, Fosdinovo (Massa and Carrara).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

13) Graphic reconstruction of Man-at-arms after the Maestri of Sant'Abbondio, 13301335, Scenes from the life of Christ , frescoes in the presbytery of the Abbazia of Sant'Abbondio, Como.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Fig. 12 Maestri of Sant'Abbondio, 13301335, Scenes from the life of Christ (details), frescoes in the Abbazia of Sant'Abbondio.

This development, although not without some territorial specificities, is extensible to all the Christian Western Europe. In conclusion, it is interesting to observe how in the composite armour, the rivets not always create geometric decorations. They are more often together in group of three very close to each other, so as to create small triangles, or even five or more forming a rosette.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Protections for the Limbs: the Italian scenario

Regarding the evolution of the protections for the arms and legs, we turn the reader on the commentary for the illustrations by Eduardo Coelho. The Italian characteristic, multimaterial and more lightweight than elsewhere in Europe, will be discussed in the next article together the full metal weapons of the AngloFrench area. At the same time, and not only in this sense, but rather to a further development of the Western European manat arms image in midfourteenth century, I suggest the observation of the exceptional repertoire of the ‘guardians of Christ's sepulchre’. The most significant examples among the ones belonging at the age here discussed appear, fully equipped, also the basreliefs of the Freiburg im Breisgau Cathedral (13451350) (fig. 13). and those from the Strasbourg Cathedral, now preserved in the Musée de l'Oeuvre NotreDame in the same city (1345)

Fig. 13 Guardians of the sepulchre of Christ, 13451350, Cathedral of Freiburg, Germany.

Illustration Commentaries: 1) Gherarduccio de’ Gherardini (+1331); graphic reconstruction by E.T. Coelho after his gravestone, unknown author, Pieve of Sant’Appiano, Barberino Val d’Elsa (Florence) Gherarduccio belonged to a family of irreducible white Guelph. He fought the 'black' Florentine party starting from his possessions in Val d'Elsa. This is the first Tuscan knight gravestone today survived. The whole equipment represented in this monument is the quintessence of its age and its territorial scenario, precisely Tuscany. The bascinet is small, but well ribbed in the centre, while the suspension of camail is invisible, because inside the helm. The small golden rectangles around the bascinet profile are probably rivets inserted for maintaining the quilted fabric. The nasal is of the type with the coupling slit formed a well visible cross. The presence of arms chains suggests that under the shorter front coat (cyclas), there is a rigid protection. Considered the age, it could be a complete skirt of metal plates placed vertically, which is evident beyond the lower edge of the garment. The arm protections are multi textural and innovative, characterized by the strong lobed elbow and very Tuscan leather protection for the biceps. The system of plates and metal plates arranged on leather gloves to protect the hands appears also as very modern. The leg protections are equally elaborated, constituted by a leather trouser with a metal knee secured by an archaic leather strap. The defence of the thigh is very impressive: The coat of fashionable chivalrous taste, shows the Gherardini’s coat of arms. To be noted the unusual length of the dagger.

2) Graphic recontructions of Men-at-arms, after the capitellos of the Palazzo Ducale portico, 1342-1345, Venice. The whole figure and the particular of the head wear a little bascinet which is a more than semi

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS spherical metal head defence. Also the connection with the camail leather strap is essential and placed horizontally around the neck. The complete figure is the graphic reconstruction of the allegorical character of Mars (as a god and as a planet). Emblematic of the widespread ignorance regarding the matter is the name attributed to the head on the right, known as the ‘Crusader’, misunderstanding the role of the crosses that, very simply, act as a hook for the nasal. The Mars wears a cuirass or a lamiere breastplate of which is possible to recognize the structure made of platesblades placed horizontally over a chain mail falling down to the legs. Well aligned rosettes of rivets appear along the whole armour surface. Tt is conceivable that each rosette match a plate, in which case it would be a cuirass and not a lamiere . Arm and leg protections are relatively simple in their functionality. The shoes help to give a typical Padan look to this Manatarms. The bishop's mitre which Coelho suggests for the second figure depends from identifying as an Italianstyle mace the weapon carried by the character: rhe allegory of pride. In fact, to the prelate was forbidden to use bladed weapons in favour to one as the mace. The elaborate metal collar is as it is clearly visible on the capitello and close to other iconographic sources. The chest armour is quite similar to the previous character. The fourth and final subject is based on pure hypothesis after the material represented in the character's head and neck was metal. Unlike, for the head is possible assume a cuff while scalloped neck edge, which suggests some sort of metal protections.

3) Graphic reconstruction of two Men-at-arms after Maso di Banco, c. 1340, San Silvestro’s tales , fresco, Bardi di Vernio chappel, Church of Santa Croce, Florence. The right character replicates the famous ‘pink knight’ painted by Maso in Santa Croce, while the left one is, equally pink but less imposing, depicted in another panel of the fresco. The element of greatest interest of this illustration is the clear evidence of how the various layers composing the equipment of a European , Italian, knight, of the midfourteenth century, overlap one after another. Starting with the first underlying layer: coat, haubergeon of chain mail, armour, waist. The haubergeon ends to the neck trimmed by a fastoned edge placed as defense from the rubbing of the mail cahin on the skin. The ultimate protection of the neck, like the head and shoulders, is composed by the bascinet with his camail. The arm protection is confined to a simple sleeve of chain mail integrated by a small metal spaulder. The legs are protected by boiled leather; the lower section is evidently in one piece to wear extending it and then fastening inside. Coelho does not see in the fresco the suspension belt for the sword and then does not reproduce it. The detail of the head goes back to the Arezzo fragment from the cenotaph of Tarlati bishop. Note the falling flap mentioned in this article in the Sienese style which complete the camail.

4) Mounted Man-at-arms, after a Crucifixion of unknown Tuscan artist, c. 1355; painting on wood, Musée du Louvre, Paris. There were no reports of any other Italian representation of an armor of the type depicted here with the back lacing. The Louvre example is in addition to other rare German area ones. The bascinet is remarkable for even archaic forms and for the atypical visor in French style. The ricasco alla senese in chain mail, already seen previously, is certainly of Tuscan style. The protection for the arm is completed by a short sleeve in chain mail and by a full plate forearm; the gauntlet is already well organized, although still entirely devoid of sleeve. A wellstudied juxtaposition of boiled leather, metal plate and iron mail complete the leg protection. The foot is unprotected and the spurs are of a rather late style. The rectangular and shaped shield of the type depicted here is, already in a so remote age, very popular in Italy. A ‘H’ shaped dagger (basilard) and a whole iron mace are the only visible offensive weapons.

5) Mounted Man-at-arms; Andrea Pisano’s workshop, allegory of the planet Mars , decorative tile of the base of the Campanile of the Church of Santa Maria del Fiore, 1342- 1347, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Florence. The Mars of the bell tower of Santa Maria del Fiore, also known as ‘Giotto's Campanile’, confirmi as already seen in the Venetian capitellos and in the Maso di Banco’s knights. Similar garment type, cyclas, the breast armor, the sleeves of the coat of mail and the gauntlets. The spaulder’s plate is in a rather elaborate form, in addition the elbow wheel. Leg protection also does not differ too much from the ones already discussed, but it shows better the details. The spur is the modern wheel type. The plumed helm, of no easy definition and of an unusual shape for its age, seems to allude to the god Mars of the ancient Rome.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Fig. 14 – Details of the equestrian monumet of Cangrande della Scala (+1329), Museum of Castelvecchio, Verona (Italy).

6) Colaccio Beccadelli, ca. 1340, after his gravestone ofunknown author, Church of the Saints Nicolò and Domenico in situ , Imola (Italy). Within the Scacchesi and Maltraversi dualism that divided the Bologna of the fourteenth century, a civic document relates: "... the Senate confined the rich and powerful Colaccio Beccadelli to the Riccardina ; and with him other relevant followers ..." . The Colaccio Beccadelli’s gravestone is the first of the only two equestrian ones (to my knowledge) existing in Italy, and it shows a Centre Italian knight of mid fourteenth century in all its glory 11 . In the bascinet (barbute according to Boccia), now of mature profile, there is the Sienese style chain mail flap very usual in the Emilian iconography. Equally widespread, and this throughout central and northern Italy, the triangular pseudosleeved, whose not always homogeneous interpretation will be discussed in the next illustration. The cyclas coat carries the arms of Beccadelli family: Azure, a winged crane leg with a right gold flyng , membred with red. This heraldry is repeated several times on the equipment of the character. The helm, complete with crest and lambrecchino, leaning on his back and hung to one of the three arms chains, is an image quite rare; see also about it the equestrian statue of Cangrande della Scala. The chain mail sleeves, as they are modeled on the gravestone, allow us to only formulate assumptions about the presence of rigid structures within them. The gauntlet on the other hand are already very well organized: a sign of how the producers were dedicating to the research of more effective solutions for the protection of the hands. The legs defence is quite similar to the Florentine Mars, unless a connector in iron between knee and leg. The foot is protected by an armored shoe and spurs are of wheeled type. It is observed here, once and for all, the lacing system of spur to the foot. For all that concerns the horse, I will refer to an upcoming article dedicated to this specific topic.

11 The other equestrian gravestone is the one of to Tiberto Brandolini (1397) located in the Church of San Francesco in Bagnacavallo (Ravenna), see fig. 14.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Fig. 15 graphic reconstruction by E. T. Coelho after the gravestone of Johann Spirer von Geyspalsem, Church of San Romano, Lucca.

7) Giovanni di Castruccio Castracani (+1343); after his gravestone of unknown artist; Church of San Francesco, in situ, Pisa. Third son of the famous Castruccio, Giovanni with brothers Arrigo and Valerano warred for the control of Lucca. His gravestone is full of interesting elements. The bascinet of rounded shapes, thus still designed to be worn under the great helm, has an added camail intended to protect the face up to the eyes, knotting in the closed position the two flaps forming the upper section. The coat, in two parts, of which the shortest one in the front is decorated with one of the known variants of the family Castracani degli Antelminelli: silver and azure in chief, greyhound emerging from the first

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS partition, collared and langued of red. Four arms chains are grafted to as many studs fixed in the high area at a probable underlying cuirass. This, or alternatively a lamiere , is integrated with a flap of foil placed vertically as seen for Gherardini. The pointed pseudo half sleeves, already in the Beccadelli gravestone which will return in the next commentaries are here become real contoured shoulder leather straps coated and painted. Boccia has at regard any doubt referring to other coeval gravestones from the same area (Fig. 15). Neither Boccia nor Coelho however, seem to extend to all cases present in the iconographic sources the armour of these triangular accessories which extend on the shoulders, sometimes interpreting them as mere continuations of the dress; from which my daring term 'pseudosleeves'. A forearm, which Eduardo Coelho, identifies as of boiled leather, is visible under the sleeve of chain mail, equipped with metal elbow fixed above the same. The gauntlet are made up of six files (including fingers) of oblong metal plates, unusually large as components of a gauntlet, all organized on a leather holder. The scale gauntlet, rare elsewhere, appears as common in Tuscany. Concerning the leg protection, here appears a modern, for the Italian scenario, iron defence already in use elsewhere in Europe. Unlike the knee reinforced of leather are still primitive. The beautifully crafted sword and dagger, basilard type, are well smaller than in the Gherardini’s gravestone. The burial monument does not show how any suspension system manages both the sword and the dagger.

8) Graphic recontruction of two Men-at-arms, after Matteo Giovannetti’s fresco, 1344-45, Chappells of San Giovanni and San Marziale, Palais du Pape, in situ, Avignon. Eduardo Coelho duly underlines the atypical nature of the bascinet of the character on right. In the the fresco of Avignon this shows a gilted surface decorated with spirals. Also the profile of the camail forms here an angle, unlike respect the case seen before. The spaulder plate of the character on left is similar to the one of Mars, where the right one shows the triangular pseudo half sleeve of Italian style, however rare, if not absent, elsewhere in Europe. The gauntlets are also in this case very modern. Both Menatarms wear the cyclas type coat but only one carries the arms chains. The iron mail flap to the left shows the lower edge pinned to the centre, according to a very common style in England and France. Below the flap to the right, is visible one that would seem a protective structure in boiled leather. The protection of the leg is yet another variant of matching ironleather. However, what appears between knee and leg is in both cases, although leather or embryonic, an innovative fitting plate. The greatest attention deserves the set of belts here perfectly reproduced. It is the most widespread solution across Western Europe and which consists in an integrated system of two belts, of which the highest is placed horizontally, and the second falls transversely from the right side towards the left, where the sword is hanging. The two sections of this second belt connecting staggered to the scabbard lower the rear one to achieve a better balance of the sword. The noose with which is adjusted the excess part of the belt over the buckle is typical of the fourteenth century.

9) Men-at-arms of the mid 14th century, after the San Giorgio fresco in the Church of San Zeno, Verona, and after the relics of the Bernardino de’ Baranzoni’s gravestone preserved in the Museo Lapidario Estense, Modena. The triangular pseudo half sleeves (reinforced or not), so in vogue in centre and northern Italy are here representedagain. Already seen the sleeve of San Giorgio, apart the huge elbow. The shoes come back here with reinforcing studs. Regarding Bernardino, the question arises first of all whether all the rivets found on the arms and on the complex gauntlets involve internal reinforcement plates or are themselves reinforcing element of such structures. Here, unlike other situations before examined, the sleeve of mail chain ends below the sleeve of the gauntlet. The great falling Sienese flap is of great visual impact. The arms are three chains composed of oval rings. Of the three, all fixed to a plate below the coat and passing through eyelets practiced in the same, the two on right ensure the sword and the dagger by means of their terminals, one on the left terminates in a finger (see detail below) and it serves to support the helmet hanging behind his back (see Fig. 6). The chin strap is composed of gold metal plates articulated one with the other. This item remotely resemble the sometimes elaborate chin strap widespread in France, England and Germany.

10) Manfredo Pio (+1352), after a details of his burial monument ofunknown author, Pieve of Santa Maria in Castello (La Sagra) in situ , Carpi (Modena). The shaped pinned dome bascinet, replace here the more common system of camail link one with leather strap and thong instead using a shaped strip of gilted metal (brass?). The coat the carries red and silver bands of the Pio’s coat of arms, which is repeated on the crest of the helm horns. The rigid protection of the cheast is demonstrated by the presence of arms chains (here presumably two

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS silk cords) departing from a single stud fixed approximately at the height of the knight’s breast. The arm protections, once again of Italian style for not adding hard elements of leather or metal, in addition to the iron chain mail, display wide discoid metal plates to protect the shoulders and the elbows. The presence of any rigid structures below the chain mail is not demonstrable. The gauntlet have the leather sleeves reinforced and back and fingers composed of small scales known as ghiazzerino . Protections for the leg are in leather except for the metal knee. A small metalaccessory – bolgia presumably of quilted fabric manages the link between thigh and leg. The foot is protected by a shoe of imbricate scales and the spur is completed with a beautiful twelvepointed star. The remarkable dagger has a richly decorated scabbard.

11) Knight of the Obizzi (or Obizi) family, 1355-60, after the gravestone èpreserved in yje Church of San Francesco, in situ , Pescia (Pistoia). The bascinet is here in its most complete form with the well pronounced ogival profile and the frontal hinged visor. The latter is just large enough to cover the face portion not protected by the camail and it seems to be the bloated type, with ventilation holes at the mouth. The textile has now assumed the typical surcoat lines of the second alfof the fourteenth century. The presence, established on the chest, of two arms chains ending in a nose narrow at sword and dagger, removes any doubt about the presence of a rigid protection of the breast below the decorated coat with the heraldry of the Obizzi family in blue and gold. The girdle of the sword suspension is thin as it appears, even if partially, to the gravestone. The arm and forearm protection are composed of leather elements reinforced with metal plate fastened with rivets. The British scholars effectively define it as ‘studded and splinted armour’. The spaulder and elbow pads, without any transition element lamellar or other with the arm and forearm denote the set belonging yet to a phase of transition. And this even though the elbow flap to defend the flexible section. Unlike modern are the ‘hourglass’ gauntlets already very anatomical. Simple chain mail trousers protect thigh and knee; two golden lion faces are overlapped (sewed?) upon the knee. The protection of the leg is completed with metal defences. Excluding the shoes of scales, longer in use in Italy than in the rest of Europe, with the Pescia’s gravestone the Italian specificity concerning the armour begins to lose its taste in a continental standardization that will intensify and will remain uncanghed until the first decade of the fifteenth century. And it is up to the latter date that the Italian experience will give a new impetus to the development ofall its components.

12) Galeotto Malaspina (+1367); after his gravestone of unknown author, Church of San Remigio, in situ , Fosdinovo (Massa e Carrara). Less famous than his uncle Spinetta, Galeotto Malaspiana inherited the domain of Fosdinovo after the Emperor Charles IV of Luxembourg had elevated him to the rank of marquis, thereby becoming the first Marquis of Fosdinovo. The armour worn by Galeotto, as it is depicted in the funerary monument, represent the swan song of the transitional period. The armour looks now archaic, now modern. The prominent feature is undoubtedly the demeanor gave to the character by the socalled 'life wasp' style coming in fashion in all knightly circles of Europe in those years, by virtue of the continuous dialectical relationship between the civil and military costume. The prominent and rounded chest of this style is achieved in the field of civil tailored with appropriate padding; while in the military one it is reasonable to imagine the profile is produced by rigid protections of several plates or by a single metal breastplate. In the full version the surcoat textile begins to decline in the early fourteenth century to stop during the third quarter of a century just below the pubis, as seen in the case of Galeotto. The bascinet has no relevant novelty, including the usual nasal accompanied by an interesting golden plate to protect the frontal hook. The monument, not painted, could cause doubt about which parts of the arm and leg protections are in metal or in leather. Moving for exclusion, internal lacing tells us that legs could be of leather while the arms those kinds of protections (note the strap and its buckle) are usually of metal. All other components are entrusted to the interpretation of Eduardo Coelho (supported by the opinion of Boccia, as it always did) which obviously does not consider the rivets files on some pieces as evidence that they were in metal rather than leather. The Hourglass gauntlet and lamellar shoes are the greatest concession to the modernity. The evolutionary process of the defensive composite armament in the transition age ends here: the dawn of full metal armour is now at the horizon. The surcoat and shield, a targue provided with a deep space to the support the spear, have the coat of arms of the Malaspina branch of the ‘spino fiorito’ (flourished torn): Golden, with a green thorn and silver flower of five pieces. Heraldic version of this perhaps not entirely correct since the coeval armorials propose for the coat of arms of

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS the ‘Spino Fiorito’ a field divided of gold and red.

13) Graphic reconstruction of Man-at-arms after the Maestri of Sant'Abbondio, 1330- 1335, Scenes from the life of Christ (detail), frescoes in the presbytery of the Abbazia of Sant'Abbondio, Como. Last but not least for this article, here is the commentary about the Manatarms of Sant'Abbondio. The character represents probably one Catalan venturiere . These warriors are depicted in the Como frescoes and they seem to be made to mix the tables at the scholar of medieval weaponry. The Coelho solves the doubts reading the armaments content in these paintings, especially to the helm and armour of the chest of the selected character, as the main subject of his graphic reconstruction. We are facing one of the most complete representations of infantry in the Italian area comparable only to the later –‘home guards" in the Avio castle, which will be subject of a future examination. The protection of the head chosen from among the many by Coelho consists of a roof tile in the form of hemispherical cap integrated in a gutter neck protection; the particular nose protection is reflected in several contemporary iconography. The protection of the chest begins, starting from the inside, with a padded long coat over the knee and of equally padded sleeves with double protective function with the substrate of chain mail of the haubergeon. Always in chain mail, but separated from the haubergeon, there are the gauntlet which ends with a sleeve outside a small sphere that seen in the Pallavicino’s gravestone (History & Uniforms issue 8). Definitely of a transition style, but considered functional, appear the protections of shoulder and arm, and the same is true for the small shield, actual variant of the bestknown roundel, which came into use in the early fourteenth century. The large breastplate lamiere appear as very unusual and Coelho offers it not covered by any textile. In the frescoes the metal weapons, like the bascinetts and other, are treated with very clear backgrounds with soft shadows made with more or less warm tones. The quilted textile are in a beautiful ocher, more intense in the case of the leather (see the anthropomorphic shoulder and pteruges in the particular of the illustration). The pictorial return of chain mail is played with light gray and black. I should know more about the history of these frescoes or at least to watch them directly in order to exclude the possibility that the weapons rendered in white might be represent the actual metal. There are conservative issues of the mural paintings, or any restorations or renovations that would open the most diverse scenarios. I will limit myself to bow to the expertise of teachers as Eduardo and Lionello. The legs of the character are protected by iron, while others, in the frescoes, wearing leather protections. I conclude remarking some significant details: the suspension of the dagger; the hinges placed behind the forearms reproduced unambiguously; the largest Spanishcollar complement to the iron hat reproduced in the particular.

Fig. 14 – A lamellar armour Lamiere from the battle of Visby (1361): this and other relics are a very invaluable source for understanding the evolution of the defensive armament in the fourteenth century.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

French Ensigns of the Late Renaissance: Flags and Standards from a Turin’s Collection by Aldo Ziggioto and Andrea Rossi

1 – 2: French (and above Mantuan?) Infantry ensigns from the collection preserved in the State Archive of Turin, presented to the Duke Carlo Emanuele I of Savoy, and depicting the trophies captured by his father Emanuele Filiberto after the battles of Saint Quentin and Gravelines in 1557 and 1558.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

An article published in 1977 by the Italian magazine Modelli Militari , provides us the opportunity to focus a topic which the author, Aldo Ziggioto, had just started to draw. The topic is the point of passage occurred in the Renaissance between the Medieval and the Modern world. This passage favoured the birth of a military terminology and its frames of reference, as well as the military vexillology and iconology of a period of the history which requires to be still investigated. The flags lost by the French after the battles of Saint Quentin of 1557 and Gravelines in the following year, show in detail the formation of the rules and customs that will develop in France until the revolution of 1789. The manuscript from which Aldo Ziggioto reproduced these infantry insignia, presents more of a mystery. So far none of these mysteries has been clarified and perhaps destined to remain so forever 12 . First of all is the combined total of the flags that leaves us some doubts. On the manuscript are reproduced in fact, 167 infantry and cavalry colours; but from the scarce information about the total number of units involved, the trophies would have been much lower. According to the testimony of an anonymous Flemish chronicler, the flags lost by the French army at Saint Quentin would instead been 68. These were then exposed in front of the besieged city and were targeted by the French. Probably some insignia was lost on that occasion, further reducing the number of trophies. It is also likely that some flag being damaged and this evenience could clear because the inscriptions, both French or other in Latin or greek, have so obvious grammatical errors. Another anonymous source, in German, relates instead of 72 banners and flags captured by the imperials: therefore this number just over half the overall presents the manuscript, taking into account that in Gravelines the lost flags and standards were only twenty. However, the large number of ensigns in the manuscript can be explained by the fact that in the mid sixteenth century, the French regiments were mostly formed by units joning a variable number of companies which could have one or more flags. The manuscript is divided into two volumes, slightly different in size, which were bound in the early seventeenth century judging by the style of the graphics to transfer the ensigns from a preexisting document. Only a part of the trophies presents an attribution, mostly wrong, or even fictional 13 , but probably in the original all the colours had been classified presenting a statement under them in the sheet, unfortunately lost after the careless bookbinder gathered them in two volumes.

12 The manuscript contains illustrations of flags captured from Emanule Filiberto of Savoy in 1557 and in 1558 was the subject of study by the Count Louis de Bouille, and later by Paul Martin, who published a monograph on the subject in 1954. There is also a short article in a single page of Antoine Bronner. 13 This characteristic often occurs on the ancient documents similar to this regarding the identification of flags and standards taken from the enemy. It is well known the case of the Dutch manuscript by Anna Beck concerning the trophies captured by the Allies after the battle of Blenheim Hochstatt in 1704.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

3: Montpensier (?) Infantry; 4: unknown infantry ensign; Saint Quentin, August 10th 1557.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

So far, the proposed identification have turned to the heraldic insignia by not decipher the mots and othe elements on the field, and other important clues. The first three signs undoubtedly belonged to infantry companies of the king. The white cross of Armagnac, already adopted at the middle of the previous century 14 , divided the field into four cantons, leaving the easy insertion of heraldic patterns, images or inscriptions to identify the unit and, above all, the commander. The flag number 2 presents the typicalcharacteristics of the French infantry insignia. This is probably a flag that did not belong to foreign mercenaries, who carried the white cross only if they belong to the 'King's Bands’. Otherwise the foreign mercenaries’ flags had different symbols, as we will see later. A possible identification of the ensigns allows us to assume it as belonging to the infantry regiment of François de Coligny d'Andelot, brother of Admiral de Coligny, the same as in Saint Quentin commanded the garrison of the besieged city. However, the possibility that the ensign belonged to a German unit is supported by the black lilies, present in some banners and flags identified as German. The hypothesis that instead turn us to consider Coligny d'Andelot as the owner of the flag, may be taken also in consideration because within the collection certain ensigns occupy the initial positions, intended evidently because they belonged to the most important enemy officers. Besides, this address should not have been indifferent for compilating the list of trophies, whereas among the 6,000 prisoners captured by the Imperials, there were over one hundred aristocrats belonging to the high French and Allied nobility. Just to a French ally we turn our attention regarding the flag 1, most probably belonged to an infantry unit from Mantua. The sign in fact has elements similar to those that appear on some companies of Gonzaga family and the presence of a prince of Mantua is documented in the list of prisoners 15 . With regard to the flag 3, the silver feather is an element that often appears in the Montpensier symbols, supporters and allies of Henry II of Valois. As for the flag number 4 we are forced to admit all our difficulties to attribute it to a specific French unit, the numbers 5 and 6 belonged in all likelihood to two Swiss mercenary companies. In Saint Quentin the Swiss were not numerous, but unlike the German mercenaries, who at the end of the battle surrendered and agreed to suspend their participation in the campaign, they fought to the last man and therefore did not leave many prisoners.

14 Louis XI granted for the first time the use of the white cross to the Picardy bands in 1479. 15 See in Henri Stein, La Bataille de Saint Quentin e les prisonniers français , Saint Quentin 1889, p. 1213.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

5 -6: Swiss Infantry ensigns of unknown units, captured at the battle of Saint Quentin of August, 10 th 1557.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The Venetian Army and Navy in the Ottoman War of 1684-1699 (part ten) by Bruno Mugnai

The Armata : the Venetian Navy

Contemporary layout of the Venetian ‘light’ fleet in the earlier phase of the naval campaign of 1684, including galleys from the Papal States, Malta and Tuscany.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The Papal Legate Scipione Pannocchieschi, the careful commentator of the Venetian scenario already mentioned in this series of articles, wittily summed up the relationship between the fleet and the aristocracy in a few lines. After emphasizing the nobility’s lack of interest regarding military careers in the Mainland, he compared the 'Venetian genius' for the sea:

In the matters of the sea, the Venetians proceed otherwise. All important ranks are occupied by the nobles, not by foreigners. Among aristocrats, the government elects a General, the Captains of galeazza, galleys, and vessels; and subjects are also the sailors, the oarsmen, and almost all of the soldiers on board.

For centuries, the fleet was exclusively assigned to members of the Venetian aristocracy. The direction of the Armata a term that designated the Republic’s entire war fleet – attained strong political value. Additionally, the fleet itself held a very special meaning with respect to the field army. In spite of the Venetian navy’s loss of confidence in the last quarter of the 17 th century, the city’s most important noble families cultivated an exalted naval tradition that appeared in state symbols. Unless there was a very good reason for his exclusion, every young Venetian aristocrat began his apprenticeship as a sailor with the title of Nobile sopra la Galea (Noble on the galley) and served in at least three sea campaigns. 16 At different times during the Candian War, the Venetian fleet successfully thwarted Ottoman strategy and nearly collapsed their siege operations on Crete. After a series of formidable victories, the fleet seemed to be on the verge of victory – or at least close to reaching an armistice with the Sultan – in 1657. In those years, the Venetian fleet deployed captains, sailors, and gunners of extraordinary value. Among Venetian naval history and even the best contemporary navies, this force was by far the most prepared. Thus, the Republic remained convinced that it possessed a powerful weapon that could easily prevail against the weak and neglected Ottoman fleet. This perspective certainly influenced the decision to pursue war in 1684. Yet, the Venetian fleet that participated in the new conflict differed from the one 30 years earlier in several aspects. During 15 years of peace, the Republic began a major transformation of the navy, which after 1675 culminated in a construction program for large sailing ships divided into three classes. The government based this decision on the Candian War experience.

16 Apprenticeship in the fleet began very early for young Venetians, even with respect to their time. At the Third Battle of the Dardanelles in 1656, the Muazzo brothers Andrea and Antonio, 12 and 13 years old respectively, participated as Nobili sopra le Galee .

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

No uniform regulation for officers was introduced in the Venetian navy before 1775. This Governatore di nave (169599) is wearing an ordinary velada coat over an old fashioned waistcoat, in a style typical of the northern European navy officers. Unlike the galley commanders, the governatori of sail ships wore any metal protection. The first line battle role assumed by galleys and galeazza s esposed officers and troops to close combat, while the vessels faced them at long distance. (Reconstruction after Piazza and Carlevaris).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The Serenissima intended to abandon its armed merchant vessel policy, especially hiring very expensive vessels from northern Europe. Additionally, the ongoing technical evolution rapidly compensated for the disadvantages that these large vessels faced in the Mediterranean against oared ships. The increasing ability to shake the wind rendered sailing ships independent from the oared fleet. This allowed the Venetians to adopt the linear tactics successfully introduced in the second half of the 17 th century during the Anglo Dutch wars. These developments profoundly affected the cooperation between vessels, galleys, and galeazzas – the Venetian Armata Sottile (light fleet) – and the tall ships – the Armata Grossa (heavy fleet), which achieved excellent exploits in the previous decades. Although these fleets remained distinguished at a strategic level, these 2 components had cooperated tactically in memorable battles during the Candian War. By the end of the 17 th century, they faced a more problematic integration.17 On the eve of war in 1683, the light fleet outnumbered the heavy one, but within 10 years,the heavy vessels overtook the galleys and galeazzas. 18 When deployed in a line, the sailing ships’ firepower became too important for even the traditionally minded Venetian ruling class to overlook. In spite of the tremendous economic effort, the massive renovation program continued throughout the 17 th century. 19

The Centre of Command As in the army, the Senate and the Major Council appointed and elected all fleet commanders, from the CaptainGeneral to the simple Sopracomito (a galley commander). In peacetime, the Provveditore Generale all’Armata (General Superintendent of the Fleet) held the most senior position in the fleet, and after the conflict began, he automatically became the CaptainGeneral’s viceadmiral and lieutenant. Other important ranks included the Capitano delle Navi (the commander of the sailing vessels), the Capitano della Guardia in Golfo (Captain of the Gulf squadron) – who directed the Adriatic galley squadron based in Venice, and the Capitano delle Galeazze. All of these tasks were assigned to experienced

17 On this topic, see also the excellent essay by Guido Candiani, Vele, remi e cannoni: l’Impiego congiunto di navi, galee e galeazze nella flotta veneziana, 1572-1718 , in: Mutazioni e Permanenze nella Storia Navale del Mediterraneo, secc.XVIXIX, Milan, 2010; pp. 116162 18 In peacetime, the fleet included the Armata Sottile with 20 or 21 fully equipped and armed galleys. Four galleys were permanently in Corfu, Zante, and Kefalonia, joined by another 4 in the summer. Another 4 or 6 galleys were anchored in Venice, while another 4 galleys formed the Dalmatian squadron. The last squadron, based in the Aegean, normally comprised of 4 galleys. In Venice they always had 40 galley hulls ready. 20 of them were armed and ready for action: a considerable decrease compared to 20 years earlier, when 60 hulls were always available. In peacetime, the oared fleet in Venice comprised of 2 galeazzas with a further 4 on reserve. See also the first article of this series in issue 0 of History & Uniforms. 19 At first, 1,200,000 ducats had been budgeted for the war, but by 1684, more than 2 million had been spent. Annual spending gradually grew from year to year and reached 4 million ducats in 1688. See Luciano Pezzolo, Stato, Guerra e Finanza nella Repubblica di Venezia , p. 42.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS officers and formed the first step towards reaching the high rank of CaptainGeneral. In the last quarter of the 17 th century, the increased numbers of sailing vessels necessitated dividing them into two or more squadrons. Thus, new highranking positions, such as the Almirante delle Navi (Rear Admiral) and the Patron delle Navi (Lieutenant Admiral), were introduced.

The impressive image of the whole Allied fleet sailing in battle order, as witnessed in 1685by the anonymous redactor of the RossiCassigoli collection. Note in foreground the sail ships.

Three Provveditori all'Armar intensely administrated the fleet. Every two months, this trio received notes from the Capi da Mar , the commissars in charge of inspecting the fleet’s units, regarding therole and number of the crewmen and the state of armaments, oarsmen, ammunition, expenses, and other matters relating to the fleet’s administration. Officials under the Savio alla Scrittura 20 recruited sailors, rowers, and gunners. They also appointed noncommissioned and subordinate officers. At an intermediate level, the galley

20 A function that corresponded to a Secretary of War; see also in the second article of this series in History & Uniforms issue 1.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS commander’s responsibilities for his ship resembled those of an infantry or cavalry captain for his company. Both the Sopracomito and the Governatore commanded a galeazza , and each led a composite major staff consisting of a Comito, Sottocomito , Pilot, Padrone (the sailors’ senior NCO), Capo dei Provisionati (infantry commander), Capo Bombardiere (artillery senior NCO), secretary, chaplain, and Eccellente (physician). The presence of other ranks depended on the vessel’s characteristics. For example, the Sopramasser , the maritime version of the quartermaster, served on the CaptainGeneral’s galley.

A very realistic image of sailors and soldiers in quarantine duty in 1685, after the RossiCassigoli collection. The personnel here portrayed belonged to the Tuscan fleet and only the soldiers are summarily uniformed. Before 1715, in the venetian navy, sailors and other boarded personnel received any kind uniform, except for red canvas casaca and cap .

Other tasks and duties aboard the galleys and galeazzas were appointed to other non commissioned officers and specialists such as the Maestranze (caulker, smith, carpenter), the Titolati (senior sailors), and the Agozzino (executioner). The Scappoli (the embarked infantry picket), and obviously the oarsmen, completed the galley and galeazza crews. Through the work of officials, the Serenissima constantly exerted control, not only over crews and ships, but also over local inhabitants. All sailors aged 18 and over were

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS registered into categories according to their respective characteristics, so that, in case of need, fleet replacements could be found and loaded in a short time. Sailing vessels included different functions and ranks, and the captain usually exercised his authority over a smaller number of subordinates, whose denominations were often borrowed from foreign naval terminology.

The Scappoli , here portrayed in the RossiCassigoli collection, formed the sentinel pickets of the ships. In the venetian navy they were recruited mainly in the overseas domain. The scappolo on the left is possibly a Dalmatian or a Vlach; the one on right came probably from the Ionian Greek islands.

Although the fleet primarily consisted of Venetians, several nobles from the Mainland served, and the Venetian field army’s typical ethnic variety remained the case at sea. Apart some pilots and seamen enlisted in northern Europe, the presence of other 'nationals' such as Greeks and Slavs and, of course, sailors and volunteers from other Italian states, was

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS particularly high. Additionally, the galleys of Malta, the Papal States, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, and the Genoese Republic reinforcedthe Venetian fleet on several occasions. Throughout the duration of the Ottoman War, the cosmopolitan Venetian domains remained the greatest recruitment pool for sailors and rowers, and overwhelming numbers of Venetian aristocrats served as galley officers.

Admiral Camillo Guidi , commander of the Tuscan squadron which participated at the sea campaign of 168488. Guidi and the Tuscan crews, supported by the Saint Stephen Knights, performed well, but in several occasion Guidi contrasted bitterly the Allied commanders and even the Captain General Morosini.

Slav or Greek officers only led galleys from Istria, Dalmatia, and the Ionian islands. In contrast, the sailing ships included larger numbers of commanders and other officers from the overseas domains. The same ethnic groups provided the majority of oarsmen for the galleys.21 Considering that galley or galeazza oarsmen represented 70% of the actual crew, their presence was significant. These men underwent very harsh treatment – although, it

21 While the officers and crew aboard galleys or a galeazzagranted preferenceto Venetian nobles, aristocratic membership was not a required prerequisite for the sailing fleet; see also in Guido Candiani, I vascelli della Serenissima. Guerra, politica e costruzioni navali a Venezia in età moderna, 1650-1720 , Venezia 2009; pp. 12324.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS was less brutal than some literature has suggested. Unlike the other Mediterranean fleets, the Venetian fleet limited the use of slaves and convicts to fill the crew. This was far more common on the galleys of the Tuscan Order of Santo Stefano, the Pope, and Malta. The oarsmen recruitment system was developed in Venice as early as the mid16 th century, with the establishment of an actual levy ( Ordinanze da Mar ) in Venice and the Mainland cities. In wartime, 10,000 rowers aged between 18 and 45 were recruited among the bachelors and children of large families. In the 17th century, however, this system was in crisis. Venetian galley commanders had little consideration towards the peasants enrolled in the Mainland, and rioters almost always served in the fleet. By 1647, the ordinancelevy was virtually abolished.

Below on left, oarsmen waiting for the water distribution, after RossiCassigoli. In navigation, each oarsman received up to 7 liters of water per day. The huge consumption forced the fleet to stock up with water very often and this slowed operations appreciably.

The overseas domains, especially from the Greek islands, became the main recruitment pool of oarsmen. In these territories, high poverty rates compelled the population to accept the harshness and risks of the naval campaigns, and also, perhaps the Greek islanders exhibited greater aptitude for navigation. The use of slaves was sporadically practiced,

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS usually to complete the benches, and the recruitment of convicts remained. The latter were typically offered a sentence reduction in exchange for 1 or 2 years aboard a galley or galeazza, and a death sentence could be commuted to 10 years at the oar. The Venetians also employed prisoners of war, especially at the end of a campaign when the number of oarsmen became insufficient.22 Although contemporary sources rarely mentionthe oarsmen’s condition, the Venetians and their allies reserved little regard for the Greek inhabitants under Ottoman rule. If necessary, they provided an important source of oarsmen recruits. In the summer of 1687, Morosini ordered ''repression against the communities of Mystras in the Peloponnese, accused of having favoured the Ottomans during the last campaign.” For this reason, 768 young Greeks were forcedly recruited as oarsmen: "chosen among the most vigorous." 23 In other circumstances, Venetian commanders ordered 'campaigns' to retrieve defectors who had found refuge in some remote corner of the Aegean sea. Apparently, escaping the oar was far from easy, and the commanders promised to protect communities from looting and deportations if they could facilitate their return. The harshness of life in the fleet did not prevent convicts from performing other tasks, perhaps against the promise of license or prize. More often, they dug trenches or unloaded artillery from the galleys. Other times, they absolved more dangerous tasks, and these were not always accepted voluntarily. As the troops in the Siege of Negroponte neared exhaustion and capitulation in 1688, the Venetian Army enlisted all the former oarsmen and assigned them to infantry regiments to fight in the terrible campaign.

The Oar and the Sail With respect to northern European fleets, the Serenissima faced a significant technological gap. After much delay, the first vessel entirely built and armedby the Venetian Arsenal, Giove Fulminante (Lightning Jupiter) with 62 cannons, set sail in September 1667. Venice never passively suffered this technological gap. While acquiring large vessels and hiring

22 There are relatively few studies concerning the living conditions and the death rate of the oarsmen in 17 th century Mediterranean Fleets. Some Tuscan archival sources from the late 17 th century show with good detail the incidence of mortality among the crews of oarsmen. Out of a total of 920 oarsmen in the galleys of the Order of Santo Stefano, after 10 years of service, 508 men died. The mortality rate was 6% annually. The causes of death are not documented, but only 78 were those who died on the sea. It must be noted that, in Tuscany, the percentage of convicts and slaves was much higher than in Venice, wherein each galley had to include at least 6 buonevoglie , volunteers. Among the latter, the casualties were only 33, compared with 248 deaths among the slaves and 225 among the convicts. It is possible, however, that the different treatment conditions were decisive in survival expectancy. ASFi, Archivio Mediceo del Principato , ‘ Galee di Santo Stefano’ , f 21, anno 1679, and e ‘Forzati del Bagno di Livorno’ f. 223. 23 Diedo, cited work pp. 399400. The punishment was not only limited to this, since even 600 Greek “children” were taken aboard the fleet as servants, and even 1,000 girls were held to be “put in the freedom of sailors and soldiers”.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS crews abroad, the government began planning sailing vessels divided into 3 homogeneous classes as early as 1660.24 During the Candian War, the Arsenal never stopped experimenting with new armament solutions for sailing ships, galleys, and galeazzas.

Venetian sail vessels in maintenance, after RossiCassigoli. Between 1668 and 1699, Venice launched 18 first class, 14 second class and 10 third class vessels. Each class was identified by dimension and armament. First class vessel carried 62 guns and 10/12 petrieri; second class had 48 guns and 10 petrieri, and third class 44 guns and 10 petrieri. Despite the initial investment was very high compared to the cost of a galley, subsequently a vessel required much lower funds in campaign respect the oared ships. Apart from the smaller number of crew members, the vessels offered major advantages for loading of troops and war materials. A secondclass ship could load up to 506 soldiers – including officers and 13 musicians between drums and fifes – plus 165 sailors, gunners, and picket of sentinels.

Despite the delayed development of the first ships, the Venetian war fleet could have been considered one of the largest in the world and probably the first in the Mediterranean. The coexistence of galleys and ships in the Venetian fleet has been interpreted in different ways. Today, scholars no longer consider old theories valid. Instead, they describe the passages from rowing to sailing and then steam – like a kind of Darwinian evolution

24 Recent studies have revealed an original Venetian tradition of large sailing vessel designs whichstarted in the early 17 th century, see Guido Candiani’s studies.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS applied to navigation. This traditional view originated from an alleged Mediterranean backwardness with respect to the northern European naval scenario, where sailing vessels occupied an undisputed primacy in the war fleets. The actual situation was very different. The Mediterranean, with its irregular winds, presented serious problems for large vessels, at least until ship and sailing technology overcame these limitations. Even the Venetian Arsenal’s seemingly backward vessel designs withstand the light of recent investigations which, on the contrary, demonstrate a scenario of fruitful experiments in all fields of shipbuilding and armament production.

The galley , 'the Queen of the Mediterranean', continued to represent the main framework of the Venetian fleet during the early part of the war against the Porte in the late 17 th century. The Venetian galley had two masts and lateen sails, with 24 to 27 oar banks. Galleys with more oar banks were designated a galea bastarda (bastard galley) and was usually reserved to the fleet commander. The ordinary galley needed at least 180200 oarsmen, 5060 sailors and technical personnel including officers, 10 artillerymen, and finally 48 scappoli – the infantry picket for sentinel duties. In favorable wind conditions, galleys could reach 78 knots. Their armament was concentrated in the bow, and a high caliber colubrine was placed at the end of the lane. Typically, Venetian galleys carried a 50 or 30 pound piece. A Venetian pound – the thin pound where 50 pounds corresponded to 32 ordinary pounds of the contemporary fleets – indicated the weight of the projectile. Alongside the large caliber piece, the forecastle usually bore four variable caliber guns plus other minor pieces, usually falconets. Their hulls were typically painted red, while some iconographic sources show that the CaptainGeneral’sbastard galley was painted black. From a technical standpoint, the Venetian galleys were much better than their opponents, and the innovations introduced during the Candian War allowed the Republic’s fleet to excel in all conditions.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The galeazza was a Venetian invention introduced at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, and other fleets, including the Ottomans, later imitated them. Galeazzas differed from galleys in size andthe presence of 2 castles, forward and aft, which significantly increased their heavy firepower. Galleazzas could have 32 to 46 oar banks and were able to carry up to 900 men, of which oarsmen represented threefifths. Their armament consisted of 22 artillery pieces, including a pair of 50 and 430pounders. Four of these large pieces were culverins, longer and more powerful than ordinary guns. In total, there were 6 culverins greater than 14 pounders, plus an additional 14 6, 20, and 30pounders with eight petrieri (a gun that shot stone projectiles) of smaller calibers. 8 pieces were placed on the aft: two culverins ranging from 14 to 30 pounders together with four 6 pounders. Like the galleys, the Venetian galeazza had a red hull, while the galeazza squadron commander’s vessel was painted black. Slower and more difficult to handle than the galleys, galeazzas performed very poorly during the 168499 war. After 1698, they were used for transport and escort duties, and they were finally excluded from the war fleet.

Oared ships had always proved excellent tools for naval wars in the Mediterranean. The oar offered agility, quality, and handling. These characteristics proved essential for campaigns along the coast, thus Venetian commanders hesitated to abandon a weapon that had always been considered useful for naval warfare. Moreover, a galley’s armament was considerable – especially in the forecastle where mounted pieces could shoot at a greater distance than the artillery of other vessels. Even more significant, the galeazza’s huge bow

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS guns could strike targets beyond 1,000 meters. Finally, the galley, with its shallow draft, was an excellent landing craft that was fully enhanced by Francesco Morosini during the Candian War. As the main architect of a spectacular series of amphibious actions, Morosini conquered the Peloponnese in only three campaigns. Although commanders tried to use the greatest possible care, the life of the oarsmen was to the limit of endurance. Besides risks arising from combat, the oarsmen were living in a small space and were constantly exposed to the elements and tormented by parasites, who according to many witnesses were present on each galley. Each bench housed three oarsmen that shared a lined leather mattress – on which they sat and slept – and two water barrels. Each bank was held accountable, and punishing fellow oarsmen from a deserter’s bench proved a simple way to impose discipline and prevent desertions.

Sailor in lookout duty after RossiCassigoli.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The title of Regulation written by Antonio Sala, from 1694 colonel of the regiment Veneto Real , for the direction of the landing troops. This document, drawn up following the experiences in war campaigns under Köngsmarck and Morosini, specifies the main norms concerning the amphibious operations. Morosini had successfully tested this type of action during the Candian War. In the conflict of 168499, he and his Generale dello sbarco count Otto von Köngsmarck, successfully achieved several landing operations, which allowed the Venetians to bypass and isolate the Ottoman fortresses in the Peloponnese . Galleys constituted excellent landing craft, while galeazzas and sail vessels provided fire support with their large calibre guns. This tactic anticipated features which the military science reinvented in the 20 th century. Among the major actions led by the Venetian commanders, it was remarkable the one occurred in July 1687, considered as their masterwork. Morosini and Köngsmarck planned a daring night landing at Patras who routed their opponents and led to the fall of the main Ottoman fortresses in the gulf.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Allied Fleet strength at the beginning of the sea campaigns 25 .

Fleets: 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 galleys 22 20 22 24 24 22 22 22 22 22 24 24 22 20 20 Venice galeazzas 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 sail ships 12 16 16 17 18 20 20 20 20 18 21 23 25 25 24

galleys 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 Malta sail ships 2* 2* 2* 3* 3* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Papal galleys 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 State sail ships 3 1 1 1 1 1

galleys 4 4 4 4 4 Tuscany sail ships 2* 2* 2* 2*

galleys 2 2 2 Genoa sail ships 2* 3*

* Included armed merchant vessels or transport ships.

25 Sources: ASVe: Senato, Mar ff. 123139; Nani Mocenigo: Storia della Marina Veneziana . 67

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Focus On: Warfare on the Sea during the Ottoman war of 1684-99

Naval battle of Mythilini, fought on 8 th September 1690. Note the squadrons of the Sail Fleet identified by the coloured pennant: red for the first squadron, blue for the second and gree for the third one.

The Candian War consecrated the Venetian fleet’s superiority over the Ottomans; however, the war ended with the loss of Crete and an even worse economic defeat. In contrast, Venice emerged victorious in the 168499 war, but none of the naval campaigns were recorded successes, especially when compared to the previous conflict. Indeed, on several occasions, the Ottomans prevailed, if not from the tactical point of view then certainly at the strategic level. No significant naval battles were recordedin the war’s early years, especially since the Ottoman fleet avoided such encounters as much as possible.26 The first major naval battles occurred during the 1686 campaign off the island of Naxos and in the Mytilini Channel. Three years later, major fighting occurred in the same waters, but once again, the Ottoman fleet managed to escape and avoided destruction. On that occasion, the Venetians only deployed sailing shipsfor the first time – just as the Ottomans had done in the first battle of 1686. Because of the enemy’s strong armament on the fore and aft, the sailing vessels

26 The Ottoman fleet’s only action was an attempted landing on Tinos in August of 1684, which was rejected by the island garrison.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS focused on defense, and these line tactics enabled them to prevail over the galleys. After the field army’s initial successes in the Peloponnese, the sailing fleet deployed to a different operational theatre from the oared fleet, and once again demonstrated the navy’s division that occurred in the Candian War’s final years. Francesco Morosini directed towards this choice. The light fleet focused on amphibious operations: one of the keys to success in previous campaigns. Meanwhile, the sailing fleet tried, with little success, to engage the weak but elusive Ottoman fleet in the Aegean. Supported by fortified ports on Chios and Rhodes, the Ottomans checked the Venetian fleet. Furthermore, Venetian commanders lacked logistical support and sometimes even the patience to implement long blockades like those carried out 30 years earlier in the Dardanelles. Nevertheless, the Ottoman fleet’s prudence did not help their army. Morosini and Königsmark repeatedly defeated Ottoman troops in the Peloponnese, but the Porte was able to save its navy until a more opportune time. A long expected victory attributed to the new sailing fleet never arrived, and this created bitter frustration across the Serenissima .27 The 1688 campaign involved siege operations at Negroponte. The sailing fleet assisted by carrying reinforcements to feed that frightening furnace, which, after a short time, consumed entire companies. The light fleet simultaneously engaged in coordinated operations with the field forces during the last assaults in September. The galleys performed a mock landing action to deceive the defenders, but without results. 28 On that occasion, artillery aboard the ships and galleys provided limited support to the Siege of Negroponte. These limitations largely derived from the fort’s location. During the Siege of Malvasia (today Monemvasia) in 1690, however, the vessels shelled the city, which resisted for 18 months. One year earlier, the death of the Commander of Sailing Ships, Lorenzo Venier, mortally wounded by a gunshot while directing the assault against the enemy port, halted the Venetian conquest of Malvasia. Devastation struck again in March 1690, when 2 Algerian and 10 Ottoman ships en route to Malvasia caused the loss of 2 Venetian vessels, including the Almirante Alessandro Valier among the fallen. The following September, the Venetians finally obtained a first success. The Captain of Sailing Ships Daniele Dolfin, with a squadron of just 12 vessel and 2 fire ships, managed to intercept an enemy convoy en route to Mythilini, escorted by 32 ships and 26 galleys. After the battle, the Venetians claimed few casualties, although Dolfin himself was seriously injured in the leg.

27 In the meantime, the Venetians had lost the first units in October 1684, when a storm off the coast of Skopelos in the Aegean had driven 2 vessels, the Costanza Guerriera and Venezia Trionfante , onto the rocks. This wreck killed almost the entire crew, including the commander Pietro Grimani. 4 years later, a blizzard caused 2 more vessels to sink off the isthmus of Corinth, which killed 400 crewmen including Almirante Zaguri. 28 Diedo, cited work, p. 411.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Franceso Morosini , portrayed as Doge by Nazzari in 1689. Not always the great Venetian commander had able substitutes, and except for Girolamo Cornaro, the CaptainGenerals who succeded to him achieved poor results. The sucession of the Capitani Generali da Mar during the war: 168488: Francesco Morosini; 1689: Girolamo Corner; 169092: Domenico Mocenigo; 1693 94: Francesco Morosini; 169495: Antonio Zeno; 169597: Alessandro Molin; 169899: Giacomo Corner.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The Ottomans lost at least 3 ships and 6 galleys, which sank during the night after the damages suffered in combat. The battle was a significant success, but the main strategic objective, namely the annihilation of the enemy naval forces, was not achieved. In combination with the exhaustion of the amphibious strategy in 1689, this frustration probably led to the fleet’s first joint operation in 1691. The combined offensive, which resulted in an exhausting and unsuccessful raid into the waters of Bozcaada, did not yield the expected results. The Ottoman fleet continued to evade confrontation. Furthermore, this operation brought the oared ships’ struggle to maintain formation and speed with the sailing vessels to light. Moreover, the galeazzas showed their inferiority in open water, especially in rough seas. The new sailing ships could exploit the wind more efficiently than previous designs and continued their slow but steady technological evolution. Meanwhile, galleys and galeazzas struggled to maneuver in the difficult conditions common to the northern Aegean.29 In 1692, the fleet resumed an ambitious, cooperative campaign to land in Chania on Crete that involved the sail and oared fleets. After the failure of the Siege of Negroponte and the conquest of Euboea, the Senate clearly expressed that this campaign could reclaim the kingdom lost in 1669 and simultaneously force the Ottoman fleet into a decisive battle. 30 This campaign also involved the Papal and Maltese fleets, which each rallied a sailing vessel to transport their landing troops. 12,000 foot soldiers, including many venturieri volunteers and 800 horsemen, boarded for the assault on Crete. The enterprise, however, was marred from the start by several incidents that involved all levels of command. A stark contrast exploded between CaptainGeneral Domenico Mocenigo and the Provveditore of the Peloponnese Antonio Zeno. The latter was suspended from duty and brought to trial in Venice and replaced by the Provveditore all’Armata Marino Michiel. This turnover deprived the Allied command of an effective and influential officer, which had negative consequences on the expedition’s outcome. The general overseeing the landing, the Austrian Trauttmansdorff, and the chief of engineers, Bartolomeo Camuccio, worked to blockade the city in vain. The troop desertion 31 and the crews’ indiscipline emphasized the CaptainGeneral’s weakness and poor organization. The defenders’ unexpected resistance – increasingly supported by frequent relief forces to Chania, losses in combat including

29 In summer, the Meltemi , blowing northerly winds, occur for most of the season. These conditions forced the fleets to tighten the edges and climb to the main Ottoman bases if they wanted to take the initiative. This situation was a disadvantage especially for the galleys, which were heavier and less manageable. See also in the work of Guido Candiani, cited work, p. 152 30 The other objectives proposed and voted by the Senate were Chios, Metelino, and a new assault against Negroponte. Apart from the last one, the other two were clearly identified as the key strategic points of Ottoman sea traffic. 31 Diedo, cited work, p. 449450. The Venetian historian specified that desertion was particularly high among French mercenaries, “who took salaries from Turkish service”.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS several brave officers, desertions, and news of an Ottoman invasion in Morea, convinced Mocenigo to convene a war council on July 17 th . This council decided if the siege should be abandoned after a mere 39 days from disembarkation.32 The Cretan expedition was the last major Venetian amphibious operation of the war. An assault on Chios two years later involved a smaller landing force and, above all, records do not indicate any major fighting. The turning point of Venetian naval warfare occurred in 1694. The Republic launched a second offensive with the complete fleet in hopes of attracting the Ottomans offshore to force them into adecisive clash. The Serenissima targeted the island of Chios, an important cornerstone of the Ottoman sea routes. Once the Republic conquered the island, the Porte immediately reacted, and the two fleets fought nine times up to 1698. Thus, the Aegean turned into theepicenter of naval warfare.33 The first two battles were fought off Chios, and, unexpectedly, the Ottomans prevailed. From both a strategic and tactical level, both episodes clearly outlined that cooperation between sailing ships, galleys, and galeazzas was too difficult. With the advent of new tactics, oared ships could not find a suitable place for their characteristics and ultimatelyhampered the sailing ships’ actions. In the absence of wind, galleys could haul sailing ships into battle position, but it was preferable to leave the water in such conditions. In a battle north of the Spalmadori islands on February 9 th , 1695, in the channel separating Chios from the Anatolian mainland,34 oared ships – the vanguard of the fleet – and sailing vessels fought separate battles. In this decisive episode, the Venetian Commander of Sailing Ships, Girolamo Priuli, headed north with his squadron of 21 vessels. Galleys hauled these ships to gain a windward advantage over the 16 Ottoman sultanas (sailing ships). The Ottomans designated 4 other vessels to combat the 5 Venetian galeazzas, and the Venetian galleys encountered 24 Ottoman galleys. Priuli, who had assumed his rank a few days earlier, prematurely ordered the rope to be cut, and only 5 ships arrived in position. The others remained cut off for much of the fighting. This error proved fatal to Priuli when he was killed on the flagship Stella Maris , which exploded together with 2 other vessels targeted by 6 enemy ships. The providential arrival of a sixth ship saved the 2 remaining units, which managed to exploit a favorable change of wind. While the sailing ships suffered a crushing defeat, the galleys fought an equally confusing, though less bloody, battle. Mortified, some galleys escaped from the fighting. Even the galeazzas obtained poor results. The galleys had to rescue them to deal with the 4 Ottoman sailing ships that engaged them in combat. Nevertheless, the galeazzas decisively repelled the Ottoman galleys’ onslaught in the battle’s final phase. The second encounter

32 The commanders of the Maltese and Papal fleets also attended the war council. The votes were split in half, and ultimately the CaptainGeneral opted for suspending operations and returning to Morea. 33 Guido Candiani, cited work, p. 152. 34 For this reason, the battle is recorded in Venetian sources as Spalmadori di Scio (Author’s note).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS happened 10 days later in the same channel, but south of the Spalmadori. The rough sea prevented the oared ships from participating in the battle, thus only the sail ships fought. The two fleets, deployed in line, made several attemptsto cut each other’s route, but neither side prevailed nor gained a windward advantage. Since the Venetians were too far away from their bases, however, they departed on February 22 nd towards their port for repairs. After hastily abandoning Chios, it returned to Ottoman possession. The Senate removed CaptainGeneral Antonio Zeno from his function and many officers were submitted to trial.35 Before the end of the year, tw more battles were fought in the Aegean. The first occurred on September 15 th , again in the waters south of Chios. The sea conditions prevented the oared ships from participating in the battle, but the sail squadron also suffered. The sailing vessels fought at a disadvantage since they simultaneously protected the galleys and galeazzas, which were in danger of being overwhelmed by the Ottomans. The encounter witnessed 27 Venetian ships, including 9 hired vessels, against 32 Ottoman. For 6 hours,they exchanged fire with poor results. The same pattern was repeated 3 days later at Mytilini. This time, however, the oared ships, increasingly unable to provide support due torough seas, managed to take cover. This left the water open for the sailing ships under Bartolomeo Contarini. The Venetian fleet was about to prevail, but the accidental explosion of a Venetian vessel put the team in disarray and caused the mercenary vessels to flee. The dangers that oared ships presented and their infrequent support in the encounters of 1695 fueled tension between the new CaptainGeneral Alessandro Molin, who in fact commanded only the light fleet, and the Commander of Sailing Ships Contarini. Even worse, in order for Molin to effectively exercise his role as commander in chief, the Senate denied him permission to direct from a sailing vessel. Thus, the Senate’s order allowed Contarini to act in full freedom and without having to worry aboutthe oared ships. Developments in technology and naval strategy ascribed sailing ships with a central role. Since Morosini maintained direct control of the sailing fleet in the first phase of the war, he procrastinated identifying and accounting for the gap accumulated by galleys and galeazzas with respect to the larger vessels. This also caused a political earthquake in Venice. The campaign’s unfortunate outcome was attributed to the oared ships, and many captains were suspended or jailed, which inflicted a decisive blow to the galleys’ prestige. Nonetheless, the government avoided the implied consequences of this change. Instead, it adhered to tradition. The CaptainGeneral continued to raise his insignia on a galley. This

35 10 sopracomiti and 1 ship's captain were removed from command. Both Provveditori all’Armata , Pietro Querini and Carlo Pisani, ended up in prison, along with the CaptainGeneral Antonio Zeno died in prison a year later before his trial ever took place. The same fate befell Pietro Querini. Nani Mocenigo: Storia della Marina Veneziana , Venice 1935, p. 289.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS fueled further internal conflict. While land operations languished, only the fleets conducted armed confrontations. In 1696, eager to end the fleet’s accumulated series of failures, Alessandro Molin devised a plan to attack the enemy fleet in the Aegean near the island of Andros, more sheltered waters near the Venetian bases in the Peloponnese. A landing in Beotia was planned to accompany this naval attack in July. In theory, the landing could destroy the Ottoman camp of Thebes which supported raid against Attica and Morea. Yet, news that the Ottoman fleet had been sighted within a day's sails uspended the landing. Instead, only the sailing ships deployed for battle. Clearly, the galleys no longer represented the main element of the war fleet. For several weeks, the two fleets maneuvered off the coast of Andros and unsuccessfully tried to attack with the advantage of wind. Finally, Molin with 6 galeazzas and 31 galleys, including 14 Papal and Maltese galleys and vessels, arrived on August 22 nd . After another fruitless day of fighting the Meltemi winds, the CaptainGeneral assumed control of the entire fleet. This prompted bitter resentment from Contarini, who had gained a windward position towards the enemy fleet the night before. The next day, however, the wind weakened and changed directions. This allowed the Ottoman fleet to move into an advantageous position. Molin ordered the oared ships to haul the sailing vessels further north to ensure the upper hand. He further irritated Contarini by using this opportunity to change the formation of the sailing ships. Although violently targeted by Ottoman ships, the galleys performed their task very well andhauled the ships around the head of the opposing fleet. Yet, the Ottomans reduced the distance between their ships and engaged their larger numbers against the Venetians. Perhaps due to the contrast between Molin and Contarini, the Republic’s fleet failed to do the same. Despite numerical inferiority, the Venetians valiantly responded to the enemy attack, and after a few hours, the Ottomans began to falter. Upon observing that the rigid tactic of the line and the lack of wind prevented other Venetian ships from engaging in battle, Molin brought the oared ships into action. The CaptainGeneral had already dispatched 6 galleys to the tail of the enemy formation, but unexpectedly, the powerful culverins were unable to inflict serious damage to the Ottoman ships, which were effectively protected by stern guns. Indeed, the galeazza had also lost its caliber advantage, the primary reason it had remained in service. Initially, the galleys’ action seemed to shift the battle’s outcome to the Venetian side. The oared ships assaulted the disordered line of Ottoman ships and repeatedly hit the hulls with their guns. Nevertheless, these enemy vessels were more powerful than those in the Candian War, and the galleys failed to damage these stronger hulls. After recovering the cohesion of the line, favorable winds allowed the Ottoman vessels to tack and withdraw without suffering serious damage. This battle sounded the death knell for the galeazzas, and the

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Senate asked to retireat least two of them. Even though the galleys had valiantly performed and came close to victory, ultimately, they proved unable to prevail over the enemy ships. The unsolved problems concerning the relationship between sailing ships and the light fleet came to a head again in 1697. Before the end of June, the Venetians decided to perform a deep attack by dispatching the fleet in front of the Dardanelles. The fleet consisted of 25 ships, 6 galeazzas, and 20 galleys. The Republic intended to repeat a blockade like the one in the 1650s. The Ottoman fleet, however, had anticipated them. On July 5 th , both fleets were sighted off the coast of Bozcaada and maneuvered into battle positions. Once again the Ottomans and the Venetians were prepared to fight with only their sailing ships. After a few skirmishes, the onset of darkness led Contarini to suspend the action. Compounded by difficult synchrony between the two fleets, the bitter rivalry between Molin and the Commander of Sailing Ships proved toxic for continued action. To make matters worse, a strong current hindered the clumsy galleys’ approach to the Ottoman line. By midnight, Molin asked Contarini to intercede between the galeazzas dangerously close to ending up in the midst of enemies and the Ottoman ships. The maneuver succeeded, but the Venetian ships lost the windward advantage. Despite efforts to maintain battle formations, on July 6 th , conditions forced Contarini to launch an attack to rescue the oared ships. This encounter, known as the Battle of Lemnos, lasted 10 hours and was a confused melee. The galleys tirelessly sought to cut the route of the enemy ships, but divided the Republic’s fleet in half. At the end of the battle, the Ottomans captured a galley. One week later, both the Venetian squadrons met off the island of Skyros in the western Aegean. The Battle of Lemnos was the last battle of the war that witnessed two fleets gathered together. Molin deemed the galeazzas as responsible for the failure. Finally, instead of ignoring the problems that the galleys caused, they were excluded from the battle fleet. Moreover, Molin was dismissed shortly afterwards, and the Armata Grossa fought the last two battles of the war without the presence of oared ships. The latter were sent to another theatre of war. The last clashes, fought on September 1st , 1698 in the waters of Andros and on September 20 th near Mytilini, ended with 2 modest tactical successes for the Venetians.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The last battle of Mythilini, fought on September 1698, is remembered for the Venetian fleet’s use of a new type of gun capable of firing explosive projectiles , designed by the artillery technician and caster Sigismondo Alberghetti .

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

The Austrian Light Infantry, 1792-1801 (part two) by András K. Molnár

Left: NCO of the Croatische (Gyulay) Frei-Corps (B2), 179298; right: private of the Lütticher Freiwillige-Corps (A7), 179498.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Leichte Infanterie (Light Infantry) Alongside the Jäger Corps , in the first war campaigns against revolutionary France, the Austrian army continued to use light infantry units formed by frontiersmen the Grenzer and other soldiers assembled in Frei Corps . The ongoing situation of uncertainty was the result of opposite addresses existing in the House of Austria’s army about light infantry and its employment. The traditionalist Austrian military school, influenced by the linear order doctrine and the cohesive role of the infantry, considered useless to have too much screens of troops. Light infantrymen could be employable at the most in disruptive actions as usual in the Klein Krieg , or as sharpshooters, and therefore the army’s command could turn to irregular corps, legions and other ad hoc units. However, in the last decade of the century, the growing demand for units trained to fight in skirmishing and open order, convinced the Habsburgs’ major staff to raise ‘regular units’ of light infantry. Following the intricate evolution of these corps, is possible to observe in retrospect the contrasting debate involving the different belief inside the Austrian command. So, while on the one hand, some officers wanted to continue the tradition, making use of units from the Militärgrenze the military border Free Ccorps or at most the Jäger , other officers were more oriented to form light infantry units organized as regiments line, following the French model. The compromise gave rise to the proliferation of units with different strength and composition and finally to the Leichte Bataillonen , whose reduced size of the strength constitutes a substantial prevalence of indigenous model than the foreign one. The first light Frei-Corps was formed in January 1790 by the Major, Count, Karl O’Donnell. This officer of Irish origin received the ‘Imperial Patent’ for recruiting in Galicia six infantry companies and one squadron of 200 horsemen. In 1798, this Frei-Corps originated the first Leichte Bataillon . In the same period, another light Frei-Corps was formed in Germany by Major von Milges, already officer of the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 48 . In the summer the units deployed a single battalion with six companies, increased one year later with a second battalion for 2,000 light infantrymen in overall. In 1798, the ‘Regiment’, now under the Oberstlieutenant D’Aspre , was disbanded for forming two Leichte-Batallionen . Since 1792, further six Frei-Corps were formed, each with different strength, which in 1798 formed all together the basis of the new Leichte-Bataillonen . After the Frei-Corps , the Austrian Major Staff turned to the Grenzer for assembling other adhoc units of light infantry. The emergency caused by the scarcity of light troops, especially in the northern Italian war theatre, finally persuaded Vienna to focus a more immediate solution, namely the transformation of Grenzer companies in regular units assembled in battalions.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Left: private of the O'Donnel Frei-Corps (A1), 179098; right: private of the Grün-Loudon Regiment (A2), 179098. Note the differences of equipment between O'Donnell and the heterogeneous one carried by GrunnLoudon. Both soldiers wear the singlebreasted uniform jacket for the infantry, introduced after 1767, with Hungarian cuffs. Even trousers are the same issued to the Hungarian infantry, although GrünLoudon shows customized embroideries.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

With volunteers from the regiments of the Slavonia’s Militärgrenze , was formed the Serbishes-Slavonishes Frei-Corps of 10 companies, for 1,300 men in overall. In the following autumn, though still incomplete, the unit ceded a Division 36 , to the Frei-Corps Gyulay , still undergoing training in Bihac, near the Bosnian border, completed with recruits and volunteers from the Croatian Militärgrenze . In 1792 another light Frei-Corps was formed with volunteers enlisted in the Transylvanian Grenz-Regiment . Before the end of 1793, a fourth Corps was raised with recruits of the Croatian Militärgrenze of Karlstadt; a fifth one was formed in the Banat and finally in 1798 a sixth and last in Hungary 37 . In 1798, with this composite – and chaotic group of light infantry units, were formed 14 Leichte Bataillonen , numbered 115 (number 8 vacant), each with a strength of six companies for 1.000 men in overall. These units were formed enlisting not only Croatian, Hungarian and Balkan recruits, but also German Freiwilligen and soldiers of other nationalities, including French émigrés. In one case a light battalion was completed with line infantrymen too, like occurred in 1798 with the Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 11 , formed with companies from the Frei Corps Anhalt-Zerbst 38 , originally composed by grenadiers. In 1799 the battalions increased to 17 and they were classified according the nationality: 5 CroatianHungarian; 2 German; 2 Galician; 2 Serbian; 1 French; 1 Italian; 1 Dalmatian Balkan; 2 of mixed nationality. After the peace of Luneville in 1801, all the light battalions were disbanded, leaving the Jäger as the only actual light infantry of the Austrian Hungarian army.

A) Frei-Corps of Light Infantry 39 A1) Frei-Corps O’Donnell The Kaiserlich Patent dated January 19th 1790, authorized the Major O’Donnell to form in Galicia a mixed corps of light infantry and cavalry, for 1.200 men in overall. In the following April, O’Donnel received the permission for recruiting a second battalion and another Uhlan Division 40 . In 1798 the infantry battalions were disbanded in Mainz. Officers, NCO and privates were amalgamated with companies from other units for completing the Leichte Bataillonen Nr. 1 and Nr. 12 .

36 Division or half battalion, namely 3 companies (Author’s note) 37 Both Transylvanian and GermanBanat Corps were later merged in other Grenzer units, while the Hungarian one was absorbed by an infantry regiment; see in Alphons von Wrede, Geschichte der K. und K. Wehrmacht , Wien 1898, Band II , p. 502 38 In 1790 the Prince Friedrich August von AnhaltZerbst raised two companies of infantry (grenadiers) and one Uhlan squadron as auxiliary corps for the Austrian Army. In 1797 the corps was transferred to the Habsburg’s service. Disbanded in 1798 for forming the Leichte Bataillon Nr. 11 . The Uhlans were merged in the Bussy Jager zu Pferde Regiment ; see in A. von Wrede, cited work, Band II , p. 450 39 These sheets are compiled after Alphons von Wrede’s Geschichte der K. u. K. Wehrmacht , Vol. II, and Johann Karger’s Die Entwicklung der Adjusterung, Rüstung und Bewaffnung der Österreichische- Ungarischen Armee, 1700-1809 , (manuscript). 40 In 1798 the cavalry were joined with the Uhlanen Frei-Corps Degelmann ; see in von Wrede, cited work, Band II , p. 443.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Commanders : Carl O’Donnell

Employed against the insurgency in the Austrian Low Countries since 1790. In 1792 the corps was in Brügge as garrison and after in Limburg. In 1793 fought at Tirlemont, at the siege of Valenciennes, conquest of Lannoy and other skirmish actions on the Lys River near Werwick and Cysoing; in these latter encounters the corps performed with valour. Assigned with the rear guard corps of the Austrian army in the Low Countries, the unit lost two companies after the surrender of Ypern in 1794. In 1795 both battalions marched to low Rhine; one year later they fought at Agger, Würzburg and finally assigned to garrison duty in Mainz until 1798.

Uniform (1792): black Csako-Mütze ; green Hungarian infantry style Jacket with ponceaurot facings; green Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

A2) Grün-Loudon Regiment Formed a day after the previous corps, this unit deployed 6 companies recruited in the Niederrheinisches Kreis , especially in Colon and Trier, under the command of a former line infantry regiment offier, the baron von Milges. He was later replaced by Major, later Colonel, Anton von Mylius of the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 11 . In the neighboring areas, another volunteer corps of light infantry still in formation was assigned to the unit. Increased to 2 battalion, the corps received the title of ‘Regiment’, assuming the denomination after the colours of the uniform and the name of Feldmarschall Loudon, to promote the enlistment for more volunteers. In summer 1798 the corps was disbanded for forming the Leichte Bataillonen Nr. 3 and Nr. 4 .

Commanders: Anton Milges von Gronefeld (1790); Anton von Mylius (1793); Constantin von D’Aspre (1794).

In 1790, the unit was sent in the Austrian Low Countries, where received the baptism of fire at Falmague against the Belgian insurgents. In 179192 the corps was in garrison in Termonde and Roermonde then, in Autumn, six companies marched to Courtray as reinforce for the town besieged by the French; a detachment fought at Roubaix. In 1793 the ‘regiment’ participated at the conquest of Denst, the encounters of Löwen and Poperinghe, and in winter at the defence of Commines. In 1795, after one year in garrison duty in several fortress of the Austrian Low Countries, the unit marched to Germany, assigned to the Ober-Rhein Armée ; fought at Meisenheim and Trippstädt. In 1796 the regiment was involved in the defence of Höllenpasses, where the commander, Obrist- Lieutenant D’Aspre, was seriously wounded. After five months as garrison in the Rhine theatre, in Summer 1797 the whole unit marched to InnerÖsterreich for reorganization.

Uniform (1796): black Csako- Mütze ; green Jacket with krapprot facings; green Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

A3) Legion Erzherzog Carl Formed in the Austrian Low Countries in 1792 with Flemish loyalist recruits 41 , as Limburger Freiwillige (volunteers). In 1794 was reorganized with a strength of two companies and finally disbanded in 1798 into the Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 2 and Nr. 14 .

Commanders: Count of Harnaucourt

Initially quartered in Luxembourg, in 1794 the units fought at Verviers and in 1795 in the

41 To be not confounded with the second legion raised in BoemiaMoravia as Jäger Corps , mentioned in the previous article of this series in the issue 8 of History and Uniforms .

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS assault against the French entrenchments of Mainz. In 1796 the unit was involved in the encounter at Aschaffenburg; transferred in Tyrol was finally quartered in early 1798 in Innsbruck.

Uniform (1796): black Kasket , hechtgrau jacket and trousers, carmine red facings, brass buttons.

Left: Obrist-Feldwebel , Frei-Corps Carneville (A5), 179398; right: private of the Legion Rohan (A6), 179498. Note the Jäger rifle for the noncommissioned officer of FreiCorps Carneville and the uniform of French and Hungarian composite style.

A4) Legion Bourbon Raised in spring 1793 with French ‘loyalist’ soldiers who had served in the Austrian Low

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Countries under Dumouriez 42 . The corps was formed by four light infantry battalions, one dragoon and one hussar squadron. The Legion was disbanded in Tyrol in early 1798, and the infantrymen merged in the Leichte Battaillonen Nr. 2 and Nr. 14.

Commanders : Jean Isidor de Ruault

Garrison duties in the Austrian Low Countries until 1794, in 1795 the legion was transferred to the Ober-Rhein Armée .

Uniforms (1793): black Kasket , white Austrian line infantry style jacket and trousers, dark blue facings, tin buttons.

A5) Frei-Corps Carneville Formed in the Austrian Low Countries in March 1793 by the French émigrés with a strength of two companies of infantry, two companies of Jäger and one Division of hussars. Disbanded in 1798; the infantry was assigned to the Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 11 and the Jäger to the Niederländisches Jäger Corps 43 .

Commanders : Georges Simon de Carneville

The unit fought against the insurgents at Maubeuge in 1793, then in 1794 was involved in the defence of Dinant, in the battle of Charleroi and in the encounter of Liege. In 1795 the whole corps was transferred to the medium Rhine; in 1796 participated at the encounters of Limburg, Amberg and Giessen.

Uniforms (1793): black peakless Csako , green French style jacket with black lapels and facings; white waistcoat; green Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

A6) Legion Rohan Formed in 1794 in the Austrian Low Countries with French émigrés and Walloon volunteers. In early 1795 the Legion deployed a strength of one infantry regiment with 12 companies and one hussar regiment with 6 and half squadrons. Disbanded in 1798, the infantry was assigned the Leichte Bataillonen Nr. 2 and 14.

Commanders : Louis Victor, Prince de RohanGuéméné (Legion); Victor de Rohan Guéméné (infantry regiment)

In 1795 the infantry was transferred in Braunschweig as Austrian quote to the Reichs- Contingent . On May 1797 the whole Legion returned in Austrian service and marched to Tyrol.

Uniform (1797): black Kasket , single breasted skyblue jacket with hig collar; ponceaurot facings; white trousers; brass button.

A7) Lütticher Freiwillige-Corps Raised in 1794 by the PrinceBishop of Liege, with a strength of 4 companies assembled in one single battalion and then transferred to the Habsburgs’ army in 1797. Disbanded in 1798 and merged with the Leichtes Batallion Nr. 11

Commanders : Johann Franz von Wasseige

42 General Charles François du Périer, known as Dumouriez or Du Mouriez (17391823). 43 See the part one of this series of articles in History & Uniforms issue 8.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

In 1795 the unit participated at the conquest of the French field defences on the Neckar River.

Uniform (1797): black Kasket ; skyblue jacket and trousers; krebsrot facings; tin buttons.

- B) Grenzer-Corps of Light Infantry

Drawing by anonymous artist depicting a NCO of Serbisch-Slavonisches Frei-Corps (B1), 1792 98. Note the distinctive cane, the headgear’s lace, and the Jägerstützen rifle mod. 1769, issued to the noncommissioned officers of the Grenzer corps. With a few exceptions, Free Corps and the other light infantry units performed very poor in campaign, persuading the Habsburg’s command to dismiss these corps to raise more homogeneous equipped and trained units.

B1) Serbisch-Slavonisches Frei-Corps Raised in March 1792 by the Grenz-Oberst Stiepan Mihaljevich with volunteers form frontier regiments 7, 8 and 9. In 1792 received recruits from the disbanded

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Siebenbürgische-Walachisches Frei-Corps . In winter 179394 deployed 2 battalions for 1.300 men in overall. In November 1792, the units transferred a Division to the newly formed Gyulai Frei-Corps (see B2). Disbanded in early 1798 for forming Leichte Bataillonen Nr. 5 and Nr. 15.

Commanders : Stiepan Mihaljevich (1796); Johann Branovacky (1797); Ludwig Daniel.

In summer 1792, the first battalion marched to the Austrian Low Countries against the insurgents, participating to the conquest of Huy; encounters at MaubeugeMaisonrouge, Bassuyan and other minor skirmish actions. The second battalion joined the Corps in early 1794: battle of Landrecies. Transferred to the Rhine front, the whole corps took part in the defence of Mainz; in 1795 participated to the assault against the French field defences at Mannheim. The Corps remained in the Rhine arear and in 1797 it took part in the operations near Kehl.

Uniform (1798): black Csako-Mütze (peakless shako); brown Hungarian infantry style Jacket with ponceaurot facings; azureblue Hungarian trousers; tin buttons.

Ignácz Gyulai Maros-Nèmeth de Nádaska (17631831), future president of the Austro Hungarian Hofkriegsrat .

B2) Croatische (Gyulay) Frei-Corps Formed in November 1792 in Croatia; in summer 1793 received recruits from the disbanded Deutsch-Banater Frei-Corps ; increased to five battalions in the winter 179596. After suffered several casualties in the campaigns, in the Autumn 1796 the corps was reorganized in two battalions with the released war prisoners exchanged with the French. A third battalion followed in Mai 1797. Disbanded in 1798 for forming the Leichte Bataillonen Nr. 6, Nr. 7, Nr. 9 , Nr. 10 and Nr. 13 .

Commanders : Ignaz Gyulai MarosNèmeth de Nádaska.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

In 1793 two battalions marched to the Rhine war theatre; this Abtheilung was known as Löwenburgishes and later Machovacs’sches Frei-Corps , after the commanders’ name. Defence of BienWaldes; conquest of the Weissemberger line; encounter at Reichsfelden and other minor fighting; in these actions the corps’ commander Gyulai distinguished himself and received the Maria Theresia Order medal. In 1794 fought at Kaiserslautern, then in 1795 took part at the encounters of Trippstadt and Schopp. Transferred to the von Werneck army corps in the High Rhine area, the corps fought at the encounters of Willstädt, Renchen, Weingarten, battle of Bibersbach and siege of Kehl. In 1797 the corps marched to Friuli to join the Italian Abtheilung . The second section, known as Zuhlehner Frei-Corps , marched to Piedmont in 1793: defence of the Col de l’Argentére; in 1794 was transferred to Lombardy. In 1795 the Italian Abtheilung increased to three battalions: encounters of Riviera, Monte Settepani, Rocca Barbena and Loano. In 1796 was involved in the defence of Cessaria; in November deployed two battalions while, in spring 1797, the newly raised third battalion was quartered in Mantua.

Uniform (1798): black Csakelhaube ; brown Hungarian infantry style Jacket with ponceaurot facings; azureblue Hungarian trousers; brass buttons; red leather equipment; natural grey wool Roquelaure cloak for officer, and red for NCO and private soldiers.

The sixth figure from left is probably the only iconographic source existing of the Frei-Corps von Wurmser , here in a Swiss print dated 1796, depicting the various Austrian army units (Author’s Archive)

B3) Frei-Corps Wurmser Formed in May 1793 with volunteers from Carlstädter and Banal Grenze with two infantry battalions and two hussars squadrons. The corps soon known as Rothmäntler (red cloaks) recruited also Serbian refugees who had left the villages under Ottoman rule. Disbanded in early 1801 and merged in the Grenzer regiments.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Commanders : Johann Knezevich (1796); Pal Esterházy (1798); Carl Woestenroedt (1800); Ignaz Kengyel.

In 1793 the corps marched to Germany; assault of Landau and Weissemburger line, then in 1794 assigned to the garrison of Mainz. In 1795 took part in the fighting at HartBerges near Mainz, Höchst and for the relief of Mainz. Conquest of Neuwied in 1796 and garrison in Mainz in 1797. High casualties in the High Rhine campaign of 1799. In 1800 fought at Mösskirch and an der Ilter, Haag and Schwannestadt.

Uniform (1798): black Csako-Mütze ; dark blue Hungarian infantry style Jacket with ponceaurot facings; red or dark blue Hungarian trousers; tin buttons; red cloak.

Frei-Corps and Legions, 179098; jacket of the Infantry uniform mod. 1767: a) O’Donnell Frei-Corps (A1); b) Legion Erzherzog Carl (A3); c) Legion Rohan (A6); d) Csako-Mütze for Officer and private; e) Kaskett ; f) sabre, bayonet and ammonition pouch.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

C) Leichte Bataillonen

Officers of the Leichte Bataillonen Nr. 1 and Nr. 6 ; 1800; after Tranquillo Mollo’s Abbildung der Neuen Adjusterung der K. und. K. Armee . They wear the 1798 uniform with Hungarian pattern jacket with pointed cuffs of the and trousers with blackyellow Hungarian knot and piping.

C1) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 1 Galician unit. Formed in 1798 with one battalion from O’Donnel Frei Corps (A1). Disbanded in 1801 and merged in Infanterie Regiment Nr. 63 and in the Garnison Regiment Nr. 2 .

Commanders : Alessandro Strozzi.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

1798 in Bayern. The following year took part to the campaign in Switzerland; fightings near Winterthur, battle of Zurich and defence of Altstädten. In Tyrol by the spring 1800.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with krapprot facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

C2) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 2 French Émigrés unit, uniformed as German. Raised in 1798 with one battalion of the Legion Rohan (A6) and one company each of the Legion Erzherzog Karl (A3) and Bourbon (A4). Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 63 .

Commanders : Charles de Rohan.

Garrison in Venice, in 1799 with the army of Italy: conquest of Rocca d’Anfo and Ivrea; later employed for the surveillance of the Savoy’s border; defence of the little Saint Bernard. In 1800 was assigned to the von Kaim’s army corps in Piedmont: fought at Marengo.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau jacket and trousers; krapprot facings; tin buttons.

Infanterie Gewehr mod. 1784 , ordinance musket issued to the Grenzer units, FreiCorps and Leichte Bataillonen .

C3) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 3 German unit. Formed in 1798 with one battalion of the Grün-Loudon Regiment (A2). Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 44.

Commanders : Carl Am Ende (1799); Johann Nepomuk von Bach (1800); Wenzel von Watlet.

Garrison in Venice until 1799; assigned to army of Italy: siege of Ferrara and Defence of Mantua. In 1800 fought at the Riviera of Genoa and Marengo.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau jacket and trousers; ziegelrot facings; brass buttons.

C4) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 4 German unit. As the previous, it was formed with one battalion of the Grün-Loudon Regiment (A2). Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 13 .

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Commanders : Johann Nepomuk von Otto (1799); Carl Am Ende (1800); Otto von Kirchberg. Garrison duty in Venice. Assigned to the army of Italy in 1799: conquest of Mirandola, siege of Ferrara, encounters of Modena and Rapallo, where suffered high casualties. Assigned in 1800 to the von Ott’s army corps: fought at the Riviera of Genoa and Marengo, then garrison duty in Venice.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau jacket and trousers; ziegelrot facings; tin buttons.

Private soldiers of the Leiche Bataillonen Nr. 4 (German) and Nr.13 (CroatianHungarian), 1800; after Tranquillo Mollo.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

C5) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 5 Serbian unit. Formed with a battalion of the Serbisch-Slavonisches Frei-Corps (B1) . Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 2 , Nr. 31 , Nr. 32 , Nr. 33 , Nr. 53 and Nr. 60 .

Commanders : Paul von Radivojevich.

Since 1798 in Bayern as garrison. In 1799 assigned to the Army in Germany; encounter of Stockau, then to the defence of the bridgeheads on the Rhine. In 1800 took part at the encounters near Offenburg, Engen and Kremsmünster.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with orangeyellow facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

C6) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 6 CroatianHungarian unit. Formed in Germany with the Machovacs’sches Abtheilung of the Gyulai Frei-Corps (B2) and recruits from Hungary. Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 33, Nr. 60 and in the Deutsch-Banater Grenz Infanterie Regiment Nr. 12 .

Commanders : Carl von Trauttenberg.

In 1798 in Bayern. In 1799 marched to Tyrol: encounter of Taufers; retreat in Engadine; battle of Saint Gotthard. In 1800 assigned to the Vukassovich Division in Arona; fought at Turbigo; defence of Mantua and encounter of Ospedaletto. in 1801 in Koper as garrison.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with orangeyellow facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; tin buttons.

C7) Leichtes Bataillon Nr.7 CroatianHungarian unit. Formed with the Italian Abtheilung of the Gyulai Frei-Corps (B2) and completed with Hungarian recruits. Disbanded in1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 39, Nr. 48 and Nr. 84 .

Commanders : Wilhelm Ludwig Otto (1799); Johann Schmelzern von Wildmansegg.

Assigned to the army of Italy in 1799: fought at Bosco, Casina Grossa and Fossano. Transferred to the Elsnitz army corps in 1800: took part at the encounters of Riviera of Genoa, the incursion in Provence, where suffered heavy casualties during the retreat; battle of the Mincio River and skirmish of Cotignola.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with stahlgrün facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

C8) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 9 CroatianHungarian unit. Formed in 1798 in the Rhine war theatre with a battalion of the Gyulai Frei-Corps (B2). Disdbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 48 .

Commanders : Carl Greth (1800); Franz von Siegenfeld.

By the early of 1799 garrison duty in Tyrol; assigned to the Brigade Strauch in Valtelline: encounter of Martarello. Transferred to the Vukassovich Division, fought at Turbigo and to the defence of the Tonale pass.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau jacket with crimson red facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

C9) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 10 CroatianHungarian unit. Formed in Italy with a battalion of the Gyulai Frei-Corps (B2). Disbanded in 1810 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 39 and Nr. 48 .

Commanders : Franz von Siegenfeld (1800); Carl Greth.

In Venice as garrison by the end of 1798. In 1799 took part in the expedition against Brescia; conquest of Rocca d’Anfo, battle of Saint Gotthard and campaign in the Wallis; heavy casualties during the retreat from Switzerland. Garrison duty in the Milanese and later in Tyrol.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with dark blue facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; tin buttons.

C10) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 11 Mixed unit, uniformed as German. Formed in 1798 with two companies each from the Carneville (A5), Lüttisches (A7) and Anhalt Zerbst Frei-Corp , and completed with Italian recruits from Veneto. Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 39 and 48 and in the Garnison Regiment Nr. 1 .

Commanders : Georges Simon Carneville.

Garrison duty in Tyrol since 1798. In 1799 took part at the campaign in Valtelline: conquest of Tirano and Morbegno, minor actions in Switzerland. In 1800, assigned to the Division Vukassovich in the Army of Italy, then garrison duty in the Milanese.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau jacket and trousers; dark blue facings; brass buttons.

C11) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 12 Galician unit. Formed in Italy with a battalion of the O’Donnel Frei-Corps (A1). Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 38 and in the Garnison Regiment Nr. 2.

Commanders : Johann Rubenitz (1800); Ernst Steigentesch.

By the end of 1798 in Bayern. Battle of Stockach, conquest of Shaffhausen and encounters of Hetlingen and Andelfingen. In 1800 took part in minor actions in Swabia, then in Bayern: encounter of Schwanstadt.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with stahlgrün facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

C12) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 13 CroatianHungarian unit. Formed in Italy with soldiers from the Gyulai Frei-Corps (B2) and completed with Hungarian recruits. Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 52 .

Commanders : Joseph von Munkátsy (1801); Theophil von Zechmeister.

Garrison in Tyrol since 1798. Campaign in the Engadine in 1800: encounter of Süs, battle of Saint Gotthard and minor actions in the Ursener valley and near Wasen. Transferred to the Army of Italy: assault to Bocchetta, blockade of Bondeno and encounter of Finale

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Emilia.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with sulphur yellow facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

C13) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 14 Mixed Italian, Walloon and French émigrés unit, uniformed as German. Formed with a battalion of the Legion Rohan (A6) and one company of the Legion Erzherzog Carl (A3); completed with Italian recruits. Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 63.

Commanders : Louis Victor, Prince de RohanGuéméné (1801); Conrad von Reichenstein.

Garrison duty in Venice since 1798. By 1799 in South Tyrol: conquest of Rocca d’Anfo; assigned to Army of Italy: encounter of Verderio, then in Switzerland: battle of Saint Gotthard and Simplen, where the commander, the Obrist Prince de Rohan, distinguish himself for valour in several actions. Assigned to the Vukassovich Division in 1800: minor skirmish actions in Piedmont and South Tyrol.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau jacket and trousers; black facings; tin buttons.

C14) Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 15 Serbian unit. Formed in 1798 with the second battalion of the Serbisch-Slavonisches Frei- Corps (B1) and completed with recruits from Croatia, Slavonia and LowHungary. Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 53 .

Commanders : Bonaventura Mihanovič

Garrison duty in Neustadtl in Crain since 1798. Transferred in South Tyrol in 1799: expedition against Brescia, battle of Cassano, encounter of Verderio, battle on the Trebbia River. Transferred to the von Ott army corps in 1800; encounter of the Riviera of Genoa, battle on the Mincio River.

Uniform (1798): hechtgrau Hungarian style jacket with black facings; hechtgrau Hungarian trousers; brass buttons.

C15) Italienisches Leichtes Bataillon (Nr. 16) Raised in 1799 enlisting former Piedmontese soldiers. Disbanded in 1801 and merged in thje Infanterie Regiment Nr. 44 .

Commanders : Giovanni Giuseppe Buonaccorsi

Garrison duty in Mantua since 1799. Transferred to Gradisca in 1801.

Uniform (1799): dark blue jacket and trousers, red facings, tin buttons.

C16) Dalmatisches Leichtes Bataillon (Nr. 17 ) Raised in 1799 with former oltramarine soldiers in Venetian service and completed with Montenegrine and even Turkish recruits. Disbanded in 1801 and merged in the Infanterie Regiment Nr. 44

Commanders : Dominik Ertel.

By 1799 Garrison duty in Ancona.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Uniform (1800): Austrian infantry black leather Helm ; a part in Venetian Oltramarine uniform and the other part in Turkish style dress.

Leichte Bataillonen 17981801: a) jacket of the ‘Hungarian’ uniform of 1798, Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 6; b) jacket of the ‘German’ uniform, Leichtes Bataillon Nr. 11 : private and musician; c) leather helmet for Leichte Bataillonen ; d) trousers for the ‘German’ uniform; e) trousers for the ‘Hungarian’ uniform.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Forgotten Fronts of WWI The Not-Cordiale Strategy in the Balkans, 1916 (part two) by Oleg. R. Airapetov

Analysis of the situation of the Bulgarian Home Front Considering the difficulties of the inner situation in Bulgary and the unwilling war operations between Russians and Bulgarians, persuaded Alekseev to take responsibility for preparations of a coup in Bulgaria 44 . The project was discussed with Sazonov and the necessary resources concentrated in the area. The idea to change the political orientation of Sofia was considered with great interest by Alekseev, because if the goal was succesfully achieved, it would make unnecessary to negotiate with Turkey and still neutral Romania 45 . Sazonov attitude to the project was a critical one he did not believe Bulgarian ruling classes had sympathies for Russia but he gave his principal agreement to Alekseev 46 . At regard of the Rumanian Army, Hindenburg remembered: “Judging on the common military situation, it could be said, that it was enough for Romania to enter in the war to decide it in favour of those who fought against us. Nowhere it was understood more clearly than in Bulgaria, where were afraid of this most of all. Bulgarian government did not soon

44 Constantinopolis and the Passes... М.1925.V.1. P.216. 45 Ibidem. 46 Ibidem, PP. 218219.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS desiderate to take part in the war (against Romania) 47 ”. Hindenburg said that the most dangerous RussoRumanian offensive in the south, combined with the AngloFrench one in Macedonia, could cut Bulgaria from Germany or even break communications with Turkey 48 .

Turkish prisoners under the surveillance of Rumanian infantryman, Ditrau 1916.

In spring 1914, William Knox – the British attaché in Russia thought that in case of war Romania could gather 400,000 field army. Mobilization in the second Balkan war gave good results: it begun on June 3rd , and in seven days Rumanians entered in campaign 49 . However, it was true, the army quality was never practically tested in action. Later estimations of German high command (Ludendorf) 50 and field army officers (Erwin Rommel) proved the courage of the Rumanian soldier, though Rommel noted the Rumanian resistance in campaign increased considerably thanks to Russian reinforcements. In fact, the German Ninth Army successes were achieved at cost of high casualties 51 . General

47 Wospominania Gindenburga. М.1922. P.21./Hindenburg memoirs. 48 Ibidem. 49 PRO. FO. 371 Russia files 1903519228, 1914. P. 337. 50 E. Ludendorf, Op.cit. М.1923. V.1. PP.227229 51 E. Rommel, Infantry Attacks; London. 1990. P.95

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

Gourko Alekseev’s deputy during his illness since 23 rd November 1916 also considered Rumanian soldiers as brave but illtrained. Amongst Rumanian army weak, Gourko specially pointed on the poor quality of war material and artillery 52 . One of the leading Russian military intelligence specialist of the region, colonel Samoilo, who visited Bucharest in 1915, also pointed on poor quality of the Rumanian generals 53 . Ludendorf estimated Rumanian army man power 750,000 54 , in reality it consisted of 860,000 trained recruits, of which only 700,000 employed by the field army: 23 infantry and 2 cavalry divisions 55 . Knox figures were based on the experience of 1913, when 97,000 Rumanian peace time army was mobilised into 382,000 field army. Without doubts: Romania was not prepared for such an offensive: as the German military attaché colonel von Hammerstein said: “just it (the offensive) fatally weakened a good small army”56 . During the autumn battles Hammerstein’s words were soon proved. Rommel described how in the fighting of Gagesti in early January 1917 a Rumanian company surrendered to a few German soldiers 57 . Quality of the command personnel, especially of generals was rather poor, in spite of the fact that the majority of them had received the military education in Germany 58 . Knox noted: “Probably the feeling among the higher ranks of the army is proGerman. There at present (spring 1914) 50 Bulgarian officers at St. Petersburg and a considerable number of Serbs and Montenegrins cadets were completing their higher education in the various military academies. No Rumanian officers come to Russia, and it is believed that such of them as go abroad are sent to Germany.” About half of the field artillery (1,300 guns) was obsolete, but 760 guns were quite modern, produced in Germany, France and Great Britain 59 . By February 1916 general Alekseev did not want Romania to enter in war. Buchanan telegrammed to Foreign Office: “I understand from Monsieur de Sazonoff that General Alekseev is not anxious that Rumanian army took the field at present as he rather doubts its value as a fighting force and he cannot yet afford to lengthen the front without seriously weakening it other points.” 60 This fear is not surprising. On Febrary and April 1916, Alekseev was getting information through HanburyWilliams about the danger of the German offensive on St. Petersburg. It was not only Robertson’s opinion, but also Joffre’s

52 B. Gourko Memories and impressions of war and revolution in Russia 19141917. London. 1918. P.192. 53 A. A. Samoilo, Dve zhizni. M.1958; P.150. 54 E. Ludendorf,cited work, P.195. 55 P. J. Haythornthwaite, The World War One; London, 1996; P. 280. 56 Ibidem. 57 E. Rommel, cited work, P. 103. 58 PRO. FO. 371 Russia files 1903519228, 1914. P. 337. 59 P. J. Haythornthwaite, cited work, p. 337. 60 PRO. FO. 372877. Roumania and Russia files 79523170. 1916. №218.

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS one 61 . Together they advised to pay less attention to the Southern direction 62 . Alekseev’s position was clear he could not rely on the cooperation with the Allies on the Balkans. There are the extracts from Robertson letter to HanburyWilliams, dated 16 February 1916: “The point is that we cannot possibly help Russia from Tessalonika. There are some 30 hostile divisions between Thessalonica and Rumania; 300 miles of mountains, one single and bad railway and no roads, and we are frightfully hard put for sea transport. From every point of view to attempt anything big in the Balkans would be the height of folly. You really must do all you can to bring this home to Alexeieff.” 63 And another one: “I look to you to do your very best to show to these Russians that operations through the Balkans are impossible.”

Alekseev’s attention was drawn mainly to the Carpathian sector of the AustroRussian front. He had opposed the war with Bulgaria, and he could accept this idea only on the condition that the campaign against Bulgaria would be simultaneous with the offensive from Thessalonica and the creation of an united allied command, at least on the Rumanian front. There is no doubt these conditions were reasonable, but I cannot say that Alekseev considered the allied support actively. I think that Allied and Rumanian resistance suited

61 Liddell Hart Centre for military research, Robertson, I/35/57c; I/35/56a. 62 Ibidem, I/35/57C. 63 Ibidem I/35/57D

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS him to refuse the plan of invasion in Bulgaria. Thus his attention turned to the Carpathians, where the Russian offensive was diving, and it was absolutely logical. He had nothing but to hope that the Rumanian army would open the passes: the way to the Hungarian plain. There is an explanation of that traditional point of view on Bulgaria as the future Russian partner and ally on the Balkans, and estimation of AustroHungary as the weakest state of the Central Block.

As early as the 19th century, the diverging interests of the Great Powers as well as the local ethnic conflicts made the Balkans a region that echoed international crises and that provoked the threat of war. The First Balkan War of 1912/13 exemplifies a previous climax in this unrest, which had brought Europe to the brink of a great war. These events received great attention among the public from all over the world. However, the Balkan League split in two during the conflict over the conquered Ottoman areas, when Bulgaria was defeated by their former allies in the Second Balkan War. For both sides, especially in the Balkan theater of war, the First World War clearly adopted the character of a widespread coalition war. In their combat together, the Germans, Austrian Hungarians, Bulgarians and Turks not only opposed Serbians and Romanians, but also an army composed of British, French, Italians, Russians and Greeks as well as colonial soldiers from Australia, Indochina and Africa. Similar to the Entente side, the Central Powers’ alliance was equally characterized by successful cooperation as by continuing conflict. With an increasing duration of war, however, the alliance became more fragile so that the sworn union, displayed for instance on propaganda postcards and novels, was further challenged by oppositional war objectives (Redational).

#H ISTORY &UNIFORMS

BOOK REVIEWS

Pinto, Alexandre; Calçada, José; Silva, Paulo: A cavalaria na Guerra Peninsular (The Cavalry in the Peninsular War); Tribuna de Historia, 2009, 152 p., ill., ann,. Bibl., ind,. ISBN 9789898219015; Euro 27,50. After the first French invasion(1807),Marshall Junot decided to disband the units of the Portuguese Army. Their late reorganization, following the 1808 uprising against the occupying forces, had to match with significant difficulties, especially with regard to the cavalry regiments, as almost all the indispensable elements – personne, horses, weaponry, and other equipment – were scarce. This book describes the slow process to assemble the necessary means, the training of the troops, and their later engagemen in the Allied military operations, of which the authors emphasize the extraordinary cavalry charge conducted by the regiments 1 st , 7 th and 11 th during the battle of SalamancaArapiles of July 22 nd , 1812. (CP)

The Best on the Net A guide to the best websites of military history and uniformology.

Among the site devoted to the ancient military discipline, these excellent Italian pages represent a very good approach to the matter. http: //www.ilcerchiodiferro.it/ The ancient fencing with all its links to the world of the reenactment, has here a very well managed and regularly updated website. It is to note the remarkable list of links to download some interesting digital treaty concerning the practice of duel throughout the ages. (Redational)

100