g.willikers
New member
"Mosby's Rangers", by Jeffrey Wert is an excellent read.
Civil War Then & Now:
- Thread starter 10851Man
- Start date
Sharpshooters were often used as expert skirmishers. In some cases, "sharpshooters" were used as part of the line of battle. It was, after all, seen as just another onerous task that almost any infantryman could perform.
In the Union, there were both formal and informal ad-hoc sharpshooter units. Included in the former were regiments, battalions and companies that met the War Department's qualification for sharpshooting. This would include Berdan's Sharp Shooters, First Michigan Sharp Shooters, First New York Battalion Sharp Shooters, First Maine Battalion Sharp Shooters, etc. The latter were units raised in the field and manned by reputable (for the most part) marksmen who were detached from their parent organization and temporarily assigned to the ad-hoc command. There are numerous examples of this in both the Union Armies and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
The Confederacy didn't have marksmanship qualifications. They had five methods of selecting men for sharpshooters. Not all of them yielded the most qualified candidate for the job either. Go here for an article on it: http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv9i1s1.htm
Not everyone who was an expert marksman joined a sharp shooter unit. The core of any regiment or battalion either North or South was a community based company. Folks enlisted with their brothers, fathers, uncles, co-workers, school mates, nephews, neighbors, friends, etc. They were loathe to part company to join a special unit of sharp shooters that was composed of strangers. Thus it could be found in most units a soldier who was a proficient marksman. That soldier would be called upon at times for a special task. "Take out that officer."
A few exceptional soldiers had access to "telescope target rifles," the period's vernacular for scoped rifles. Soldiers equipped with these often got to select their own spot on the battlefield. Sometimes they would be given special tasks like removing an enemy sharp shooter who was harassing their side.
Mind you, possession of such a weapon does not automatically make one a sharp shooter. In my own research, I have found one instant where a soldier wanted one to stay out of the charges. In another, one soldier bought one so he could play sharp shooter and avoid his normal duties as an infantryman.
Noted author of sniping history and former Curator of the Royal Armoury Museum at Leeds (UK), Martin Pegler wrote an article on the Corn-fed Sharp Shooters. We have corresponded with each other in the past. http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Articles/History/Confederate%20Sharpshooters/Confederate%20Sharpshooters.html
In the Union, there were both formal and informal ad-hoc sharpshooter units. Included in the former were regiments, battalions and companies that met the War Department's qualification for sharpshooting. This would include Berdan's Sharp Shooters, First Michigan Sharp Shooters, First New York Battalion Sharp Shooters, First Maine Battalion Sharp Shooters, etc. The latter were units raised in the field and manned by reputable (for the most part) marksmen who were detached from their parent organization and temporarily assigned to the ad-hoc command. There are numerous examples of this in both the Union Armies and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
The Confederacy didn't have marksmanship qualifications. They had five methods of selecting men for sharpshooters. Not all of them yielded the most qualified candidate for the job either. Go here for an article on it: http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv9i1s1.htm
Not everyone who was an expert marksman joined a sharp shooter unit. The core of any regiment or battalion either North or South was a community based company. Folks enlisted with their brothers, fathers, uncles, co-workers, school mates, nephews, neighbors, friends, etc. They were loathe to part company to join a special unit of sharp shooters that was composed of strangers. Thus it could be found in most units a soldier who was a proficient marksman. That soldier would be called upon at times for a special task. "Take out that officer."
A few exceptional soldiers had access to "telescope target rifles," the period's vernacular for scoped rifles. Soldiers equipped with these often got to select their own spot on the battlefield. Sometimes they would be given special tasks like removing an enemy sharp shooter who was harassing their side.
Mind you, possession of such a weapon does not automatically make one a sharp shooter. In my own research, I have found one instant where a soldier wanted one to stay out of the charges. In another, one soldier bought one so he could play sharp shooter and avoid his normal duties as an infantryman.
Noted author of sniping history and former Curator of the Royal Armoury Museum at Leeds (UK), Martin Pegler wrote an article on the Corn-fed Sharp Shooters. We have corresponded with each other in the past. http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Articles/History/Confederate%20Sharpshooters/Confederate%20Sharpshooters.html
10851Man is 100% partially right.
I am not much in the study of particular civil war battles in the states (as I live in Europe), but I try to read about military history and tactics in great battles.
One thing is, the sniping at those days was considered unethical, as 10851 said.
In a different war also on US soil, American revolution, much earlier, the same ethics applied. This was well shown in a movie "Patriot" with Mel Gibson. Targeting English officers was considered extremely unethical.
For civil war, one more thing to be considered. possible ignorance by commanders and NOT understanding of weapons ability. If the sharps rifle was understood as a breech loader (not a muzzleloader), then the commander might have considered change in tactics and would allow shooting from lying position by advancing unit, and using cover with suppressing fire.
This was against the military doctrine of the time, as majority of weapons was muzzle loader (still present in great mass numbers) and in a reality of the field it was the military doctrine of that time to load the muzzleloader from standing position.
Thus, the standing in the line and marching forward - hoping for a miss by enemy.
The most probably the thing that influenced such a doctrine was a cost of weapon. (this relate both to civil war and Amercian revolution)
The armies were mass supplied mostly with muskets, a long barreled weapon similar to rifle, but without rifling, smooth bore. And inaccurate
The production of rifling - or the rifle - is much more expensive in the process, the rifles of the day were mostly owned by private citizens for hunting, and they were paying for their expensive weapons. The armies were armed cheap with muskets.
Muskets are much worse with accuracy, and require opposing soldiers to get to each other closer in order to hit something with that unruffled rifle, which is also a muzzleloader.
This created the doctrine of marching in the line (two lines), loading by standing on the ground, while the next line shoots a salvo, and marching onwards. Unified salvo in such way has also better effect on enemy in order to cover for poor accuracy (similar to shotgun)
Also, when enemy is at open field at close range, lying on the ground would not do much good for taking the cover, and would reduce re-loading rate in muzzle loader for average soldier. The firing rate should be kept. Thus standing.
the doctrine of marching and standing was kept for a long time.
In civil war, breech loader (sharps) came with rifled barrel and increased accuracy and range, but was not appreciated and was used in standardized way, with some exceptions as mentioned above.
It will never be known how much lives have been lost (or saved) as those abilities of the rifle were not used for the change of field tactics. Unfortunately.
I am not much in the study of particular civil war battles in the states (as I live in Europe), but I try to read about military history and tactics in great battles.
One thing is, the sniping at those days was considered unethical, as 10851 said.
In a different war also on US soil, American revolution, much earlier, the same ethics applied. This was well shown in a movie "Patriot" with Mel Gibson. Targeting English officers was considered extremely unethical.
For civil war, one more thing to be considered. possible ignorance by commanders and NOT understanding of weapons ability. If the sharps rifle was understood as a breech loader (not a muzzleloader), then the commander might have considered change in tactics and would allow shooting from lying position by advancing unit, and using cover with suppressing fire.
This was against the military doctrine of the time, as majority of weapons was muzzle loader (still present in great mass numbers) and in a reality of the field it was the military doctrine of that time to load the muzzleloader from standing position.
Thus, the standing in the line and marching forward - hoping for a miss by enemy.
The most probably the thing that influenced such a doctrine was a cost of weapon. (this relate both to civil war and Amercian revolution)
The armies were mass supplied mostly with muskets, a long barreled weapon similar to rifle, but without rifling, smooth bore. And inaccurate
The production of rifling - or the rifle - is much more expensive in the process, the rifles of the day were mostly owned by private citizens for hunting, and they were paying for their expensive weapons. The armies were armed cheap with muskets.
Muskets are much worse with accuracy, and require opposing soldiers to get to each other closer in order to hit something with that unruffled rifle, which is also a muzzleloader.
This created the doctrine of marching in the line (two lines), loading by standing on the ground, while the next line shoots a salvo, and marching onwards. Unified salvo in such way has also better effect on enemy in order to cover for poor accuracy (similar to shotgun)
Also, when enemy is at open field at close range, lying on the ground would not do much good for taking the cover, and would reduce re-loading rate in muzzle loader for average soldier. The firing rate should be kept. Thus standing.
the doctrine of marching and standing was kept for a long time.
In civil war, breech loader (sharps) came with rifled barrel and increased accuracy and range, but was not appreciated and was used in standardized way, with some exceptions as mentioned above.
It will never be known how much lives have been lost (or saved) as those abilities of the rifle were not used for the change of field tactics. Unfortunately.
Jolly1 - thank you for joining the discussion.
While rifles were certainly more expensive to manufacture than muskets, it was not the cost that was the determining factor in the limited use of the rifle. Rather, we must remember that linear tactics evolved from earlier warfare where masses of pikemen were supported matchlocked armed infantry. As pikes were phased out in favor of firearms, the linear formations remained. Gradually, the density decreased until by the Napoleonic era the British formation was only two lines strong.
Why the retention of the linear formation? It was believed that battles were won by massed firepower which would demoralize the enemy and render him vulnerable to the bayonet charge. Volume of fire and not accuracy was seen as the winning factor. Accuracy wasn't needed since if a soldier missed his opponent in front of him, there was always another one each side! Riflemen were seen as too independent and out of an officer's immediate control. It was believed that soldiers were brutes and needed supervision of an officer and this was another reason for maintaining the linear tactics into the era of the minie ball.
However, starting in the mid-1700s, some nations began issuing rifles in limited numbers. The rifle armed soldiers were specialists and many of the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire formed them into jager units. These units may be traced to the grenzers (border troops) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that practiced ambushing the Ottomans from positions of concealment. The Ottomans of course returned the favor and I know they certainly did it to the Maltese and the Knights Hospitallers (Knights of Malta) during the Siege of Malta (1565). Returning to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, they introduced it to the rest of Europe and soon many of the German principalities/duchies/kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire had their own Jager units. So did the Poles and the Russians who also adopted the green coat the rifle for their jagers.
Even after the American Civil War, the inter-European Wars still saw the use of linear tactics. The Austro-Prussian War certainly had it and it was the last time the muzzle loading rifle musket was used in widespread numbers by one side in Europe. The Franco-Prussian War also saw linear tactics being used by both sides.
While rifles were certainly more expensive to manufacture than muskets, it was not the cost that was the determining factor in the limited use of the rifle. Rather, we must remember that linear tactics evolved from earlier warfare where masses of pikemen were supported matchlocked armed infantry. As pikes were phased out in favor of firearms, the linear formations remained. Gradually, the density decreased until by the Napoleonic era the British formation was only two lines strong.
Why the retention of the linear formation? It was believed that battles were won by massed firepower which would demoralize the enemy and render him vulnerable to the bayonet charge. Volume of fire and not accuracy was seen as the winning factor. Accuracy wasn't needed since if a soldier missed his opponent in front of him, there was always another one each side! Riflemen were seen as too independent and out of an officer's immediate control. It was believed that soldiers were brutes and needed supervision of an officer and this was another reason for maintaining the linear tactics into the era of the minie ball.
However, starting in the mid-1700s, some nations began issuing rifles in limited numbers. The rifle armed soldiers were specialists and many of the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire formed them into jager units. These units may be traced to the grenzers (border troops) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that practiced ambushing the Ottomans from positions of concealment. The Ottomans of course returned the favor and I know they certainly did it to the Maltese and the Knights Hospitallers (Knights of Malta) during the Siege of Malta (1565). Returning to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, they introduced it to the rest of Europe and soon many of the German principalities/duchies/kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire had their own Jager units. So did the Poles and the Russians who also adopted the green coat the rifle for their jagers.
Even after the American Civil War, the inter-European Wars still saw the use of linear tactics. The Austro-Prussian War certainly had it and it was the last time the muzzle loading rifle musket was used in widespread numbers by one side in Europe. The Franco-Prussian War also saw linear tactics being used by both sides.
Hi Gary,
Thanks for input. Let me upggrade with Austro Hungarian - Ottoman conflicts.
When the Ottoman conquered Serbia (decisive battle held at Kosovo 1389- led to crash of Serbia, and Otoman rule of region for next 5 centuries) - this resulted in Serbian exodus to the west in following period. They settled in areas around present Croatian / Bosnian border. As Austro Hungarian empire was under full threat they took the Serbs and Croats in bordering region, and supported their stand giving them some benefits in terms of economy, autonomy, but mostly - they kept them well armed in order to keep the border.
The terrain is hilly, mountains, ridges, creeks, rivers, woods and without much "old fashion" fields to develop ordinary field tactics in terms of line warfare, which was one of the first conditions to make different type of military engagement.
Second, the people there (both Croats and Serbs) by character prefered and developed their own way of fighting - by ambushing from concealed positions, hills, woods, etc. Witout much care of the military ethics adn doctrine of the time.
Thirdly, Otomans had much stronger force and in order to keep the border - the lighter - defending force used the guerrilla tactics to keep stronger force engaged.
At open field this would not have happened.
The people keeping the border, with given autonomy in decision making and Austrian (and venetian) support were not the nobility, but commoners - thus there was no much ethics involved in whether it is ethical to target the officers or not, or to shoot from covered / concealed position or not - so they just acted the only practical way.
In the same time the usual ethical military doctrine, developed by nobility was somewhat different, but for some reason the Austrian court turned the blind eye as long as the border was kept, and the Austrian nationals did not really fight, except in the role of logistics, advisory role, military observeres etc.
As far as the last of 19th century wars were kept elswhere in Europe with old generals running the show, it is interesting to note the further development of rifle as a main military weapon.
Under such influence, famous mauser 98 was developed in longer version around 1898 which met the ww1 of 1914. The lenght of rifle was determined by the last wars in western Europe kept in line where long rifle is needed when firing over forward line of kneeling soldiers, the idea already obsolete by year 1898.
The ww1 has proven the weapon too long to be practical, thus it was shortened between the wars, and shorter mauser 98k (karabiner) was designed to be the main Wehrmacht weapon of ww2.
ww2 has shown that 7,92x57 ammo was to powerful, and too heavy - which also means the rifle was heavy. Which also means less ammo for soldiers to carry.
Average range used was up to 400 meters, so there was really no need for high power rifle.
Thus, medium power ammo evolved, first for german SG44 (sturm gewerhe 44 - german automatic assault rifle, seen first action in German para forces liberating Mussolini from capture) - in same caliber, same shell but with reduced load.
The next development with lessons learned after ww2 in medium power rifle and bullet was 7.62 x 39 - russian in semi auto rifle, and well known ak 47, and american 5.56. Designed for average ranges determined fromww2 experience.
Hi power rifle / ammo kept their practicability and use only as special and sniper weapon ever since.
And thus, the history, lessons learned and practicality and effect kept the role of sniper ever since.
Thanks for input. Let me upggrade with Austro Hungarian - Ottoman conflicts.
When the Ottoman conquered Serbia (decisive battle held at Kosovo 1389- led to crash of Serbia, and Otoman rule of region for next 5 centuries) - this resulted in Serbian exodus to the west in following period. They settled in areas around present Croatian / Bosnian border. As Austro Hungarian empire was under full threat they took the Serbs and Croats in bordering region, and supported their stand giving them some benefits in terms of economy, autonomy, but mostly - they kept them well armed in order to keep the border.
The terrain is hilly, mountains, ridges, creeks, rivers, woods and without much "old fashion" fields to develop ordinary field tactics in terms of line warfare, which was one of the first conditions to make different type of military engagement.
Second, the people there (both Croats and Serbs) by character prefered and developed their own way of fighting - by ambushing from concealed positions, hills, woods, etc. Witout much care of the military ethics adn doctrine of the time.
Thirdly, Otomans had much stronger force and in order to keep the border - the lighter - defending force used the guerrilla tactics to keep stronger force engaged.
At open field this would not have happened.
The people keeping the border, with given autonomy in decision making and Austrian (and venetian) support were not the nobility, but commoners - thus there was no much ethics involved in whether it is ethical to target the officers or not, or to shoot from covered / concealed position or not - so they just acted the only practical way.
In the same time the usual ethical military doctrine, developed by nobility was somewhat different, but for some reason the Austrian court turned the blind eye as long as the border was kept, and the Austrian nationals did not really fight, except in the role of logistics, advisory role, military observeres etc.
As far as the last of 19th century wars were kept elswhere in Europe with old generals running the show, it is interesting to note the further development of rifle as a main military weapon.
Under such influence, famous mauser 98 was developed in longer version around 1898 which met the ww1 of 1914. The lenght of rifle was determined by the last wars in western Europe kept in line where long rifle is needed when firing over forward line of kneeling soldiers, the idea already obsolete by year 1898.
The ww1 has proven the weapon too long to be practical, thus it was shortened between the wars, and shorter mauser 98k (karabiner) was designed to be the main Wehrmacht weapon of ww2.
ww2 has shown that 7,92x57 ammo was to powerful, and too heavy - which also means the rifle was heavy. Which also means less ammo for soldiers to carry.
Average range used was up to 400 meters, so there was really no need for high power rifle.
Thus, medium power ammo evolved, first for german SG44 (sturm gewerhe 44 - german automatic assault rifle, seen first action in German para forces liberating Mussolini from capture) - in same caliber, same shell but with reduced load.
The next development with lessons learned after ww2 in medium power rifle and bullet was 7.62 x 39 - russian in semi auto rifle, and well known ak 47, and american 5.56. Designed for average ranges determined fromww2 experience.
Hi power rifle / ammo kept their practicability and use only as special and sniper weapon ever since.
And thus, the history, lessons learned and practicality and effect kept the role of sniper ever since.
In terms of hits obtained per pound of lead expended against time, the smoothbore musket had the advantage and that didn't change until the appearance of the Minié rifle.
Civil War tactics were a continuation of the Napoleonic ones, initially anyway - later both sides took to earthworks and digging and even barbed wire. While embracing the new technology, commanders often didn't know how to use it to best advantage.
Civil War tactics were a continuation of the Napoleonic ones, initially anyway - later both sides took to earthworks and digging and even barbed wire. While embracing the new technology, commanders often didn't know how to use it to best advantage.
The South did not have a large mechanical manufacturing base, due in part to a society built primarily around agriculture. As a result, the Confederacy bought roughly 350,000 rifles from a number of British firms including Birmingham Small Arms Trade (BSAT) and the London Armoury Corp.
Confederate specifications were for rifled muskets...FWIW
Confederate specifications were for rifled muskets...FWIW
"This poor soul was dragged around and used as a prop."
Photographers in those days even had their assistants lie down and pose as corpses for dramatic effect. That was done in some pictures of the Johnstown flood, where one white shirted "body" was thrown up in three different places!
Jim
Photographers in those days even had their assistants lie down and pose as corpses for dramatic effect. That was done in some pictures of the Johnstown flood, where one white shirted "body" was thrown up in three different places!
Jim
This is not particularly Civil War but I have noticed that the American Indian illustrations of battle scenes may be somewhat cartoonish but are actually more realisitic. They often showed much blood coming out of the mouths of the killed/wounded soldiers. Not the little trickle of a chewed capsule of dye seen in a deathe scene in the movies but rather blood spraying out as if you are coughing out from blood filled lungs due to a shot through the chest. That last photo was more like what the indians would have drawn.
bushmaster65
New member
The large area of blood to the right side of the forehead has a border that lines up very well with the nose. It makes it look almost as if the forehead is flattened. I think that might be a slight illusion created by that line.
He definitely received a violent wound while his heart was beating as evidenced by the hemorrhage from the nasal and oral cavities. Looks like a penetrating wound on the bridge of the nose causing massive damage to the
underlying structures of the nasal cavities and cranial vault. My first impression was shrapnel wound. I'm betting he was already dead when he hit the ground.
War is Hell
He definitely received a violent wound while his heart was beating as evidenced by the hemorrhage from the nasal and oral cavities. Looks like a penetrating wound on the bridge of the nose causing massive damage to the
underlying structures of the nasal cavities and cranial vault. My first impression was shrapnel wound. I'm betting he was already dead when he hit the ground.
War is Hell
@ gary: Pandouri
Gary, just ask!
Now, this is a rough story - which will shed some light on modern fashion, not really arms related.
In the slang of Balkan people, pandur (origin from word you mentioned) means a cop, in a bad manner. This is a policeman in bad meaning of the word, somebody terrorizing poor honest and peaceful people...
The word comes from the time of mediaval wars, when one of most succesful military leaders was Baron Franjo Trenk. He had formed a unit under his command of elite soldiers and cavalary, fighting against the enemies of Austria. (foreign and domestic)
The name of unit was "Trenkovi panduri", or "the Trenks pandours".
Thats the answer you asked for, however the story goes on.
The unit was formed in 1740 for the purpose of fighting the war with Prussians by barun Franjo Trenk and full support of Maria Teresia, the Austrian Empress. At the begging the unit consisted of 1000 men. In later years upgraded to more then 3000. the ranks were split between pandoures (infantry), and housars (cavalry).
Pandours weaponry consisted of two pairs of muzzle loading pistols, a sword, a sabre and a muzzleloading rifle or musket. During their war history they were deployed from France, to Prussia and up to Checkia. Their skill, succes and ruthlessness against much stronger enemy force made their name quite infamous.
Barun Trenks exploits were noted amongst the wider European nobility, and there was always need for skilled and experienced soldiers to be used in other smaller wars and conflicts elsewhere in Europe.
So, it was Baron Trenk, with his pandoures often called for assistance when the need arose. And was paid well for the services rendered.
There was widely spread saying amongst middle Eropean nations saying: "God save us from plague and Croats", which is quite self explanatory. i would guess, from the reason that lower ranks were fighting for the prize...
So his unit was one of the first in history to be used as "soldiers of fortune", or hired paramilitary unit, which is hystorically less known fact.
They acted within strict military discipline (at liest on the battlefield) and one of their symbols was a tie, as a part of their uniform, the rest of uniform looked very much made under turkish influence - for simple reason - they kicked the Otomans out of Slavonia - northern part of Croatia, and took their colors, to which they integrated a tie. This also added to their image of fearless and ruthless combatants.
This is the same tie we use today - this was actually first used as a part of military uniform and their symbol widely recognized, feared and deeply respected.
The other word for a tie, is "kravata", or "croata", and simply beacuse these guys were Croats, thus the name for this fashion article.
The nobility (they were fighting for) quickly accepted this part of uniform as a fashion and status symbol of a winning side, and the tie remained in western dress code ever since.
Completely off-topic, but there is another story of why the buttons on the sleeves are part of modern business suits. The story goes like this: great percentage of Austro hunagrian court servants came from Croatian rural country. Those servants had a nasty habit of wiping their noses using their sleeves, which did not look good at all.
So some of the Austrian emperors (not sure which) put a stop to nose wiping using sleeves by making an order that servants uniform must have buttons starting from elbow, down to wrist.
Thus even the buttons remained.(on modern suit)
Gary, just ask!
Now, this is a rough story - which will shed some light on modern fashion, not really arms related.
In the slang of Balkan people, pandur (origin from word you mentioned) means a cop, in a bad manner. This is a policeman in bad meaning of the word, somebody terrorizing poor honest and peaceful people...
The word comes from the time of mediaval wars, when one of most succesful military leaders was Baron Franjo Trenk. He had formed a unit under his command of elite soldiers and cavalary, fighting against the enemies of Austria. (foreign and domestic)
The name of unit was "Trenkovi panduri", or "the Trenks pandours".
Thats the answer you asked for, however the story goes on.
The unit was formed in 1740 for the purpose of fighting the war with Prussians by barun Franjo Trenk and full support of Maria Teresia, the Austrian Empress. At the begging the unit consisted of 1000 men. In later years upgraded to more then 3000. the ranks were split between pandoures (infantry), and housars (cavalry).
Pandours weaponry consisted of two pairs of muzzle loading pistols, a sword, a sabre and a muzzleloading rifle or musket. During their war history they were deployed from France, to Prussia and up to Checkia. Their skill, succes and ruthlessness against much stronger enemy force made their name quite infamous.
Barun Trenks exploits were noted amongst the wider European nobility, and there was always need for skilled and experienced soldiers to be used in other smaller wars and conflicts elsewhere in Europe.
So, it was Baron Trenk, with his pandoures often called for assistance when the need arose. And was paid well for the services rendered.
There was widely spread saying amongst middle Eropean nations saying: "God save us from plague and Croats", which is quite self explanatory. i would guess, from the reason that lower ranks were fighting for the prize...
So his unit was one of the first in history to be used as "soldiers of fortune", or hired paramilitary unit, which is hystorically less known fact.
They acted within strict military discipline (at liest on the battlefield) and one of their symbols was a tie, as a part of their uniform, the rest of uniform looked very much made under turkish influence - for simple reason - they kicked the Otomans out of Slavonia - northern part of Croatia, and took their colors, to which they integrated a tie. This also added to their image of fearless and ruthless combatants.
This is the same tie we use today - this was actually first used as a part of military uniform and their symbol widely recognized, feared and deeply respected.
The other word for a tie, is "kravata", or "croata", and simply beacuse these guys were Croats, thus the name for this fashion article.
The nobility (they were fighting for) quickly accepted this part of uniform as a fashion and status symbol of a winning side, and the tie remained in western dress code ever since.
Completely off-topic, but there is another story of why the buttons on the sleeves are part of modern business suits. The story goes like this: great percentage of Austro hunagrian court servants came from Croatian rural country. Those servants had a nasty habit of wiping their noses using their sleeves, which did not look good at all.
So some of the Austrian emperors (not sure which) put a stop to nose wiping using sleeves by making an order that servants uniform must have buttons starting from elbow, down to wrist.
Thus even the buttons remained.(on modern suit)
Last edited:
the tactics
Further to above, just add a word on Trenks tactics:
In the time, the military tactics mostly used was a line tactics at open fields previously discussed in more details.
The Trenk's unit used the tactics of breaking the enemy line, by fearless attacks and disorganizing and spliitng the enemy force, and later decimating the scaterred units - allowing supporting conventional allied force great advantage.
The origin of tactics so much in nature of balkan frontier people - I mentioned earlier.
Several decades later, similar tactics deployed at naval warfare brought all the glory to admiral Horatio Nelson, but will not go into this now.
Further to above, just add a word on Trenks tactics:
In the time, the military tactics mostly used was a line tactics at open fields previously discussed in more details.
The Trenk's unit used the tactics of breaking the enemy line, by fearless attacks and disorganizing and spliitng the enemy force, and later decimating the scaterred units - allowing supporting conventional allied force great advantage.
The origin of tactics so much in nature of balkan frontier people - I mentioned earlier.
Several decades later, similar tactics deployed at naval warfare brought all the glory to admiral Horatio Nelson, but will not go into this now.
bushmaster65
New member
10851man,
In order for a bruise(raspberry) like that to fill in, he would have to have blood pumping to that area. Does look mechanical what with the even looking diameter though. Perhaps a knockout blow then a bayonet stab to the face at the bridge of the nose? Hell the possibilities are endless, which is what makes these things so engrossing. One of the nurses I work with saw me holding my laptop up at a weird angle while i was looking at this and came to investigate. lol She was intrigued as well with my civil war P**N. As far as the cannon brush, I always assume that such things are set dressing by the photographer. Unless its sticking out of his head
I see blood to the right forehead and running from the right nostril down the right side of the mouth to the chin. I'm leaning towards him falling straight back long enough for some blood to start on that right side then turning to the left and bleeding out? But something penetrated the bridge of the nose.
Got any more like this? I had a book in Germany on wound ballistics in both theaters of operation in WWll. About 4" thick with case studies from the front lines with detailed photos, projectiles used, velocities, etc. Used to study it for hours. Till it got stolen
In order for a bruise(raspberry) like that to fill in, he would have to have blood pumping to that area. Does look mechanical what with the even looking diameter though. Perhaps a knockout blow then a bayonet stab to the face at the bridge of the nose? Hell the possibilities are endless, which is what makes these things so engrossing. One of the nurses I work with saw me holding my laptop up at a weird angle while i was looking at this and came to investigate. lol She was intrigued as well with my civil war P**N. As far as the cannon brush, I always assume that such things are set dressing by the photographer. Unless its sticking out of his head
I see blood to the right forehead and running from the right nostril down the right side of the mouth to the chin. I'm leaning towards him falling straight back long enough for some blood to start on that right side then turning to the left and bleeding out? But something penetrated the bridge of the nose.
Got any more like this? I had a book in Germany on wound ballistics in both theaters of operation in WWll. About 4" thick with case studies from the front lines with detailed photos, projectiles used, velocities, etc. Used to study it for hours. Till it got stolen
Blow the pic up and you can clearly see a jagged piece of metal sticking out of the bridge of his nose and possibly another one in his chin and the blood line on the forehead shows up better. He has multiple frag wounds on his face and body as evidenced by the many small holes in his jacket.
@ Bushmaster,
I did a lot of work with ballistics in my LEO career so I too find this fascinating.
I think you are correct about the canon brush. I found an additional image of the same soldier taken from a wider angle and the brush isn't there.
.jpg)
There are hundreds of small details in this image!!!
I did a lot of work with ballistics in my LEO career so I too find this fascinating.
I think you are correct about the canon brush. I found an additional image of the same soldier taken from a wider angle and the brush isn't there.
There are hundreds of small details in this image!!!