Djedj

Hi Barry, Now that's a wonderful group photo ! Your request for a price...thinking of selling ? Cheers ! Jerome

Erik, I suppose both points are open to discussion : King Theodore's real name was Kassa - he assumed the name of Theodorus "because of an old prophecy which sets forth that an Emperor of that name would raise the kingdom of Abyssinia to a pitch of glory never before known". He was known in Europe as "King Theodore" indeed - but might have insisted on being adressed to as "Emperor" ? As for his death, the Special Correspondent from the new York Herald reported, on april 13 : "King Theodore was found dead, shot in the head. His body was recognized by the Europeans who had been released. Some say he was killed in battle, and others that he committed suicide." The Special Correspondent from The Times had reported that on the eve of the storming of Magdala (April 12) : "The Abyssinian troops are utterly disheartened. Theodore has attempted suicide." Jerome

Here's an extract from The Times, March 1st, 1869 re. medals : "The Adjt.-Gen., Lord William?Paulet, has issued a general order to the army stating that the Queen has commanded a medal to be prepared to commemorate the services of the forces engaged in the various military operations in New Zealand during the years 1845, 1846, 1847, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865 and 1866, and directing that one of the medals shall be conferred on every surviving officer , non-commissioned officer, and soldier of the regular forces who actually served in the field against the enemy during the periods alluded to, excluding deserters and those dismissed for misconduct. Another general order states that the Queen has commanded that a medal in commemoration of the succesful operations in Abyssinia to be conferred upon Her Majesty's British and Indian forces who servedin that country between the 4th of October, 1867, and the 19th of April, 1868, including those who were employed on board ship, in transports, or in hospital on the coast." The above re. NZ is quite relevant, as, when the question of a Medal for Abyssinia arrised by mid-1868, there were discussions with respect to the Maori Wars - where the fighting was quite fiercer, but which did not entitle to any Medal. Seems they sorted out the issue, and they certainly took precautions that the order re. NZ Medals was issued before that for the Abyssinian ones. I don't know when the Abyssinian Medals were distributed, but it seems the NZ ones were delivered from early 1870 on. As for the war, I think the reason for the expedition was about liberating Europeans (about 60 men, women and children) held prisoners by King Theodore. King Theodore died in the storming of Magdala on the 13th of April 1868, which ended the campaign. it was a British victory. Cheers, Jerome

Thanks a lot gentlmen ! I didn't really hope for an identification, but there you go As for the "Prinz" question - my understanding is that a son of a Duke would be titled "Prinz" until inheriting from the Dukedom (Eugen's father died in 1875) - though it may be better not to quote me on that Thanks again for your help, Jerome

My pleasure ! An example (from Weitze) : Jerome

Bonsoir Christophe, It is not a negative effect (or the order of the medals would be terribly wrong). Medals on the right side are actually quite often seen on photos of Ulanen. Fact is that in full dress, Ulans had the most impressive knots at the end of their cap lines, falling from their left shoulder - those would have obscured medals worn on the left side of the chest. My take is that it's what displaced the medals ? But in any case, it's quite usual. Jerome

Hi, I have this CDV photo of an Imperial era Ulan. The photo was taken in Stuttgart - from the look of the CDV I'd say it was likely taken round the early 1870s. The name had been written on the back of the photo, sadly it has almost disappeared (though it looks like it could be saying "Prinz ...") I'd like to find out the Regiment and the identity of the guy of course ; but to begin with, does anyone have an idea of the medals he is sporting ? Thanks ! Jerome

Hi Robin, Postcard's on its way. It's funny indeed, the more I look at the painting, the more I see alternatively the Crown prince / the Duke of Braunschweig / none of them ! (Though the slight curve given to the nose would indicate the Kronprinz) Cheers Jerome

Hi Robin, But I know that picture ! I think here is your man : It is a tinted postcard, ref. "W.C.A. Series 146 - N?96" The photo, as seen on the front, is Copyright by International News Service, N.Y. The back displays the following : "A German trooper wearing the famous Death Head Hussar Helmet. This was the regiment to which the Crown Prine was attached while at Danzig. it is said that but fifty men are left after the fightinh in Belgium and France" (Of course the attribution of the Regiment is - wrong) By the way that postcard has long been ruled out of my collection, so if you want to make the match with your painting, just PM me your address and I'll be happy to send it over. Jerome

Hi Barry, What about checking the name of the would-be recipient here : http://www.saint-louis.info/pages/osl.html Click on "Liste des Chevaliers" Then click on "Acc?s ? la base de donn?es". 1813 does look a bit early though ?

If you like them French medals, you can see some in their natural environment here : http://www.military-photos.com/medailles.htm

Here is some refs for the colors would according to the "arme" : http://www.military-photos.com/pregen.htm This tall pattern of k?pi was known as "k?pi-foulard" ; the specifically tall pattern was fashionable for some time and some generals really objected that...as they later objected the very small k?pis that became fashionable in turn. It's definitely a pre-WWI pattern, though I'm not knowledgable enough to ascertain the exact timeframe ; looks 1900ish though.

You'll find everything you want to know about the Vitez order on Erik's great website : http://www.vitez.6x.to/ Enjoy the browing !

With their history they must have dreaded the outbreak of a revolution or invasion of Canada ! Coincidentally I just finished reading Vladimir Littauer's "Russian Hussar" book - very similar story in so many respects ! That's a great group you have here - the documents really echo one another ! And you sure did well picking up that story -definitely one for safekeeping.

Hi, There's some stuff online to begin with : http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-south-african-war-36-01.htm http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-south-african-war-36-02.htm With a map : http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-south-african-war-map.htm Here are some battles described : COLENSO : http://www.britishbattles.com/great-boer-war/colenso.htm SKION KOP : http://www.britishbattles.com/great-boer-war/spion-kop.htm VAL KRANTZ AND PIETERS : http://www.britishbattles.com/great-boer-war/val-krantz.htm (and others) "The Great Boer War" by Arthur Conan Doyle can be read online : http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/books...wbook&bookid=37 LOTS of stuff about the Boer War here (website of the The South African Military History Society) http://samilitaryhistory.org/

Hi, There was a discussion about Border Guards here : http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb...;num=1136978548 It is stated that from their foundation in 1893, Border Guards' distinctive color was Light Green. For illustration's sake, the photo on the left has been identified as showing Border Guards (you can notice though that two of the sitters feature in both photos) : The Hussars on the right belong to the 7th Hussar Byelorussia Regiment. Apparently the Border Guard was a professional force and mainly recruited men who had completed their military service.

My pleasure Mike ! With respect to Russian websites, you probably can make out some result using some online translator ; here's one : http://www.worldlingo.com/en/products_serv...translator.html From my experience with those tools : - It works better to copy/paste text than to try the "translate website" options - If some word seems not to be matching in the general context, there are online dictionnaries that propose different meanings. I worked on some Bulgarian pages that way ; it DOES take a little time but you end up with very interesting results. The words generally the translators have problems with are often : - conjugated verbs - specific XIXth Century military terms ; you'll probably know the meaning of those, printing out a cyrillic character sheet will be useful. So if one of those Russian pages looks ripe with info, it could be worth giving it a go...

He's referenced as an author as well (interesting for the dates) : ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Vannovskii, Petr Semenovich, 1822-1904. Doklad Vannovskago po povodu studencheskikh bezporiadkov 1899 g. [n.p.] Tip. Rabochago znameni. 1900 Books & Pamphlets; 52 p.; 19 cm; Printed gray wrappers; Cover-title. At head of title: Izdanie Rabochago znameni. Anderson 214; Kamenev p. 24. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well I guess that's it for me !

And here is Petr Semenovitch Vannovskii : As referenced in George Kenner estate http://international.loc.gov/intldl/mtfhtm...kepTitles2.html

Mike, I browsed Mark Conrad's officer database ; he has a very rich page about the Russian Armies, he's been translating and indexing heaps of Russian newspapers (like 'Russkii Invalid') ; the database does not contain the articles themselves, but references : http://home.comcast.net/~markconrad/ (for some reason using the first name did not giveout any result so...) I tried various combinations of "W" and "V" All results I could find were with the spelling "Vannovskii" These articles concern a : -"Petr Yefremovich" (articles in the 1852-1856 timeframe) -"Petr Semenovich" (articles in the 1877-1904 timeframe) -"Gleb Maksimilianovich" (one article in 1914) A quick browsing about General Vannovskii delivered references to "the new war minister, General PS. Vannovskii". So Petr Semenovich it seems to be ! Some quotes about him: The ministry of interior that argued against Jewish equality and triggered, especially during the term of war minister Petr Vannovskii (1881?1897), the introduction of discriminatory regulations regarding Jewish military service. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Even so, by the end of the century educational standards were higher in the army than they were in the population at large, which admittedly is not saying much. Once the short (generally six-year) service term was introduced in 1874 literate soldiers who returned to their villages helped to awaken a thirst for knowledge among peasants. It was foolish of Miliutin's successor, Vannovskii, to shift the program to a voluntary basis in the mid-1880s. It was not restored until 1902 and then only for the infantry. When one subaltern in the 65th Infantry Regiment taught the men in his company the ABCs on his own initiative, his CO was furious and ordered him to stop at once: "Get those booklets out of here!" he thundered, "you'll get me into trouble with the War Minister!" +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The outbreak of large-scale student unrest in 1899 forced the government to confront the question of revising the 1884 Statute. The investigatory commission headed by General P. S. Vannovskii concluded that a major reason for the chronic student unrest was the unsatisfactory state of the universities and the failure of the 1884 Statute to achieve its objectives. Acting on Vannovskii's report, Minister of Education N. P. Bogolepov convened a conference that recommended key changes in some of the basic assumptions of university policy. A fundamental feature of the 1884 Statute had been the clause that contact between students and professors be limited to the classroom and laboratory. Another assumption was that students were "individual visitors" of the university, with no corporate identity (see Chapter 2, below). The conference now admitted the unfeasibility of these assumptions and accepted the alleged connection between student unrest and the deficiencies of government university policy. The conference recommended that the government take steps to improve the conditions of student life, to encourage more interaction between students and professors, and to ensure that the students spend more time on their academic work. It proposed that the government start building dormitories, that the Ministry of Education encourage previously banned, extracurricular "scientific circles" under faculty direction, and that professors modify the lecture system by teaching more seminars and giving students more frequent work assignments. P. S. Vannovskii, who became minister of education in 1901, gave the professoriate an opportunity it had long been denied under the 1884 Statute: to arrive at and express a professional consensus about the entire university structure. On 29 April 1901, Vannovskii sent to the faculty councils a list of eighteen questions on possible directions for university reform. Analysis of the replies of the faculty councils to these questions permits the conclusion that despite individual differences of opinion among the professors, the academic profession as a whole seized the opportunity presented by Vannovskii and began to speak with one voice.

Hi Mike, Have you tried asking there : http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb...board=militaria Some people are very knowledgeable about Imperial Russia's militiary history. (mmmh not sure it's very appropriate to redirect to another community, and sorry if that's a breach of etiquette- but it might help)

found that reference : (...) At about the same time, Jones received orders from Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Arthur Lee, the American commissioners in France. Jones had sailed to Europe in anticipation that he would receive a frigate, L'Indien, which the American government had arranged to build in Holland. However, the British, learning of American plans, had persuaded the Dutch, in whose shipyard the vessel was being constructed, not to deliver L'Indien into American hands. The American commissioners, who were in the midst of delicate negotiations with the French, decided not to press the matter. As a result, Jones was ordered to retain command of Ranger and, in that vessel, to attack the enemy. The orders the commissioners gave him, though vague, directed Jones to pursue the strategy he had advocated. He was to assault the enemy "by Sea, or otherwise." An earlier letter from Jones to the commissioners had spelled out his intentions: "I have always since we have had Ships of War been persuaded that small Squadrons could be employed to far better Advantage on private expeditions and would distress the Enemy infinitely more than the same force could do by cruising either Jointly or Seperately - were strict Secrecy Observed on our part the Enemy have many important Places in such a defenceless Situation that they might be effectually Surprised and Attacked with no considerable Force - We cannot yet Fight their Navy as their numbers and Force is so far Superiour to ours - therefore it seems to be our most natural Province to Surprize their defenceless places and thereby divide their attention and draw it off from our Coasts." In a February 1778 letter to the commissioners, Jones reiterated his ideas, adding: "I have in contemplation several enterprizes of some importance - the Commissioners do not even promise to Justify me should I fail in any bold attempt - I will not however, under this discouragement, alter my designs. - When an Enemy think a design against them improbable they can always be Surprised and Attacked with Advantage. - it is true I must run great risque - but no Gallant action was ever performed without danger - therefore, tho' I cannot insure Success I will endeavour to deserve it." As seen in these two letters, Jones understood that Americans must fight a kind of guerilla war at sea. They could not engage the enemy fleet against fleet, nor was commerce raiding the answer. While the latter might be profitable for the captains and crews, it did not, in the end, significantly help the nation's interest. Striking the enemy where least expected would keep the British off-balance and dispersed, forcing them to redeploy some of their naval squadrons away from the American coast. Jones' ideas were "out of the box," and reflected a patriotism that was willing to sacrifice personal gain and advancement for a greater good. It was not, however, a strategy that appealed to his crew who saw commerce raiding and attendant prize money as their best chance to supplement meager wages. In Ranger and in his subsequent commands, Jones had problems with dissatisfied crews because of his reputation as a risk-taker and hard-fighter who eschewed commerce raiding for other, more perilous, missions. The Cruise of Ranger The cruise of Ranger, which began in April 1778, was truly remarkable. It lasted twenty-eight days, and in that time, according to historian Samuel Eliot Morison, Jones and his crew "performed one of the most brilliant exploits of the naval war." In addition to taking two merchantmen - Jones favored capturing merchant ships when it did not detract from the overall strategic goal - and destroying several others, Ranger captured a British man-of-war, took some two hundred prisoners, and, most notably, executed a land raid that caught the public's attention in both England and America. Jones had planned to raid a British coastal town as retaliation for English raids against towns on the Connecticut coast and in order to seize one or more "important" prisoners who might be exchanged for American seamen held in British prisons. The British government was willing to exchange captured American army officers and soldiers, but insisted on treating American naval prisoners as pirates who had no rights as belligerents. As a result, captured American seamen languished in British jails. The British could follow such a policy because American ships, especially privateers, captured few British prisoners and kept even fewer. Concerned about the fate of these American naval prisoners, Jones hoped that by taking an important English nobleman captive, he would force the British ministry to authorize an exchange. Jones mistakenly supposed that Lord Selkirk, his intended target, was a great lord whose detention would force the British to change their policy. Selkirk was, in fact, an unimportant Scottish peer. Moreover, he was away from home when Jones' raiding party arrived. Because of this, Jones - at the insistence of his crew - did nothing more than authorize his men to loot the Selkirk household silver. Jones refused to accompany his men on their mission and later purchased the silver from is men and returned it to the Selkirks. He also wrote a lengthy, apologetic letter to Lady Selkirk spelling out the rationale for the raid. This raid roused the countryside and caused the Admiralty to send warships in pursuit of Ranger. Jones, unaware that he was being chased, decided to attack the 20-gun British ship Drake. It was an even match. Ranger had more and heavier armament but Drake had more men. In contrast to his tactics at Flamborough Head, Jones decided to disable Drake with cannon fire while preventing the British warship from closing with Ranger and boarding it. In a battle that lasted just over an hour and was "warm close and obstinate," Ranger forced Drake to surrender. Jones, understanding the publicity value of bringing the British warship into a French port after his daring land raid, decided to take Drake, whose rigging was in tatters, with him to France. For almost twenty-four hours, therefore, he remained off Whitehaven, England, refitting the damaged Drake. He then sailed for France via the northern tip of Ireland, an inspired choice because his British pursuers had taken up a position south and east of Whitehaven on the more direct route to the continent. Reaction to the raid in England is interesting. In some publications, Jones was characterized as a bloodthirsty pirate interested only in murder and mayhem. These newspaper accounts even changed his physical appearance, describing Jones, who was approximately 5'6", with light brown hair, fair skin, and hazel eyes, as big, dark and swarthy, like a buccaneer. Despite the attempt to demonize Jones, many among the English lower classes came to see him as a Robin Hood figure, who took from the upper classes but was considerate of he English working man. This impression was solidified when on his return voyage to France Jones set ashore fishermen he had earlier captured to gain knowledge of the local waters and reportedly gave them new sails and money. (...) More here: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:0DqQ86...fr&ct=clnk&cd=5 He was himself born in Scotland btw.

Well sources say that coin design with the 6 pointed star Solomon's seal was actually introduced by Sultan Slimane (a bona fide muslim - so much for the 'Jewish Era' thing) because Morocco, due to a scarcity of gold, was forced to cast coins. he would have chosen that symbol to counter the belief that "coins not made of noble metal were impure" and shouldn't be handled - not a reaction you want when you're introducing new coinage ! Displaying the Solomon's seal was a clever trick : the seal was supposed to hold great magical powers (representing the elements with the all-seing Eye of God in the center of star) ; if you remember your 1001 nights, it is Solomon's seal that keeps the genius in the bottle. Anyway he used the trick to make the coins desirable, for their symbolic if not for their metal. It worked. The story here : http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/review/rev_spring2005.html

Hello Chris, The Star of David finds its origin in the Seal of Solomon (or Suleyman). This symbol is present in the Juish, Muslim and Christian cultures. For some reason I don't really know, the Seal of Solomon evolved into a 5 branches star pattern (displayed on the flag of Morocco today), but some 6 branches versions did exist until quite recently in Muslim countries. You'll find some examples of coins from Morocco with a 6 star branches ; like these XIXth Century : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/approche-numismatique/mar_4fa.htm http://perso.wanadoo.fr/approche-numismatique/mar_2di.htm This one is from 1921 : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/approche-numismatique/mar_25ct.htm This one is from 1954 ; interesting both stars are inscribed : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/approche-numismatique/mar_100f.htm As for your original question - but my best guess is that this 6 branches star represented Morocco - at a time when we must remember there was no state of Israel.

Thanks a lot Gentlemen ! Ah those orders tell great stories sometimes... Cheers !