Jump to content

Question: How many Karl Truppen Crosses can a recipient earn?


Claudius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello;

From all the A-H medal bars, ribbon bars and photographs I've seen it would suggest ONLY one.

However I have personal documents from a gentlemen for notification of the Karl Truppen Kruez in 1915 and then another Karl Truppen Kruez notification in 1918.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Claudius said:

I have personal documents from a gentlemen for notification of the Karl Truppen Kruez in 1915

Wasn't this cross established in 1916? Karl became the emperor in November 1916.

EDIT:

Seems like we've replied at the same time. @GdC26

Edited by BalkanCollector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GdC26 said:

1915 predates the date of the cross’ institution in December 1916, after Karl had ascended to the throne(s).

Are you sure the date is correct/the Urkunde is in fact for a Karl truppenkreuz/is genuine?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Troop_Cross

Kind regards,

Sandro

I strongly believe the urkunde is genuine.  It is part of a group of documents that belonged to Wilhelm Oppelt, including his other award documents and photos.   If it was a forgery, I would imagine that they would stop with just the 1918 award for the Karl Truppen cross.  There are two photos of him.  While the medals are blocked out, the ribbons are clear and the Karl Truppen cross is there (just the one).

---

After thinking more on it, I have one theory to offer.  Maybe after the Karl Truppen cross was instituted in December 1916, Oppelt's first authorization document was dated 1915 to show that he earned it back in 1915.  Later in 1918, there was a bureaucratic error when he earned it as a pilot that made ten(10) flights over enemy lines and was automatically issued the 1918 authorization document. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of examples of dates on certificates not matching when it comes to German... and in this case the 1915 may have nothing to do with the award date... "1915/" may refer to the line below "1915/K.u.K. Infanterieregiment..." for instance.... It may be his Stamm Abteilung before he was by the flieger.... Paper trails are sometimes confusing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to follow Chris on this - a Legitimation is not an award certificate, and he may be that Oppelt sought to justify/document entitlement by reference, first to his time in KUK IR 94, and then to his time with the KUK Fliegerersatztruppe. Whether time before December 1916 counts for eligibility for the Karl Truppenkreuz will depend on the rules/statutes governing that award - but if it did, that may explain the IR 94 Legitimation.

Kind regards,

 Sandro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, GdC26 said:

I'm inclined to follow Chris on this - a Legitimation is not an award certificate, and he may be that Oppelt sought to justify/document entitlement by reference, first to his time in KUK IR 94, and then to his time with the KUK Fliegerersatztruppe. Whether time before December 1916 counts for eligibility for the Karl Truppenkreuz will depend on the rules/statutes governing that award - but if it did, that may explain the IR 94 Legitimation.

Kind regards,

 Sandro

I have an Iron Cross group where the guy has 2 iron Cross 2nd class documents, issued by 2 different units to document the same award, which was made by a previous 3rd unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Chris Boonzaier said:

I have an Iron Cross group where the guy has 2 iron Cross 2nd class documents, issued by 2 different units to document the same award, which was made by a previous 3rd unit.

Ah, German bureaucracy.....

At least know for sure he was awarded the EK II ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GdC26 said:

Ah, German bureaucracy.....

At least know for sure he was awarded the EK II ....

I had a group to a railway clerk... he had 3 very crappy typewritten preliminary documents for the EK2... one from each unit he was posted to... I think every time he claimed not to have one in the hope of getting  a sexy printed one... and always got an ugly one... he seems to have given up... either that or the previous owner had split the nice one from the group...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/02/2021 at 01:14, Christian1962 said:

It could awarded just once.

And it´s not true that it could not be awarded to Jews - that´s pure nonsense.

Emil Sommer, later chairman of the Jewish Front Fighters Union earned it in 1918. Just as example.

Regards

Christian

Christian,

An interesting update from the website previously mentioned:

https://www.omsa.org/karl-troops-cross/

Who knows why the statues mentioned were not followed to 'the letter', common sense I would hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, graham said:

Christian,

An interesting update from the website previously mentioned:

https://www.omsa.org/karl-troops-cross/

Who knows why the statues mentioned were not followed to 'the letter', common sense I would hope.

Here are the statues for the Karl-Truppen-Kreuz. I wouldn´t find any passage which would exclude the award for jews:

https://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?aid=stv&datum=1916&page=6549&size=27

As we all know Austria-Hungary was a multi-national and multicultural empire. There was no reason to exclude jews from distinct decorations - just with one exception: the Order of the Fleece which was a House Order of the Habsburg Dynasty.

Kindest regards

Christian

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/02/2021 at 07:17, Christian1962 said:

just with one exception: the Order of the Fleece which was a House Order of the Habsburg Dynasty.

That leads me to a question, I recently asked myself. I always thought only catholics can be part of the order. But looking through the list of recipients, there is King George IV of Great Britain (number 880). Was there any rule I don't know of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Utgardloki said:

That leads me to a question, I recently asked myself. I always thought only catholics can be part of the order. But looking through the list of recipients, there is King George IV of Great Britain (number 880). Was there any rule I don't know of?

No, it´s OK. War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1711) led to the division of the Order. There are 2 branches till today, Spanish and Austrian. First non-Catholic (Protestant) admission to the Spanish branch was Duke of Wellington (as an appreciation of his liberation of Spain but still it required the consent of the pope then). Consequently it took "more liberty" (Protestant, Orthodox) and it ended up by the admission of non-Christian knight to the Order (King of Thailand). Austrian branch remains strictly Catholic. 

Best,

t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tifes said:

No, it´s OK. War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1711) led to the division of the Order. There are 2 branches till today, Spanish and Austrian. First non-Catholic (Protestant) admission to the Spanish branch was Duke of Wellington (as an appreciation of his liberation of Spain but still it required the consent of the pope then). Consequently it took "more liberty" (Protestant, Orthodox) and it ended up by the admission of non-Christian knight to the Order (King of Thailand). Austrian branch remains strictly Catholic. 

Best,

t.

Thanks for your answer. I know about the division of the order and that lot's of non-catholics got the spanish one (including Kaiser Wilhelm II, who always wore his spanish one like it was the austrian one 😄)

But George IV is in the austrian(!) list of recipients (the one on Wikipedia)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Ritter_des_Ordens_vom_Goldenen_Vlies#19._Jahrhundert_2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry. I overlooked the number (Georg IV not George V) and you are right! I found on some free sources on Internet that he should have received both, Spanish and Austrian as Prince Regent (since 1810, his father George III was mentally ill) but Austrians were faster and his Spanish Toison d´Or thus became null and void and he never received it.  I can only assume that it was the same as in case of Duke of Wellington (first Protestant in Spanish branch) while he was nominated by Chancellor Prince Metternich himself and Emperor Franz I/II was fine with that. I would say that extraordinary times require extraordinary solutions however this should be an exception in Austrian branch, which did not become a usual practice like by the Spanish branch. Nevertheless, it´s very interesting...   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Christian1962

Regarding the troop cross discussion. If you look into the "Verordnungsblatt für das k. u. k. Heer / Normalverordnungen / 25. Stück / 6. Juli 1918 S. 129ff" 

you find the "Statuten und Durchführungsbestimmungen für das [...] Karl-Truppen-Kreuz"

https://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex-day?aid=kkh&datum=19180706&seite=5&zoom=33

There you find on page 6 "Ad §3 Punkt 1."

"8. Anspruch auf das Karl-Truppenkreuz haben:"

and then under the letter n) (on page 8)

"n) An Nazarener darf das Karl-Truppen-Kreuz nicht verliehen werden" 

(That's the sentence the author of the OMSA-Text cites)

I am actually not sure if Jews are meant with this word - maybe one of you can help here

 

Beside that, I found the article "Das österreichische Karl-Truppen-Kreuz " in the "Orden und Ehrenzeichen" magazine number 51 from 2007 by Walter A. Schwarz. There he lists all the Verordnungsblätter regarding the cross. I couldn't find the ones like "BH Nr. 45/1917/Z. 639/S. 472" with the signature "BH" at the Austrian national library. What does "BH" mean?

Edited by Utgardloki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Blog Comments

    • As a theology student my professor, a much published former Naval chaplain, set us an essay, saying that if we could answer that successfully we would be guaranteed  a good degree "Which of the gospel writers was the biggest liar, discuss."   I got a good mark, but  don't want to be burned for heresy.   P
    • As my father used to say: "Tain't so much Pappy's a liar - he just remembers big."  
    • Brian: First, let me say that I always enjoy reading your blog and your "spot on" comments.  Another fine topic with such a broad expansion into so many different facets.  I had watched this a week or two ago and when reading your blog, it reminded me of this great quote.   There is a great video on the origins of "Who was Murphy in Murphy's Law"   Anyway, about mid way through this video, there is this great quote and I think it sums it up quite well to your statem
    • I've received word from the Curator that she has permission to re-open this summer.   We're already making plans for a November event at the Museum.   Michael
    • I recall I did the same on hot days at Old Fort York back in 1973-74 - wool uniforms, and at 90F they would let you take your backpack off.   Michael
×
×
  • Create New...