Landwehr Crosses the Basics

Joseph P Robinson

2 December 2004

In response to a series of questions I thought I would jot these thoughts down. Janet was Air Guard and so we try to do mostly reserve helmets but fail. Step 1 is to understand that the proper title is Landwehr Cross not reserve cross regardless of whether it was worn by reserve forces or Landwehr forces. Step 2 is to understand that there are a million variations on a theme here. The Trawnik book diagrams of this issue are well worth having. Most authors stay clear of reserve stuff because it is too hard and not as well documented as active stuff.

So here goes a short dissertation. An American auction house has put up a Baden reserve plate without bandeaux and saying it is odd when in reality it is correct except the color of the cross.  In theory the motto was on the Landwehr cross and thus no bandeaux on the wappen.  There is no difference between Landwehr and Reserve. The difference is in the motto on the cross and the wappen itself. There are also differences in how they are attached. Knötel had a plate of Reserve and Landwehr crosses in his Das deutsche Heer-Friedensuniform bei Ausbruch des Weltkriegs. This cartoon drawing is our starting point.

Ok so let’s take a look at Prussian Eagles.

This is a reserve eagle in my collection. FR on the chest, no bandeaux. Cross which has the motto Für Koenig and Vaterland is on the cross. These crosses a standard 25mm width and height. I have seen smaller ones that are about 20mm. there was no enlisted version of this wappen.

This is a Landwehr wappen and you can see no FR on the chest. The cross is mounted on that location. A standard 25mm cross. Some but not all of these eagles had an inset of the cross. If you look at the back of this plate you can see several things. The impression of the cross and the “prongs” that attached the cross. These prongs were often soldered to the back of the cross and if removed often broke.  The cross was not always soldered to the wappen.  The holes that the prongs went through were pretty rough. If you look at the one on the left you can clearly see it is more oval.  If you see machine drilled holes it is probably new.

This is the reserve helmet I mentioned.  Cross with Bandeaux.  Incorrect but I have no doubt about this being original. I have seen about a dozen of these. This has a double motto.  Why?  I guess it was what they had. If you were an active OYV that went reserve I guess you could add a cross for 1 mark instead of refitting it for 15 marks.

Guard Reserve, Grenadier Reserve and Landwehr followed a similar pattern with Guard Reserve having the cross mounted in the lower position under the guard star. New style grenadier reserves had so many variations as to warrant a separate article.

 Guard Landwehr were entirely different with their own specific wappen as below. there is enlisted form of this wappen that was used for both the Guard reserves and Landwehr both.

I have seen variations on position as well as size of the cross. Baden followed the same concept except there is no difference between Landwehr and Reserve. The cross said “Für Fürst and Vaterland” so while it looks the same at a distance from the Prussian it is indeed different. Here is a picture of a Baden with both mottos. Correct no.  Original probably. Lots of Baden reserve wappen had both mottos.  Look at Stubbs and you find they abound. Note the position of the cross. Baden crosses seem to be here or mostly lower down between the leg and the shield. Also some in the center had the cross impressed like Prussian Landwehr eagles.

This shows the back of that plate with 4 holes for the reserve cross.  Two are utilized.

There an interesting Baden theory.  A senior collector and man of the cloth, has a Baden wappen with a Koenig reserve cross. His theory is that it belongs to IR 114.  Those guys had a wacht company that guarded the little Prussian enclave of Hohenzollern (the catholic side). I have no other support for this theory and don’t buy it objectively but it is a real possibility.

Wurttemberg had no motto on their cross like this example. This was also 25mm. While Würrtemburg had no difference between Reserve and Landwehr it seems as though their Landsturm units had Gilt crosses on gilt wappen.  One of these is on Hilsenbeck pg 163 but is not noted by Knötel.

Hessian crosses were different again. There was no difference between reserve and Landwehr. Again a 25mm cross. The motto said “Gott Ehre Vaterland”. Positioning seems consistently low.

Saxon crosses were different with no motto and no difference between Reserve and Landwehr. The crosses were supposedly 56mm.

Mecklenburg had a lot of size differences and a Fürst motto. No difference between reserve and Landwehr. They were supposedly 44mm and the one in the Herrmann book is.  However, many are about the size of Prussian crosses. Strelitz supposedly had one that was 36mm but I have no example. Stubbs on page 497 and Laine states that all Mecklenburg crosses were silver not gilt but examples such as Herrmann and this one disagree.

The very small vassal states that had a Prussian eagle and a central wappen followed the same general rules as the Prussians.  There were many variations like the Landwehr of IR 92 did not have the Peninsular bandeaux. This has Fürst crosses mounted in the lower position. The sole contrary example is Oldenburg which had a Koenig cross.

The Hansiatic states followed the Prussian pattern but their cross was different. The motto read “mitt Gott Furs Vaterland”.

Bavaria had no motto and no difference between reserve and Landwehr. And a cross that was 45mm wide and 55mmn tall.

There are also differences in the decorations on the crosses.  Wreaths, swords, 1813 date.  Generally Prussia had the date 1813, Furst crosses had a wreath.  There were however swords too. I do not think this is random but I will get to it in other drafts.

Kammerstempel – Infantry

Joseph P. Robinson.–much of the data in this listing was provided by Hartwig Busche. His manuscript on infantry is unparalleled. I have endeavored to give credit to the owners of photographs who have given me permission to publish them. Without question I have made mistakes, omitted proper credit,or just plain missed someone. I apologize. Should anyone see that their picture is here and credit is not properly given on the contributors list please let me know and I will correct it. Please send me your stamp examples!
27 July 2007.

Meldereiter

Joseph Robinson

This article has its genesis in a helmet that came into the possession of Randy Trawnik. It came out of the estate sale in Arkansas and was sold on eBay. Glenn Jewison and Marshall Daut both shared information as we tried to determine what this helmet was. It is clearly not Jäger  zu Pferde  as the Wappen is clearly from a guard unit. It is an officers helmet and is extremely lightweight. The originality is not questioned. Prior to the formation of the Jäger  zu Pferde  regiments in 1905 there were several predecessors. So this started a search of the predecessors. As you will find this helmet did not fit cleanly into any hole.

Before anybody jumps to the conclusion that this is a Kürassier helmet take a moment to consider the visors. Kürassier is round, Randy’s is square.

From an organizational standpoint there were 3 distinct time frames for the Meldereiter/ Jäger  zu Pferde :1895-1899 Meldereiter Detachments–1899-1905 Jäger zu Pferde Squadrons -1905-1918 Jäger zu Pferde Regiments.

They were established by the AKO of 30 March 1895 an excerpt of which is shown below. You can see that in that establishment there were originally 4 officers per detachment. Therefore there should have been 4 officer helmets with a Garde star at some starting point.

As we are most interested in a helmet that came from the Garde we can track that organization directly. The Eskadron Garde-Jäger  zu Pferde was formed originally as the Meldereiter-Detachement des Gardekorps on 1 October 1895. They were renamed as the Detachement Garde-Jäger zu Pferde on 31 March 1897 and as the Eskadron Garde-Jäger zu Pferde on 25 March 1899. On 1 October 1905 they became 3./Jäger zu Pferde Regiment Nr 2.

However, there is a problem with the timing of the uniform regulations. The uniform regulation for the officers was written in 1895 before the unit was established and changed in 1911 a long after the time we’re interested in. There is however an annex in the AVB detailing an AKO of 24 August 1897. An excerpt of which is shown below dealing with the helmet . As the original officers of the Meldereiter were not uniformed as such but wore the uniforms of their parent regiments, a Garde star could only have been worn between 1897 and 1905.

So according to the establishing regulation that helmet was blackened when it was a detachment in 1897. This is backed up by color painting of an officer identified by Glenn Jewison as Major Frhr. Thumb von Neuburg of the Eskadron Garde-Jäger zu Pferde.  This picture is copied from page 23 of the book The Kaisers Army in Color by Charles Woolley. The painting is a reproduction of the work of Carl Becker. Made somewhere between 1890 and 1910 the illustration matches the regulation.

There are photographs of Major Frhr. Thumb von Neuburg found in the book “Unten den Fahnen der Alten Armee’  by Brackmann and Schmelzer.  Especially the one on page 448 which is a blown up copy of the reservist picture on page 447. He is clearly wearing a blackened helmet. Not all of the pictures in that wonderful book are that clear some showing very very small reservists pictures of helmets that could be silver. Really tough to say but there are certainly a lot of pictures and no question about the Garde Star. You could actually buy a black helmet from a retailer as is shown by this excerpt of page 19 of the Neumann catalog.

Then there is this 1900 print by Knötel that also shows black helmets. As you can see from the establishment directive there were only 3 detachments originally in 1895. 4 are listed in the 1897 uniform regulatiion. This grew to 5 detachments by 1899 when the name changed to squadrons. Bavaria and Saxony also possessed Jäger zu Pferde squadrons until 1905, at which time they were assimilated into the 7th Chevauleger and 21st Uhlan regiments.

Senior ranked officers from Brigdekommandeurand higher in command of troops had a mounted staff orderly known as Stabsordonnanzen at their disposal. I know of no optical method to distinguish the helmets between them and the Meldereiter however, there were no officers uniformed as Stabsordannanzen.

Now where this helmet falls short in the explanation department is that it is all silver. Regardless of how the pictures might look in tint every single thing is silver. The chin scales, the spike, the spike base, the shell, the trim, the star. Everything. The star is original to the helmet and you can see the attachments in the pictures below. So what is it?

The regulation that formed this unit also formed the detachment for the I Army Corps. They also wore a blackened. helmet. Here is a picture of an enlisted man from that unit..  You can see what a blackened helmet looks like in a picture. Very clear.

Here is another picture from the same timeframe of a gentleman in the same unit. This one happens to be a one-year volunteer.

Now wait a minute this one is silver. Actually the Germans called it nickeled. So there are pictures with blackened helmets and pictures with nickel helmets. But the regulation seems very clear–black. So what is this?

A nickel helmet is shown clearly on page 480 in the book “Unten den Fahnen der Alten Armee’  by Brackmann and Schmelzer.  Picture 559 has the caption: “the so-called Fähnrickshelm differ from those of the enlisted men in that it had two pronounced steps in the visor and through its nickel plated body.” If you compare the visors of the nickel picture with that of the black picture you can see the difference. All of the metal parts on this helmet in the picture are silver. It has an enlisted spike. Randy’s has an officer spike and Kleebatten. Picture 538 has a caption: “According to dress regulation, the helmet was supposed to be frosted black. However, often it was polished and nickel plated.”

The metal furniture was gold in some and silver in others.  But the consistent reality is that black and the nickel helmets existed side-by-side despite the limitation of the regulation. In addition, there were huge timing issues. The easiest of which to see are the uniforms of the XV Army Corps. In the early years the Meldereiters of this Army Corps wore a distinctive Husar looking uniform. This was eliminated legally in 1897. So one would expect not to see this uniform far in the future. However there are at least 2 dated pictures in the book “Unten den Fahnen der Alten Armee’  by Brackmann and Schmelzer that show that uniform in use in 1902 and 1904. It seems as though for certain ceremonial reasons the old uniform would be trotted out. It is easy to extrapolate that the same thing could possibly be attributed to the Garde Corps.

It is not clear who could have these nickel helmets or when they could be worn. It seems to be either full dress parade–walking out uniform but definitely private purchase. Clearly officers had them as well as some other ranks. My best guess on Randy’s helmet is that it is one of these nickel plated helmets from the Garde Corps. Set up for a full officer and probably dated before 1905. There seems to be a lack of direct photographic evidence for that specific Army Corps. However, by using photographs of other Army Corps there is no reason to believe that these did not exist in the Garde. In fact there is solid proof. Below is an excerpt from page 20 of the Neumann catalog. If you look at item 247 you can see this retailer offered renovation of Randy’s type helmet with a nickel body.

Hessian Shako

Joeseph P. Robinson

Helmet Stands

Joseph P Robinson

There are TONS of options to use as helmet stands. Antique spools are sold all over eBay.  Styrofoam heads abound but I think look poor. Coffee cans, candles and other homemade items can work and can be inexpensive.  The idea is two fold.

1. KEEP THE HELMET FROM RESTING ON ITS 100 YEAR OLD STITCHES

2. MAKE THE HELMET KEEP ITS SHAPE/FORM

3.  LOOK GOOD

There has been a lot of comments about foam in helmets. The foam is petroleum based and can react with leather or any organic matter. The question is how inert the foam is. Some foam reacts in 3-5 years, some not in a long long time, and some very quickly. Watch to see if the foam turns brown as oxidation is the key.  If in doubt or to be safe you can cover the foam with linen or (gasp) tin foil. 

Most stands fail somewhere. This is what I use. I buy these.  A plastic base. Plastic rod of any desired length. A Styrofoam half head.  I think heads fail #3 above.

Helmet Covers – Uberzug

Joe Robinson

Kürassier-Regiment Königin (Pommersches) Nr.2

Kürassier Regt Nr 2 Wappen
Joe Robinson

December, 2014.

Some Thoughts About Filz

Joseph Robinson

26 May 2005

A few thoughts on filz.  This is not intended to be any kind of final word but rather a method of generating discussion on the topic.

We always hear a lot of misconceptions about filz. The old one was that imperial Germany ran out of leather sometime in August of 1914 and substitute material or ersatz had to be adopted because of the shortage. Filz was suddenly discovered and the felt pickelhaube suddenly came into use. This old story died very hard and is still in existence in a few places. However, it is overwhelmingly false.

The real reason for the adoption of ersatz helmets was because the total requirement for helmets totally outstripped the amount of helmets in storage or in the production line. This is confirmed by KM Nr.4315/10.14.13.3 Berlin 20 Nov. 1914. If you look at pictures of 1914 you will see old-style helmets pressed into service alongside newer models. The War Ministry of the various kingdoms leapt into service in trying to fulfill the needs of the created units for helmets. Existing industries and existing technology was best used to fill this need quickly without doing a great deal of retooling. There was an existing filz industry as hats made of filz had existed for quite some time. You can quickly bring to mind some gentlemen wearing a “Bavarian hat”. These were made of filz.

What do you mean by filz? Traditional wisdom says that this is felt. It is often correctly referred to as felt. However, it was not felt in the modern style but rather treated animal fur. Two animals parts gave their all for this industry one was rabbit fur and the other one was sheep’s wool.

Here’s a quote from a hat company (http://www.noggintops.com/page.cfm?p=37):

“Fur felt, made from the fine hairs of rabbits or beaver, is generally thinner, lighter in weight, and more dense than wool felt. Due to the density of the material, fur felt hats can have a raw edge brim (just cut, no binding or welt) while wool felt hat brim edges must generally be bound or welted (turned over and sewn). The greater density of fur felt generally relates to a longer lifespan of the hat (there are Civil War era fur felt hats that could still give good service). Fur felt hats can also be given a smoother finish than wool felt, which is why it is a preferred material for dress hats. Both felts have similar characteristics of water-repellency and breathability (though there are a host of poor quality wool felt hats out there that fall apart when they get wet–none of which are sold here). Wool felt hats have an edge in insulating ability in cold weather.”

In the Bavarian archives there is a substantial listing of the different types of filz helmets offered by one firm–Bruno Sturm of Guben
(Derivative firm still exists making hats.) This was an existing company that produced hats for the colonial troops, religious uniform hats, and for the youth groups. This was an existing industry. A prototype of a helmet had been used by colonial troops in Asia earlier in the century (above 1901).  And there had been an experimental Prussian helmet in 1905.  Therefore, it was copying an existing technology. Both of these kinds of helmets were built around a filz helmet body with added on leather or fibre visors. The experimental model was withdrawn in 1906 because it did not “shine”. While it might have been withdrawn the stocks were certainly not destroyed and seem to have been reissued in 1914. The best example of this is located Tony Schnurr’s site along with a fine essay. http://www.kaisersbunker.com/dunkelblau/helmets/dbh71.htm This experimental helmet was a leather helmet covered in filz.

Basically there were 2 general types of helmets offered by Sturm. Those that were lacquered on the outside and those that were not — which were considered “finished helmets”. You could get a finished helmet with both a front and back visor made out of either rabbit or wool. Shakos were the same way except that they appear to always come with visors.

Again this is only one company and there were obviously many variations on a theme. The sole purpose here is to show that there were 2 different materials used. I cannot say that they look any different but perhaps collectors with more examples will be able to show the difference. Another letter to Bavarian war minister, G. Benedict. Berlin 30 Nov 1914. BayHStA. Abt. IV  M Kr 5103, cautions the ministry about visor trim saying that his firm could produce this however they have been frequently rejected by some other BKA because it had come loose easily. In addition it cost .25 marks more with the front trim than without. Again with this one example it seems as though both kinds of materials could be colored field green or field gray.

There is another document in the Bavarian archives– Bayer. III. A.K. Nürnberg 12 Apr 1915 Bayer HStA Abt IV M Kr 5103. Bayer. III. Army Corps to the Bavarian Ministry of War providing feedback about the various types of ersatz helmets. In this letter, it is claimed that most of the filz helmets were issued to replacement units and troops. They said that the spiked helmets made of filz were both light and comfortable. However, a major complaint was that they were not waterproof, absorbed water from rain and snow, became heavier and stretched out losing their original shape. There was also a complaint that they provided little protection from edged weapon wounds. The author of the letter suggested a solution by using filz helmets that were lacquered and therefore waterproof. There was no existing example however in the III Bavarian Army Corps.

6 days earlier, III Bay Army Corps 6.Apr 1915 BayHStA. St. Benoit Abt. IV  M Kr 5103, lamented that the filz took a lot of time to dry out and after they did the filz became hard and broke easily. They also provided little protection against shell and stone fragments. Medically, there were complaints about pieces of filz being driven into the wound causing infection and inadequate healing. The suggested solution of this organization was a waterproof helmet cover.

Then I. Bayer.A.K.12. Apr.1915  M Kr 5103 also responded to this request for feedback saying that they had not had adequate time to make final judgments on them. I Bavarian Army Corps preferred filz to metal helmets because of their comfort but also lamented their absorption of rainwater and that they lacked adequate ventilation to dry out therefore losing their shape.

There seems to have been an entire constellation of various filz helmets. Some with visor trim, some without, some with roled trim, with and without different kinds of rear trim on the spine. Some have filz visors others do not. There are also cavalry helmets made from filz. There also seems to be an entire constellation of providers. It seems to have come from the craft guilds but I do not know enough yet. There also seems to have been a huge difference in pricing. As different army corps and war ministers were seeking products the manufacturers raised their prices. There was a shortage of the replacement hats and the demand was very time sensitive.

Here are some things that I would love to see from collectors who have examples.

1. Can you visibly tell the difference between wool and rabbit examples?

2. What was the relative price of the different models?

3. Was there a production run of leather or fiber visored filz helmets in 1914 or later? Or were all of the leather looking visors 1905 reissues or repair jobs?

4. Can we show various examples?

The Relative Cost of a Pickelhaube

Joseph Robinson

Draft 2

25 April 2007 update

Bowman in Volume 1 pg 345-348 talks about period values of pickelhauben but offers no sources. He states that Lieutenants made 120 Marks a month and that a helmet was relatively expensive [i]. This intrigued me as I knew it was big industry to make Pickelhauben before WW1.  Four generations of German soldiers had worn pickelhauben. [ii] Anecdotal evidence tells me 6% of the German economy was involved in Pickelhaube creation in some way. Bowman gives a much smaller number of 20,000 directly involved in production. [iii] I don’t recall Tuchman making anything of it in The Proud Tower but that is a huge part of the economy. Pickelhaubes were the common gift. Martin in his book gives the impression that a normal officer had 3 Pickelhaubes [iv]. He never came out and said it but the impression was one to wear walking out, one for normal duty, and one for parades. [v]

So I went off to find some data and determine how close Bowman was in his assertions.

The first thing I had to find was pay tables.  This proved very difficult as the expected source Fuhrer durch Heer und Flotte [vi] had every possible pay table for travel, housing, and pensions but not the monthly pay. NCO and OR pay was in Das Kleine Buch von Deutschen Heere but not officers and it was dated 1901: too early for other evidence to match. Finally with the help of a German collector I found a source. [vii] While salaries varied by rank and longevity, here are a few samples:

F|r einen Hauptmann, Rittmeister, Stabarzt, Oberstabs- u. Stabsveterindr

1. a) vom 1.-4. Jahre             283,33
2. b) vom 5.-8. Jahre             383,33
3. c) vom 9. Jahre ab             425

F|r einen Leutnant u. Oberleutnant

1. a) vom 1.-3. Jahre             125
2. b) vom 4.-6. Jahre             141,66
3. c) vom 7.-9. Jahre             158,33
4. d) vom 10.-12. Jahre           175
5. e) vom 13. Jahre ab            200[viii]

So there it is. 125Marks per month in 1913 for a beginning officer. Remember I’m talking helmet costs now not total cost of living let alone equipping an officer. The Mark was about twenty cents and The US Lieutenant made $125 or 5 times the German Officer. [ix]

It is also instructive that NCOs and ORs made significantly less. [x]  I point to the entry on Fähnriche to emphasize that these guys made little. Senior NCOs often had private purchase helmets.  OYVs had to come fully equipped, so someone shelled out for them.  It is curious to note that the Feldwebel in Life in a Garrison Townenriched himself by extorting money from the OYVs. Not only would he hit them as recruits but would accept payment annually during training, from some to lessen the severity of their duties. As a result he lived quite well and could afford fineries.

             b.d. Fu_truppen  b.d. berittenen Truppen

Gemeine      9,00 Marks        10,50

Gefreite     10,50            12,00

kapit. Gefr. 15,00            16,50

Fahrer wie f|r                 15,60

 Berittene, f|r

 Hobisisten usw.

Fähnriche u. Unteroffiziere mit    25,20

 weniger als 5 1/2 Dienstjahren

Sergeanten u. Unteroffiziere nach  39,60

 5 1/2 jdhr. Dienszeit

Vizefeldwebel, Sergeanten u.       47,10

 Unteroffiziere nach 9

 jdhriger Dienstzeit

Feldwebel, Wachtmeister            62,10[xi]

  The next step was to determine the cost of a helmet. For this I have four catalogs. The prices used for this article are from the Deutsche Officer Verein (DOV).  The one I will use is dated April 1913.  Tumhe other is an undated extract. [xii]  Bowman alludes to another catalog in volume 1 but gives no source material. [xiii]

I’m not pricing uniforms or anything else.  This is helmets only. The paucity of catalogs leads us to use a construct that is probably not universal . In the DOV catalog  the first thing to notice is that all helmets have three levels you could buy at.  I put them out as good, better, and best. As quality increased to did the cost.  Lets look at an example of a line infantry helmet.

This construct of three levels is obviously not universal nor easy to show. However in the Neumann catalog and the Wunderlich catalog there are also three levels. There could easily be 10 levels with custom pieces etc. High value plate, low value leather etc. The only real way to determine is to have a catalog like DOV and three representative examples from the same year as the catalog.  Each catalog differs. Each retailer claimed that his item was tremendously good. Differences in furniture is difficult to capture and even very nice plates suffer from 100 years of dirt, UV light, abrasive cleaners and who knows what.  So it is very difficult to say: ‘This helmet is a low quality example. Some plates are better than others and as the war progressed the level of detail suffered.  Part of this is a result of thin materials but it could also come from the wearing out of the dies.  Helmet plates were die struck.  So as the die wore out the plate would have less detail.

The uniform regulation of 1911 is very specific about sizes of fixtures.  How big the chin scales had to be etc.[xv]  There was nothing however, that differentiated the thickness of material. As the war went on all metal fixtures got thinner. Steel or zinc replaces brass prior to gilding. All of these were supply related and I have no evidence that it was price driven. As things became scarce I’m sure helmet price inflation kicked in but I have no data.

 The one constant that you can compare on helmets is the quality of liner. Lots of gradient differences here so I will choose three distinct types for my construct.

BEST

It always seems that the maker Awes-Marke had really good helmets.  Not all of the same quality, but the examples I have seen are a cut above. So our top grade example will have a premium liner with a tightening band through the leather and some embossing.