Machnowist Black Army (and also some Headdresses in RCW )

[former user]

Hi

there seems to be an urgent need to discuss the appropriate headgear for the different armies in RCW
(strangely enough started by my personal collecting taste)

so feel free to comment please

here a list:

Furashka  - peaked cap  (also civilian dress, see Lenin)
Papakha - Peasant fur cap
Kubanka - Cossack style fur cap with felt top, regulation dress for cavalry and elite units
Kolchakowa - Winter dress fur cap, introduced by Kolchak, similar to later Ushanka (with front and ear flaps)
Budienovka - pointy Bolshevik "trademark" felt cap (according to some source originally meant to be introduced in the tsarist army, therefore available in large numbers and adopted by Bolsheviks) aka Bogatyrka, Frunzenka, Shlem
Bashlyk - Cossack headdress, usually felt or fleece, sometimes with fur
Beskozirka - a peakless (in American usage) or visor-less (English usage) style like a Furaskha. Associated with sailors, schoolkids and the "coloured" units in the south.
Rogatywka - the "trademark" four corned Polish cap issued after polish independence.
Czapka - the traditional polish Uhlan headdress, featured in many armies in modified form, however in the everyday use of polish (and russian) language it would be any kind of cap

please complete or correct the list

[Mark Plant]

I have seen brightly coloured Bashlyks, usually associated with Cossacks. Are they felt or cloth?

Beskozirka - a peakless (in American usage) or visor-less (English usage) style like a furaskha. Associated with sailors, schoolkids and the "coloured" units in the south.

Rogatywka - the traditional four corned Polish cap. (Whereas a Czapka is any cap.)

I think the Budienovka is also known as the Shlem.

[former user]

I think the brightly coloured Bashlyks would be of felt/fleece and more traditional, as well as more civilian
(which is a strange thing to say for a militaristic organized society like the cossacks)
but who knows (I have seen the paintings)  - maybe someone knows a Cossack and could ask?

anyway, this would be a good opportunity to give colour to cavalry

I also read that not all Cosacks used the Cherkesska (typical open coat), but this is another topic
Wikipedia says that there is currently a Cosack revival fostered by Putin...
here another interesting thing:
it appears that the service dress included the Furashka for Cossacks and the Bashlyk was only worn with full dress  (here the source:Tablitsi Form' Obmundirovaniya Russkoi Armi", Colonel V.K. Shenk, published by the Imperial Russian War Ministry 1910-11.)
meaning that from the cossack miniatures I know, most would be Kuban or Terek Cossacks in full dress
(Bashlyk, Cherkessa and Beshmet)
so any kind of cavalry with Gymnastiorka and Furashka could represent Cosacks as well!
it is interesting to know that Cossacks in the Tsarist army (apart from the Guard regiments) provided their own uniform, so the general shortage of the RCW would not apply to Cossack units and those therefore could sport a more  regular appearence

how about the Beskozirka?
I know the style, but haven't seen it on pictures except in earlier times (late 19. C) or for sailors
also not on miniatures, except for sailors
But I know the German rank&file used something similar as garrison/field cap
(so if the Beskozirka was actually in use, easiest way to use german figures and have more choice)

headdress is a difficult matter and usually quickest adaptable to fashion

oh yes, and helmets
it appears that issued helmets were quickly  "lost"  (actually I never saw any in pictures)
maybe they were more associated with trench warfare?
who knows more?

[Bako]

Interesting to setup a list of all the forms of headdresses. I was never particularly familiar with what the Polish wore, or all the Cossacks either. So this is useful to me. Though that may be simply because I'm more interested in just the Bolsheviks and the Ukrainian anarchist black army.

[former user]

now thats interesting

I want to do a makhnovist army myself

what kind of figures do you use?

So, here's the plan

I am thinking of building a small Makhnovist army for RCW
after checking available miniatures  (actually BG and Copplestone)

I decided that bareheaded and furry hat types (apart from cossacks) would represent the peasant background best
why so?

1. Research
I tried to do extensive Photo and movie clip research on the Makhnovists
every pictorial source I saw featured a variety of headcloth, so there was no "trademark" headgear like the BUDIENOVKA of the red army. However, many pictures naturally show Makhnov himself and his staff, who quite often wear the PAPAKHA, the traditional civilian fur cap of the Ukrainian (and other middle Asian) peasant.

2. Interpretation
Since many soldiers of any side would have been former imperial soldiers, it would be of course natural to retain the FURASHKA. For Volunteers of course the access to regulation dress I interpret as rather restricted. With the industry in increased decline and in the hands of bolsheviks  (and also the former army stocks), no wonder the main source for the Whites after expending theit original dress would have been Interventionist supply, mainly British uniforms.
The Insurrectory army of Makhnov however hated all revisionists and consequently would not have any access to their supplies. Furthermore, the Anarchists were mainly a peasant army who relied on loot for their equipment, and sometimes perhaps would trade equipment for their agricultural product from the Bolsheviks with whom they occasionally cooperated.
The logical consequence would therefore be that headgear could be expected to be:
- none
- occasional the Furashka, but in decreasing numbers
- miscellaneous civilian headdress, but mainly of urban style
- and the traditional fur hat, which any peasant could manufacture himself or aleady had anyway
in addition, the fact that Makhnov himself usually appeared wearing a fur hat, I would certainly go for some desire to copy the "boss".
The Makhnovist army would probably have had the least uniformity of all RCW armies apart from black arm bands or black markings, as is clearly revealed by the pictorial source.

3. My "peculiar" approach
When constructin a tabletop army, I usually go for a certain uniformity as well as individual highlights, especially when the army would have been at war for some time.
(An "authentically" looking army would be no option for me, since especially in this case it would look like a heap of armed civilians)
therefore some key aspects must be established in order to create some uniformity.
According to my research, these aspects would be:
- fur hats  (peasants)
- black (anarchists)

the individual highlights would include the use of Khaki for military looking clothing (or greyish Khaki for greatcoats) and various other colours for the civilian stuff.

But in any case, for a soldier to be instantly recognisable on the tabletop as a Makhnovist it requires either some black device or a fur hat!

Now the available miniatures (as known to me) usually come packed uniformly with Papashkas, Budienovkas or Furashkas, and alternatively in mixed packs.
Budienovkas are out of question, Furashkas may be OK, but the packs wich uniformly feature the former usually also look very "regulation" dress like.

what remains is the fur hat and the mixed packs which provide a great variety of alternative posings so favoured by me.

[Mark Plant]

- miscellaneous civilian headdress, but mainly of urban style

Furthermore, the Anarchists were mainly a peasant army.

Not mainly peasant, but exclusively; at least when it comes to the Makhnovists.

The Makhnovists were defiantly anti-urban in culture and politics. They regarded cities as leeches, draining the wealth of the peasants. Their response upon capturing a large town was to loot it and withdraw. They did not even attempt to make common cause with the proletariat.

We tend to think nowadays of "Anarchism" as an educated and urban thing. But the followers of Makhno were not of that sort - they just wanted to be left to plough their land with no external authority at all. A few city intellectuals joined with Makhno, but merely as hangers-on. They not follow the army, but tried to use the power vacuum in the Ukraine to try out their theories in some small collective farm or similar.

I would guess the only thing less likely than an urban style hat (say a homburg) on a Makhnovist would be a Jewish one or a German one. (Note that I am not accusing Makhno personally of anti-Semitism. Only the bulk of his followers.)

I'm not sure how much of an issue this is in 25mm, but Peter Pig make a lovely 15mm "Red Guard" pack in urban civilian dress who are sadly wrong as a Makhnovists.

[former user]

indeed

most hats/caps seen in pictures from rural areas of that time are Furashkas and Papakhas

as the Ukrainians were (and are) regarded as rural, and fur caos are rather traditional in the more southern parts of eastern europe, I would expect the mixture of civilian headdress to to tend towards fur caps in Ukrainia and Furashka in Russia and Belarus.

the civilian Furashka was very common and ubiquitous, even with Jewish and Cossacks
taking into account industrial deterioration and declining logistics in 4 Jears of civil war (eg the kolchakovka introduced by Kolchak), I would expect more Furashkas in the beginning and more fur hats towards the end, except for the fractions profiting of urban industry, namely the Bolsheviks.
The later Whites would have increasingly worn british uniform.
Fur hats are very easy to produce in rural areas and therefore available, especially for the poor.

for rather not uniformed combattants, it is not easy to define the concept of "urban" headdress.
something like a homburg would be of course a sign of bourgeoisie and not to be expected in any revolutionary context.
But anything available from felt cap to flat cap would be perfect on any more "civilian dressed"  (as often featured on partisan-like miniatures)

As for the Makhnovists, though mainly peasants, one should not forget that they had many supporters from others than peasants, as well as many defected soldiers from other fractions who would prefer the anarchist sytem to the enforced discipline of reds and whites alike.
Allthough mainly relying on loot for equipment, the Makhnovist army indeed operated some armored cars and trains and not only the hunting shotgun and pitchfork of Cliché.
Also Makhno himself is variously credited as the inventor of the Tachanka to support the allegedly best cavalry of RCW (I was surprised to read the latter, but one should not forget that Cossacks are also peasants).

unfortunately, anyone but the wealthy or insane would be unable to authentically represent any specific army (RCW or not)  along the changes in a long war, so some measure must be kept here

[Doc Twilight]

former user -

I would agree with you that the Black Army should be represented with a mixture. I like a mixture of troops in civilian clothes, mixed civilian/military clothes, and even a few in uniforms. Don't forget that Mahkno himself favored wearing pieces of various uniforms, and was keenly aware of the effect that a uniform - even a ragged one - could have upon the population. The recent television series on Mahkno, while I understand not the greatest piece of cinematography ever, has some great shots of troops in various mixed gear, including all sorts of head gear, as you discussed earlier.  (No Schlems <Sp?> or Helmets of course.)

Although my company was named for the Black Army of Matthias Corvinus, it might well have been named for the Mahknovists - I've been fascinated by them since I started serious reading on the RCW. A great, and often neglected topic. Of course, they have been accused of their share of atrocities, but to be fair, so are all the combatants in what was a very nasty struggle.

-Doc

[former user]

I agree

finding the balance between uniform display and the raggedness of a long war in a force including a hich percentage of motivated civilians is indeed the key to a convincingly looking army

I will try my shot and show the result

but I guess this will be next year since my funds and time are currently tied with my armoured train project

[Bako]

now thats interesting

I want to do a makhnovist army myself

what kind of figures do you use?

Considering your picture I'm not surprised .

I use a mixture of armed civilians/partisans, converted/modified Bolsheviks and a select few ragged Whites. Copplestone indeed.

I rely on the few Makhnovist pictures I can find, usually ones with Makhno and his staff. It's really just a family heritage hobby project I do not foresee being finished in the near future. Mostly still in the miniatures collecting stage, and it won't really kick off until after I move to somewhere with more room for my miniatures hobby. Looking to build a suitable table for it too, arid desert and alien jungle really don't do it for this.

Could you suggest a few sites or something on the army, and possibly some pictures? All the material I have is from an old high school family heritage project I made and it focused a little more on Makhno, his achievements and his family than some of the special points of the army itself.

[Mark Plant]

Allthough mainly relying on loot for equipment, the Makhnovist army indeed operated some armored cars and trains and not only the hunting shotgun and pitchfork of Cliché.

Most clichés I have seen of the Makhnovists tend to the other end. Far from denigrating them, they tend to assume that they were a regular army with a few odd political ideals. A Ukrainian Durruti Column, as it were, rather than hastily mobilised peasants bulking out a small core.

The Makhnovists never operated armour for any length of time. It would tie them down to rail lines and roads, which would make them easy meat for the organised armies. They weren't able to control the rail junctions (too often in towns). Nor could they supply fuel or ammo.

If they captured stuff, then they would use it because they weren't stupid. So I know that a couple of times they attacked with trains. But they would quickly abandon them. So armour never formed a part of the Maknovist army other than for a couple of days at a time. It was the same with artillery: they would fire off all the ammunition and then abandon it (except when they were part of the Red Army, presumably, since supply was possible in those conditions).

Also Makhno himself is variously credited as the inventor of the Tachanka to support the allegedly best cavalry of RCW (I was surprised to read the latter, but one should not forget that Cossacks are also peasants).

Makhno had very good cavalry and every Makhnovist army should have a unit or two, backed up with numerous tachankas. They were experienced, brave and disciplined and were the strike force of his army (his foot soldiers were pretty ordinary, though much better than most partisans).

Since morale is all-important in cavalry battles I rate them with the very best White and Polish cavalry. There weren't that many of them though.

[former user]

I am still searching myself for material
maybe we should ask @mark plant where he gets his detailed knowledge from

problem is, the Anarchist movement is seen to have provided a true alternative to bolshevism (by anarchists)  and are demonised by soviets who wouldn't accept that

so the sources are very scarce and though some Makhnovists did write their memoirs in exile, they wouldn't bother about details interesting for the wargamer
the actual discussion tutning around whether they were antisemitic or not

my next step would be to search for ukrainian peasant pictures on the net, but I don't expect too much, because who would take pictures of peasents in 1918??

in some sources Makhnovists are termed  "partisans", but I wouldn't be so sure about that
actually I read about them capturing and using armour
even if a rural community, they would have had to procure weapons and ammunition
apart from that, I don't see an army with only cavalry, infantry and machineguns being able to perform well against Denikin's Whites, who had even planes
the problem with trains and cars is not fuelling them (you can run steam engines with water and almost every fuel), but keeping them running - for which you need specialists - so since they did operate them, they must have had not only peasants available

history tells that the bolsheviks at some time had to rely on the Makhnovists to deal with Denikin and Wrangel, although they were superior in numbers 4:1 to any of their enemies

[Bako]

my next step would be to search for ukrainian peasant pictures on the net, but I don't expect too much, because who would take pictures of peasents in 1918??

They are there to be found. Our family used to have an old hard cover book filled to the brim with old photos. It was a Ukrainian cultural book. I have not seen it in years though.

It has never turned up in my searches, but did the Makhnovists have a flag? I've never seen pictures or illustrations of such a thing so it's uncertain to me. Such a detail would really bind a miniature army more so, methinks.

[Mark Plant]

my next step would be to search for ukrainian peasant pictures on the net, but I don't expect too much, because who would take pictures of peasents in 1918??

There are many thousands of pictures taken from prior to WWI of peasant Russia. The Bolsheviks tried to paint Tsarist Russia as totally backward, but actually it was relatively modern in many ways.

A good place to start is:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/prokquery.html

My photo book collection is mostly of the Baltics.

maybe we should ask @mark plant where he gets his detailed knowledge from

Maybe you should. Maybe I might share some of it.

I don't see an army with only cavalry, infantry and machineguns being able to perform well against Denikin's Whites

The Maknovists didn't perform well against Denkin's Whites. Actually they mostly didn't fight them, being in separate areas.

The big White breakout in early 1919 smashed the Makhnovists (they were part of the Red Army line). Recriminations flew, and I accept that the Red command set them up to lose, but the Whites still beat them badly.

After that the Makhnovists were soon behind White lines. The Whites harried them mercilessly and had them on the ropes, but Denikin underestimated his opponent and did not send enough troops to finish him off. Then came the "battle" of Peregenovka and Makhno beat up the handful of rear-echelon chasing White units. It was a disaster for the Whites, because it coincided with Budenny breaking the line and the defeat at Orel. The combination led to a rapid White collapse.

The next time the Whites faced Makhno was across the Crimea, when it was always a losing battle for the Whites and the Blacks only formed a small part of the attackers.

I am uncertain of any occasion where Makhno faced and beat a front-line White army.

He was the master of the raid and the surprise attack. What he did not do, because he had absolutely no need to, was face off against comparable numbers of enemy regulars (Red or White) without some element of surprise.

I don't believe he ever took on the Red Army in any numbers either. Certainly the Soviets destroyed his army within months once they were free to do so.

so since they did operate them, they must have had not only peasants available

Most Ukrainian city dwellers of the time were one generation off the farm. In fact many alternated. Finding peasants with experience driving trains would not be hard.

[former user]

well, thats interesting information, thank You

would you mind to tell where it is from, because I would really need a good background book

there are some pictures with a black flag featuring a skull and slogans I can't read

on RCW combat

I wouldn't know how to imagine  "front line"  combat in RCW, apart from assaults on prepared defence lines
(and certainly noone would expect Makhnovists to do the latter)
My image of RCW is (apart from full scale assaults on defended settlements) a very mobile warfare relying on outflanking manouvres and cavalry ambushes and surprise attacks, often reinforced with armored cars and trains
a style of War which Makhnovists would perform very well at, as I imagine them

as to operating a steam engine
well, on that I did very extensive research
train engineer is a profession you have to learn for some years, and even the man to care for the fire alone has to learn that - simply imagine "scotty" on a smaller scale
(just as an example: when europeans decided to have railways in mid 1800, they had to import the engineers from britain as well )
I therefore very much doubt that any of us in these modern times with a driver license would be able to operate a steam engine
it is not just sit down and turn the key