ioannis | 07 Jul 2007 12:23 p.m. PST |
I have developed a sudden interest in Napoleonics (nothing serious though, just a distraction from my SYW stuff). I thought of doing something different than British (!), and having painted enough blue to last me for sometime now, I also excluded French/Prussians. I wanted a colorful army! So, Austrians! Wonderful uniforms, cool hats/helmets, strong army, long opponents to the French, big battles
I thought there would be a whole world available to wargame them
NOTHING
At least nothing compared to British/French. Just a couple lines of 28mm Austrians, books/references on the low, wargamers seem to prefer other nations. WHY, I am asking? Is there anything wrong with the Napoleonic Austrians? Thanks! Ioannis wargames-etc.com |
hotleadsnewcomputer | 07 Jul 2007 12:43 p.m. PST |
I'm sure the hard core Napoleonic guys can give greater detail but the Austrians are noted mainly for losing. None of their generals have gotten good press in the English books, so you're lacking the dynamic characters that help generate interest. They got trashed in Italy, then Austria in 1804, and again in 1809. But they did come back in 1813 and help finsih things off. But there isn't anything really wrong with them. Nice uniforms. Good cavalry. They're mainly lacking in a decent PR job. They need a Duffy to write a book for the army of the Napoleonic Wars. |
Saber6 | 07 Jul 2007 12:45 p.m. PST |
The quality of Austrians is in Quantity. I think that a number of folks shy away due to the numbers needed. 1 bag of Old Glory gives you 2 French units and 1 Austrian (ok, a little extreme). I think they are the best Army to have as they fought in nearly every War in the period. So, in short, nothing is wrong with them, and it is hard to do worse than they did |
Austin Rob | 07 Jul 2007 12:53 p.m. PST |
The same can largely be said of Prussian and Russians. Brits and French are the best selling lines, so others get short shrift. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 07 Jul 2007 1:08 p.m. PST |
Great cavalry, good infantry and artillery, and best of all, they're a very well-dressed bunch. Their one major downside: poor upper-level leadership, is replaced in wargames by *your* leadership. So if you get clobbered, it's not *their* fault! |
ArchiducCharles | 07 Jul 2007 1:28 p.m. PST |
My favourite army. Superb uniforms & a great match vs the french, especially 1809+. But it's true that there is not as much books/references in english available, even compared to the Prussians or Russians. They do need a better PR job as hotleadsnewcomputer said. But nothing's wrong with them, they are nice to paint and look very good on the battlefield. Iannick Clash of Empires link |
anleiher | 07 Jul 2007 2:05 p.m. PST |
"What's wrong with Austrians?" In short, perception. Their historical performance often reads like comic opera. Look at Marengo. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. As stated above though, their primary problem was upper level leadership. Shouldn't be a problem for the gamer, he replaces them. Enjoy yourself. It is colorful, varied and as also stated previously, great cavalry, good artillery and good (some outstanding) infantry. They are my current favorite. |
NoLongerAMember | 07 Jul 2007 2:16 p.m. PST |
Austrians were a fine army, they only lost badly in 1805, the Rhine and Italy campaigns are a lot closer than the History books would tell you, as was 1809, Napoleans comment to any one who denigrated Austrains was to ask, were you at Wagram? |
bruntonboy | 07 Jul 2007 3:02 p.m. PST |
Absolutely nothing wrong with any army you can paint the bulk of with a spary can of white paint
. No seriously, I like Austrians- They are colourful and remember they were the first army to beat the Emperor himself. As other have said they simply have a bad press in the English speaking world. Graham |
WLBartlett | 07 Jul 2007 3:20 p.m. PST |
Ther e is absolutely nothing wrong with the Austrian Army. As stated above, they handd Napoleon his first defeat at Aspern-Essling. The books I have found on them have been on Ebay. Crisis on the Danube, Napoleon and the Arch Duke Charles,Napoleons Great Adversary and The Road to Rivoli. Not all told from the Austrian perspective but good information all the same. I love the army as a whole, from the simplicity of the line infantry to the various colors of border troop adn cavalry. Some day I'll find people t game the era with. :O) Bill |
ochoin | 07 Jul 2007 3:25 p.m. PST |
Arch-Duke Charles was arguably one of the finest commanders in the Napoleonic Wars. Schwarzenberg was also highly competent. I would make a case for his performance in 1813 & 1814 to have been hamstrung because of political restraints
.& who would like to fight a battle like Leipzig with three emperors kibbutzing? Alvinitzy & Wurmser weren't awful: they just lucked out at meeting a young, dynamic Bonaparte. There are a raft of decent divisional & Corps commanders: Radetzky for one. A less than stellar staff organisation was a problem to leadership as was a slow march rate & a reliance on magazines for the army as a whole. But can't you, Ioannis, as the wargame commander of an Austrian army overcome this? donald |
Khevenhuller | 07 Jul 2007 4:04 p.m. PST |
Ioannis Another great thing about the Austrians is there are no show pony units, as well as no show pony leaders. The challenge to win with them is you have no Guards to bring you victory and no collection of great leaders to give massive morale boosts. You have some solid infantry, solid artillery and some pretty good cavalry. There are a few outstanding units, balanced by lots of Landwehr. You have Grenz (my personal fave units in the wars period), rifle-armed Jager and freiwillige units to provide light troops, and during the Revolutionary period some really interesting freicorps. Your leaders are a pretty average bunch, the odd incompetent balanced by the odd good performer. It is an army that can both win and lose. If you are going to go on campaign with it, again, it has both strengths and weaknesses, but it has a working staff system, a credible logistics system and enough light cavalry to keep you abreast of the enemy. The main issue with the Austrians was army preservation. Basically it was a no army = no Empire mentality that bedevilled virtually all of their strategic concepts. Ochoin mentions Schwarzenberg as a good leader often overlooked, I agree. He was certainly good enough for Napoleon to recommend to Francis that he be made Feldmarschall. He was not a stellar performer (though a personally brave man from a light cavalry background, he even led the Guard Cossacks in a charge at Leipzig) but I think the best comparison is Eisenhower. Not a brilliant General, possibly pretty average, his skill was juggling the multiple diplomatic stresses upon the command structure and managing the AoB despite constant meddling from the Three Monarchs without having a nervous breakdown. In short there is nothing wrong with Napoleonic Austrians. A lot of the books written in English are very biased in favour of the French, usually because the authors cannot read German or simply want to portray the whitecoats as straw men before the genius of the Emperor. But there are some good sources out there. Read some Duffy for the early period (like Eagles over the Alps) and good old Dave Hollins on here is very adept at dredging up stuff the keepers of the Bonaparte flame do not want to hear. K |
vtsaogames | 07 Jul 2007 4:53 p.m. PST |
Easy to paint with a good off-white primer and black wash. I picked the 1809 army because you can have a mix of helmets and shakos and maximize the available figures. The German infantry mostly still wore helmets while the Hungarians had been issued with shakos. |
Stavka | 07 Jul 2007 5:43 p.m. PST |
What's wrong with the Austrians? They did not fight at Waterloo! Just to add my voice to the multitude, the Austrians are often perceived as being the groin that Napoleon all too often puts his boot into, but as an army they have a lot going for them. I think a lot of their bad press stems from the fact that people now tend to look at the Austran state as a kind of "ancien regime" that in the great scheme of thing SHOULD do poorly when faced with the democratic , forward-looking meritocracy that is revolutionary France, blah blah blah. Actually, they "stayed the course" and came out of the wars smelling of roses when you look at the final tally in 1815. In terms of uniforms, quality, and equipment they are one of the nicest armies to collect for wargaming, and while it was often the leadership that was uninspiring, it was not for lack of the tools to do the job. And those flags! Who could resist. "A lot of the books written in English are very biased in favour of the French, usually because the authors cannot read German or simply want to portray the whitecoats as straw men before the genius of the Emperor. But there are some good sources out there. Read some Duffy for the early period (like Eagles over the Alps) and good old Dave Hollins on here is very adept at dredging up stuff the keepers of the Bonaparte flame do not want to hear." Without wanting to raise spirits form the dead here nor to cause some members here to choke on their brandy and cigars, I completely agree. The Austrians deserve more attention than what they get. Dave could be thorny, to say the least, but at lest he spends much time on researching them when others are making their umpteenth visit to the Invalides, and when all is said and done he spoke for the Austrians when most others remain fixated on the French, British, or to a lesser extent the Prussians. |
rmaker | 07 Jul 2007 5:51 p.m. PST |
A lot of the books written in English are very biased in favour of the French, usually because the authors cannot read German Exactly. The biggest problem with the Austrians, one might say, is F. Lorraine Petrie. His books are based largely on French sources (and worse, French "translations" of German sources), nd so are highly pro-French. And later English-speaking historians tended to follow him. |
Khevenhuller | 07 Jul 2007 5:58 p.m. PST |
rmaker Yes, he is the man who made the "more animated by the desire to avoid defeat" quote, which makes them sound like cowards. Also, after WW2, most books in German dealing with military subjects were understandably out of favour. because of Waterloo the Prussians had to be acknowledged, but the poor Austrians? With the Empire broken up in 1918 and then denazification and avoiding any taint of militarism, it is no suprise that they were swept under the carpet. K |
Saber6 | 07 Jul 2007 6:19 p.m. PST |
more animated by the desire to avoid defeat THis was from seeing the army as the guarantor of the regime. Lose the army, lose the throne. The Austrian view was it was better to settle and stick around than to risk it all and possibly lose. Gamers don't have that restriction which can make the Austrians a tad scarry. |
Saber6 | 07 Jul 2007 6:20 p.m. PST |
Oh, and you might not have the fancy Guards, but you do have those Nice Grenadier Divisions. |
Stavka | 07 Jul 2007 6:37 p.m. PST |
Oh, and Ioannis be sure to post pictures of any Austrian units you paint. One can never get enough KuK eye candy! |
Der Alte Fritz | 07 Jul 2007 6:41 p.m. PST |
Someone mentioned the large size of Austrian units. This is somewhat misleading, for if you look at the information available on units involved in the 1805 campaign, you will find a lot of 500 man infantry battalions. |
Defiant | 07 Jul 2007 7:14 p.m. PST |
Great army, if I did not prefer the French I would be building an Austrain army in a heart beat. |
Maxshadow | 07 Jul 2007 7:38 p.m. PST |
My favourite points of building an Austrian Army. 1. They fought in 6 campaigns. 2. You can colour code your regiments with out annoying bits of paper stuck to bases for ID. (Regiments have different colours for cuffs and collars) 3. You can justify using your elite troops (grenadiers) most of the time. As apposed to the Old Guard which spend most of their time in storage boxes, or should do. 4. Their light regiments are experienced and effective. 5. The 3pndr Battalion guns can be used to soften up French Battalions while still out of their musketry range. 6. If your club decides to do Leipzig then you get to be CinC. regards Max |
Mike Petro | 07 Jul 2007 8:08 p.m. PST |
My first 6mm army is a very large Austrian force for Grande Armee. Charles was an excellent leader and the troops are fun to use. Grenz, Jaegers, uhlans and my grenadier reserve with cuirassiers as backup. I love them. My personal fave is the Russkies however. |
dichelus | 07 Jul 2007 10:32 p.m. PST |
And one more advantage of the army is that you can use them with or against the french. I think Schwarzenberg became a Marshall after fighting the Russians in 1812. |
ioannis | 08 Jul 2007 1:55 a.m. PST |
Excellent! Many, many thanks guys for your input and support
Yes, the Austrian Army looks like a 'winner' from my 'wargaming' side! One thing I cannot stand is 'bad' troops
I can provide all the 'bad' leadership on the tabletop, replacing whatever the historical counterparts did, but having to lead subpar troops is a no-no for me
So, the Austrians are just perfect for what I want! So, the obscurity of the Austrian side of the Napoleonic wars is because (1) they did not speak English, and (2) they did not fight in Spain/Waterloo. Most interesting!!! Now, what figures to use? But, for this I will post another thread
|
Khevenhuller | 08 Jul 2007 2:07 a.m. PST |
Alte Fritz wrote: "Someone mentioned the large size of Austrian units. This is somewhat misleading, for if you look at the information available on units involved in the 1805 campaign, you will find a lot of 500 man infantry battalions." That is true for Germany and Austria because of the Mack reforms of 1805, a key factor in the poor performance of the army at the tactical level. On average you are looking at 700-800 man campaign strength battalions in most other campaigns, often over 1000. dichelus wrote: "I think Schwarzenberg became a Marshall after fighting the Russians in 1812." During the campaign it was Napoleon who recommended his promotion to his father-in-law, Francis. But, Ioannis, there are 'bad' troops too. But they are also a challenge to a wargamer, as getting them to do anything positive is often a minor victory in itself. K |
ochoin | 08 Jul 2007 3:36 a.m. PST |
Ioannis, there should be no 'super-armies' in Napoleonics. Every army should be a mixture of good & bad: even that of Murat's Naples had French units of great worth as well as the native troops whose main skill seems to have been desertion. The Austrians had the grenadier battalions; both Hungarian & "German" who were uniformly excellent. Arguably the jager battalions were few but fine skirmishers. Throw in the 4th IR & the 6th Grenz for units of exceptional skill. The cuirassiers, 3rd uhlans & 4th chevaux legers were outstanding cavalry. The rest of their army was rather more ordinary. Landwehr troops, for instance, being as unreliable as you would expect half-trained conscripts to be. The joy of fighting a Napoleonic game is, with a representative force, you exploit your strengths & compensate for your weaknesses. donald |
4th Cuirassier | 08 Jul 2007 7:56 a.m. PST |
Notwithstanding the "bad press" about the Austrians there are several undeniable shortcomings to an Austrian army. 1/ The infantry were very, very average. 2/ The cavalry were good, but used in penny packets to support the infantry, and therefore apt to get swept aside by massed French cavalry formations. 3/ The artillery was bad. Distributed in penny packets again, not heavy enough, and the "horse" artillery wasn't proper horse artillery at all because the crews weren't mounted. 4/ The march rate was excruciatingly slow – 6 miles a day and that's yer lot. That's 36 miles a week assuming a 6-day week. The French would routinely knock out 36 miles in 2 days and happily fight a battle at the end of it. In fact at Austerlitz Davout marched twice that far in 2 days and fought a battle at the end of it. On the credit side, it was unquestionably Austria that won the War of German Liberation for Prussia, which the Russo-Prussian forces were doing a great job of losing until news of Vitoria persuaded Austria to join in. Schwarzenberg's strategy of not engaging Napoleon unless in overwhelming force was a Fabian but wholly effective approach and he deserves a load of kudos for thrashing The Man Himself at the head of the enemy's main strength. Archduke Charles also severely shocked Napoleon in 1809, although it speaks volumes that even when everything went well at Aspern 100,000 Austrians couldn't decisively beat 20,000 French. You have to love those blue trousers and yellow and black crested hats. Also did you know that the Austrian empress Theresa's favourite colour was mustard yellow, and there is a colour in Austria to this day called "Theresien" yellow – the colour of the Schoenbrunn palace and of the carriages of Austrian guns? |
vtsaogames | 08 Jul 2007 8:24 a.m. PST |
I disagree about the artillery. The Austrian regulations of the Seven Years War insired Gribeauval, who served with the Austrians. They did use battalion and then brigade guns longer than most other powers, but the Archduke Charles did put together a massive grand battery at Aspern. A shot from this killed Lannes, along with a lot of other French troops. True also that they didn't have real horse artillery. But there was nothing wrong with their ordnance or personnel. |
elcid1099 | 08 Jul 2007 9:43 a.m. PST |
You can still get the Foundry Austrians as Army Deals and Battalion Packs. |
By John 54 | 08 Jul 2007 10:38 a.m. PST |
Foundry Austrians? 'orrible, no necked, carbine armed, big handed hezbollahs. The Old Glory Austrians are triff, as are the Very lovely Elite range, and, for later boys the still very nice Connoisseur range, all nicer, and cheaper, than the 'Emperors new clothes' of Foundry. |
Khevenhuller | 08 Jul 2007 1:02 p.m. PST |
Cuirassier wrote "Archduke Charles also severely shocked Napoleon in 1809, although it speaks volumes that even when everything went well at Aspern 100,000 Austrians couldn't decisively beat 20,000 French." It also speaks volumes about Napoleon that he did not even know they were there
K |
Khevenhuller | 08 Jul 2007 1:23 p.m. PST |
vtsaogames wrote: "They did use battalion and then brigade guns longer than most other powers" Which Napoleon returned to after 1809, in addition to his field artillery. Using several dozen captured Austrian 3lb guns, many battalions marched into Russia in 1812 with a battalion gun system. Large batteries were not unknown by the Austrians. Smola arrives at Neerwinden at just the right time and his battery wreaks havoc amongst Miranda's attacking Division. I think we are being rather hard on his earlier opponents. By 1796 Beaulieu was well into his 70's and was pretty much a broken man, all 3 of his sons had been killed and the French had burnt down his home, along with his art collection and destroyed his gardens. He had, in effect, lost everything in his service to Francis. And he had, it is worth remembering, inflicted the first defeat on the French in the first battle of the war in 1792. Wurmser was a stubborn old git, which Napoleon was keen to recognise. He had been a fairly successful commander on the Rhine and his position in 1796 is pretty unenviable. Logistically he could not push all his army down one side of Lake Garda, hence the need for a split. Often condemned as wrong by later historians it is hard to see how he or his successor had much of a choice. I do like Alvintzy. His performance in the Low Countries had been good, he had a strong reputation with light troops and was a pretty aggressive commander. Along with the poor strategic position he inherited, his army was the scrapings of the Imperial barrel: lots of 3rd battalions and hastily recalled furloughs. Besides, in 1796 in Germany (seen by France and Austria as the main theater of operations) Charles fought a great campaign and decisively beat the French. K |
ioannis | 08 Jul 2007 1:40 p.m. PST |
Excellent, K! As long as the army is not a militia-quality force (like the Reichsarmee during the Seven Years War), I got no problem playing the underdog! |
Khevenhuller | 08 Jul 2007 1:57 p.m. PST |
Er
well, it is certainly not like the SYW Reichsarmee. In fact the progression of the Austrian army 1792-1814 is in some ways very similar to the 1740-1763 progression. In other words it is not like the Spanish or the Neapolitans, where you need a good sense of humour and an appreciation of the absurd, but nor is it like the British or the French which everyone sort of expects to win. I have had a 15mm Austrian 1813 force for 15 years and it has won slightly more often than it has lost. My 15mm 1790's Austrians have won far more often than they have lost. The 25mm 1800/1805/1809 stuff I am working on now, well, as it is mostly for the 200th anniversaries they have not yet been bloodied
K |
pbishop12 | 08 Jul 2007 3:16 p.m. PST |
So I'm sitting with this huge pile of 25/28mm lead
enough for 10+ battalions, 3 batteries and 4 or 5 cavalry regiments, mostly Foundry and Sash and Saber, Front Rank for heavy cavalry, others for light. And I continue to wonder if I should 'ebay' it away. I already possess a large Peninsula collection, inclusive of Spanish. My thoughts of the Austrians were similar to Spanish, but Spanish can't and should not be avoided in Peninsula games. In numbers of engagements, the fought more against the French than the Brits/Portugese. While the Spanish turned out to be solid as the years progressed, their leadership remained quite abysmal. I reflect this in my games, which usually have the expected results
Spanish typcially lose unless Brits/Portugese are also engaged. That said, pitching my French against Brits/Portugese, and if I remain dogmatic to historical tactics, I should expect the French to lose. Playing solo often, I tend to have an affinity for my little Frenchmen. I'll array them in line more often than they should be (same as my Spanish also). Typically, I know column should be the predominant formation, but I get tired of always blasting them away at a ridge. Again, if I stick to historical norms, I can usually expext the Austrians to wind up with the same results as the Spanish. That is, until I go back to my book shelves and hone up on reality vs. my perceptions. Aside from looking cool on the table, I can raise expectations that they'll preform better than the Spanish. My French Old Guard looks terrific in my display cabinet, but has zero opportunity to debut anywhere in the Peninsula. Collecting a lot of dust while looking GQ in thier inertia. I think I've pushed into fantasy enough getting my French and Spanish into line occasionally without plunking down the old Grognards. If I eventually get around to oranizing, coloring and basing my upainted Austrian lead (which you can bet will compel me to be dissatisfied with the quantity and get on line to 'fill out the ranks' with my credit card!!!), then the angst might be satisfied. Right now, my favored French lose too much against my Brits/Portugese, and if they catch the Spanish singularly, its a pretty good gaurantee of victory. I'm on the fence also about my 'garrisoned' Austrians. Should I have faith they'll be a reasonable match for my French, or will it be another 'loser.' |
Khevenhuller | 08 Jul 2007 5:10 p.m. PST |
They can be a match for the French (and proved so many times) and are a considerably better army than the Spanish. Any of the three 'northern courts' armies are capable of beating the French, and capable of losing against them too. You seem to have enough infantry for a fair sized Austrian division, and on a club scale that is about fightable in an evening. I would paint it up and use it, rather than let it go to waste. K |
Midway Monster | 09 Jul 2007 1:39 a.m. PST |
I have Austrians in 15mm and love them. Lots of them and very intimidating. Masses of cavalry and artillery too go alongside those BIG battalions. Problem? Generals are poor overall and range from absolutely aweful to just about okay. As a wargamer though the big problem is cost. At 1:20 as in In The Grand Manner that means a 48 man infantry battalion will set you back £40.00 GBP |
vonLoudon | 09 Jul 2007 11:07 a.m. PST |
Vell, I must say. Vy you pick on mine ancestors? They fight good at Aspern and Wagram. Not a picky nick for the little Corporal. They vin at Leipzig. Yah, the generals ver old und dottering und have epilepsy, but der troops ver gut peasant boys ven vell led. Yah. |
Der Alte Fritz | 09 Jul 2007 11:49 a.m. PST |
Ioannis: Any army that has uhlans in it can't be all bad, plus they have all of those colorful hussars. Midway Monster: Austrians are a very durable army to play with if you are using ITGM rules. Those 48 man units put the scare into the French players when they see them approaching. |
Musketier | 10 Jul 2007 1:29 a.m. PST |
In "Le Feld-Marechal von Buonaparte", French historian and author Dutourd reminds us that Napoleon himself would in all probablity have gravitated towards a career in the Austrian army (the dominant presence in Northern Italy) if Genoa hadn't sold Corsica to France. How's that for a "what if"? |
Maxshadow | 10 Jul 2007 2:06 a.m. PST |
Musketier. There is so much food for thought in your last post that my mind starting boggling and I had to stop. :0P I think his family was rated as Minor Nobility. So how far up the Austrian Armies ranks that would have allowed him to go I don't know. Anyone else know? This is worthy of its own thread. I'd to get other posters views on it. regards Max |
Stavka | 10 Jul 2007 6:15 a.m. PST |
So how far up the Austrian Armies ranks that would have allowed him to go I don't know. II may be wrong, but my understanding is that in the Austrian army you had as good a chance or better as going to the top than was the case in most armies of the time. |
JeremyDowd | 10 Jul 2007 6:21 a.m. PST |
Stavka That's correct. Mack and Hiller are examples of men who made it to high command from relatively humble origins. Remember that the rank of "Freiherr" (="Baron") was awarded to soldiers who distinguished themselves. However, if Bonaparte had started in the Artillery, he might not have got the same sort of recognition and advancement as officers from the cavalry or infantry. Jeremy |
ArchiducCharles | 10 Jul 2007 7:36 a.m. PST |
Hmmm
Napoleon in white coat & red pants. Like a dream
But honestly, the proud Napoleon would have had some difficulties dealing with that incompetent Francis. Just ask Charles, and HE was his brother
|