"1809 Austrians " Topic

How many Field Btns did the Austrian put out per Regt ?

2 or 3 ???

What would be a Hight Strenth Btn on Average ? 900 – 960 ? or 1080 ?

Historians estimate the soldiers in the Austrian army in 1809 averaged 5'6" tall, with a top "height" around 6'.

They were pretty strong on average but there isn't any comparative data that I know of. I'm not aware of any PT (physical training) units being formed during that era…

Average 3 Battalion Regimental "strength" varied between 2,010 and 3,144 according to records I've seen in the 100 or so printed reference sources I've encountered over the years. Other individuals might have a different range that probably depends on how your loyalties lean. I'm sure there's a good average in there somewhere, plus figure representative ratio and scale would make a great big difference, …as would your ground scale. I/S

George

Initially you are looking at 2 battalions with the 3rd battalion joining up a few weeks later. Simplistically this was because the 3rd battalion was the reserve/furloughed battalion and took a bit more time to get going.

In 1809 they had started calling men to the colours in winter 1808 but got very poor responses. So the 3rd battalions in 1809 were mostly composed of raw recruits. They performed pretty poorly early on, and so many were marched off into Bohemia and Moravia for additional training which is why a lot are missing at Aspern-Essling.

K

Kheven, mate, you just answered a question I had for a good length of time and pretty much ananswered until now.

Thank you very much.

Shane

Scott Bowden's "Armies on the Danube" is a great resource for this information. The correct answer to your question is "one, two or three". It depends on the regiment and date.

For example, Zach IR#15 had three battalions at Echmuhl on March 30, but two battalions at Aspern-Essling on May 19. Zedtwitz IR#25 had two battalions at Aspern-Essling – and three at Wagram (July 5-6).

Battalion size varies from 500 to over a thousand.

Scott Bowden's 'Armies on the Danube' should be held up as an example of how not to right History.

But the orbats, taken from Kreig 1809, are accurate…

K

Edjumicate me…what's wrong with Bowden's work? I see his books referenced in newer material…are they wrong too?

Indeed. I don't know about right history, but in those days he could write history just fine. I haven't found Armies on the Danube to be contradicted by subsequent works by authors like John Gill and others.

"an example of how not to right History."
What is this "right" history you speak of?

Sorry, Raducci, I meant write….

Oh its just vastly biased and poorly researched. Gill has actually read and used Austrian source material. It shows.

Bowden didn't. That also shows.

K

George,

Just recently completed reading John Gill's "Thunder on the Danube". It is an excellent very well researched source for information on the beginning of the campaign (first of his projected three book series).

His depth of information provides great detail, including listing the Infantry Regiments that were not up to full strength. As an example of reported strength on 19 April 1809, which differs slightly from many other sources…

As recorded in the official history

Inf. Regt. 28 3 Battalions totaling 3,650
Inf. Regt. 25 3 Battalions totaling 3,640
Inf. Regt. 15 3 Battalions totaling 3,510
Inf. Regt. 57 2 Battalions totaling 1,627
Inf. Regt. 18 2 Battalions totaling 2,460

Inf. Regt. 39 3 Battalions totaling 1,980
Inf. Regt. 60 3 Battalions totaling 2,370
Inf. Regt. 40 2 & 2/3 Battalions totalling 2,700

In the cases where he can not find some form of record he gives the total for the complete formation (Brig. or Div.)

His writings support some of what Khevenhuller wrote regarding the 3rd Battalions of some of the Regiments and he documents those units thus encumbered, but the totals indicate many (if not most) of the 3rd Battalions were present on the date noted above.

Whose reality you decide to run with it totally up to you but Gill's numbers are taken from the best sources he could find. The total strength of the Regiments declined over the campaign, some from combat losses and some from desertion.

CLS gives 960 (6 companies of 160) or 48 figures at a 1 to 20 ratio as the campaign average, which is a very workable total and provides an attractive unit on the battlefield.

I/S

To be fair though we are talking paper strengths, almost all battalions of any army averaged around 500 on campaign with a few exceptions both larger and smaller. I tend to do all my battalions the same size for this reason and it also means that bigger units don't over-perform in games simply because thy are larger.

I found it interesting that the Order of Battles given Bowden – and presumably copied Arnold – are different given by Gill.

Gill "Thunder on the Danube" is the author set the standad for the 1809 campaign in English – even if I did get another pair of reading glasses to cope with the print;-)

I don't wish to belabor the point but Bowden doesn't speak German and does speak French. Not surprisingly his work on the French is generally much better than his work on the Austrians.

As he is a gentleman and too modest to note this himself, I will point out that Khevenhuller is an excellent and authoritative source on the Austrians.

He has the added advantage over Mr. Bowden of 20 years additional research since the publication of Mr. Bowden's work.

Okay, I ordered the first two volumes of "Thunder on the Danube". In 20 years it will be out of date and poorly researched too!

When will volume three be available?

'As he is a gentleman and too modest to note this himself, I will point out that Khevenhuller is an excellent and authoritative source on the Austrians.'

I prefer the term: 'rambling old git'

K

I'm going to hijack this thread then and ask about something related to the Austrians in 1809. I've read – don't remember the source – that Charles (Karl, or whomever…) wanted the battalions to fight in column, but the lower ranked officers still wanted to fight in line and there was an 'issue' over this. As in they would go to line when Charles wasn't around.

What's the scoop?

Clay

First I have heard of this. Do you have a source?

Early battles saw more lines than masses, but Austrian officers liked the battalion mass in particular because it was incredibly simple to form. For 3rd battalions, Grenz, Freicorps and Landwehr the battalion mass was often the only 'mobile' formation they could successfully perform.

K

To me the Austrians were your typical Linear Army but Charles tried to convert them to Columns for the 1809 war. How correct is this (I know, broad statement) and when the 1809 war was over did they unlearn again what Charles tried to implant into them?

The feeling I get is that they were like this :

1791 – 1808 – Linear
1809 – Columnar (only when Charles was around)
1810 – 1812 Linear once more
1813 onwards – Columnar again

I am trying to understand the Austrian army with regards to this from a purely doctrinal point of view as to more accurately depict them on the table top.

Can you shed some more accurate light on my feeble attempts to understand them Kheven ?

Regards,
Shane

Pink

You are setting up a false premise; namely you have to be one or the other. Charles was very keen on the 3 rank line, claiming it could charge and defeat anything, which led to some rather rash attacks in 1809. But masses became more favoured as 1809 drew on.

The only time the Austrians were pretty committed to mass was 1813, and that was by force majeure. The army was composed almost entirely of raw conscripts so the more complex evolutions were simply beyond them. Battalion officers liked battalion mass as it was really easy to form and maneouvre.

In 1809 you see a mixture of lines or masses depending on circumstance. Sacile, for example, seems to have seen the Austrians almost entirely in line.

Units that traditionally had poor close order skills: Grenz, Freicorps and Landwehr for example, usually relied on mass as their only formation other than skirmish. Line was possible, but took ages for them to form and I would imagine soon fell into disorder if they had to move. Similarly with division mass and other more complex situations in the 1807 drill manual.

K

As a generalization a linear ARMY fought battles with its infantry arranged in two or more lines with the cavalry on the wings. The exact formation of each unit was not so relevant. The size of army it was possible to properly control and manouver effectively in battle was limited, around 30.000 perhaps. The major disadvantage was that advancing any one part of the army exposed the flank of another part, so it was all too often a switch on / switch off. One of the throwbacks of this system was seen at Jena with Grawerts Division, an argument ensued in the Prussian staff, the elder part declaring the Division had to wait for Ruchel to join its flank before continuing its advance – another part declared that to stand and wait was to die. We know the result.

In a less linear army the individual divisions adopted a structure that enabled them to move more independently – usually involving use of columns on the flanks and reserve line, the 1812 Prussian regs and their adaptions in 1813 are maybe the best contemporary written record of this style.

A useful example is perhaps the British army, which still relied on the line as the main combat formation but by 1815 was no longer a linear army.

The newer structures required more sophisticated and knowledgeable command all the way down to battalion level. Part of the 'software' evolution that characterized the 18thC rather than the more visible hardware changes of the late 17th & 19thC, I would say.

In that case Kheven,

I will rate them as Linear up until 1809 but in 1809 they can perform Masse. In 1813 they switch to a Columnar style of fighting.

p.s. Surely in 1813 they fought in Line at some points ?

In the rules I play (for 1809), the Austrian infantry tend to want to form line when under pressure. Not always, just as a result of a morale test.

On the other side, attacking French columns that charge into Austrian infantry battalions who stand firm will want to also form line and get into a firefight.

And once two opposing battalions in line start shooting it out in a firefight, they stay that way until one leaves…..

Pink

In 1813 it is in the drill manual, but I think it was pretty rare to find units in line.

Clay

Under pressure in 1809 they are far more likely to form mass. It is easier, you can quickly form square and its more maneouverable. Decisions to change formation as a result of a morale test can produce odd results. Other than wanting to form square when cavalry is about (that's a given really if you have open flanks) it would surely depend on what sort of pressure we are talking about. Defensively the Austrians often used a chequerboard of masses with guns in the intervals; described in French sources as drawn up 'en enchequier'.

You cannot hope to apply a pastry cutter approach to any army as unit commanders would differ in their opinions according to circumstance.

K

mate, that is just about the most simple and surprisingly realistic rule for this I have heard. I like it a great deal.

In my own system a unit that fails a Morale test by 01-10% becomes cautious, I am thinking to place a rule in there that Cautious Austrian columns must form line…

Also, a unit in column that fails a Charge Morale test must also attempt to form line also (but I will have to give this one some extra thought).

Shane

Thanks. In my rules an Austrian infantry battalion in column that fails certain morale checks by just one or two (on a d6) will go into line. This causes great problems for the Austrian players because:

1 – units in line that get into a firefight are stuck there until they win

2 – units in line can't get into (fake) square (battalion masse) in an emergency.

This rule has really mixed it up for the Austrian side….

Clay

And your evidence for this ever happening on the battlefield is..?

K

This is why I keep my rules to myself and my wargaming group!

I think what Clay is doing is finding ways to remove control from the players, making it difficult in certain conditions or situations for the player to act as he wishes.

I do see where Clay is coming from with regards to one side forming line so the other might attempt to do the same so as to match them. I know in Empire it has nothing to do with formation changes but you can get locked onto, "Firefights" in certain circumstances and it gets frustrating for the player who might have wanted to avoid such a thing happening.

So I can see what Clay is attempting to portray, namely a reduction in the control players have with their troops. If this is the idea then it has to be done in a realistic and believable way so getting it correct and fine tuning the idea is paramount.

I want to look into this myself, I too believe, especially with regards to btln sized game systems that player control has to be reduced and this concept is a viable option if done properly. I think this is where national characteristics really come into play.

Regards,
Shane

>>>>>You cannot hope to apply a pastry cutter approach to any army as unit commanders would differ in their opinions according to circumstance.<<<<<

I also agree with you here Kheven, not just unit commanders but also higher level commanders will react differently to certain situations so one must sadly use a pastry cutter because there is no real way to know what individual unit commanders would do.

I do suspect that if an Austrian battle line was made up of btln masse opposed by say a French line made up of individual btlns in line I would suspect also that if the order to close with the enemy failed they would automatically commit to forming line so as to have the best possible chance of matching the French line firepower?

If I were in that situation I would think that forming line to match the enemy the only viable option, I think this is what Clay is thinking also. Now, whether both Clay and I a wrong here I am not sure but it does sound like the logical thing to do ?

Regards,
Shane

You're right. Better words then mine to explain it.

And cookie cutter is pretty close – there's a lot of absolutes in my rules, like cavalry vs. infantry not in square = dead infantry. cavalry vs. infantry square = pass on by….

I had some players trying to do something that just wasn't right….an Austrian battalion and French battalion would both be in line, shooting at each other, and one player would want to form column and charge. Uh, no. They get to shoot it out now until one side retires or something else intercedes.

I'm trying to break the habit of running battalions around like they are guided torpedoes. Instead of forcing players to spread out and leave room between battalions, my rules use artillery to punish them for bunching up.

Players have two terrible habits:

1 – Cram as many troops into as small a space as possible. Sure, it happened. And the troops who did it suffered. So do my players….

2 – Move max speed from Turn 1 towards the objective, and then act surprised and hurt when they couldn't push a fresh enemy off of the objective. Maybe a little artillery would have helped before you attacked?

I'm all about putting 25mm figures on the table in battalions (so I can see the columns, lines and squares) and playing a good looking game with a realistic 'feel' without bursting a blood vessel in my brain. All of my rules fit on one piece of paper. Focusing the quick sheet on just one period (like Austrians vs. French in 1809) helps by removing the other stuff that players don't need.

Okay fine. I tossed my game on the web and hope you at least don't go too hungry chewing on it.

link

Shane

'I do suspect that if an Austrian battle line was made up of btln masse opposed by say a French line made up of individual btlns in line I would suspect also that if the order to close with the enemy failed they would automatically commit to forming line so as to have the best possible chance of matching the French line firepower?'

I cannot find any examples of this. For example up on the Pratzen in 1805 all the Austrian battalions were in masse during an extended firefight. No commander in his right mind would try and change his battalion's formation under fire unless he had no choice and his troops were very well trained or experienced. Austrian line infantry were generally neither, and things got progressively worse as the wars drew on.

So units seem to have stayed in Mass, with guns in the intervals, or division mass, or the rather odd 'ordre mixte' formation which saw 1 division in line flanked by two divisions in mass (used in static defence as it was very difficult to move without lapsing into disorder)or just plain 3-rank line.

Indeed as late as 1859 they are relying on firepower from mass formations.

Depends whether you want to try and reflect what actually happened, or what you think should have happened I guess…

K

Okie,

You state that the Austrians in 1805 were in Masse, I did not think this formation was used until way after this period? I would have thought that the Austrians in the heights at Austerlitz were caught in march columns? I will have to read more about Masse formation and Austerlitz for that matter to really understand that formation.

As for reflecting what really happened, I am all for that but my understanding (from my own research) is that the Austrians (before 1809) were much more at home using Linear formations than columns for the battle line?

I am going to re-read everything I have on the Austrian army such as the following I own:

Austerlitz – Chris Duffy
Crisis on the Danube – Arnold
Napoleon Conquers Austria – Arnold
Glory Years – Bowden
Instrument of War – Duffy
Napoleon's Great Adversary – Rothenberg
Napoleon & the Archduke Charles – Petre
Armies on the Danube – Bowden
With Eagles to Glory – Gill
1805 Austerlitz – Goetz
Austerlitz – Ian Castle
1809 Thunder on the Danube – Gill
and others

Can you recommend the best ones or which to avoid?

Also, as for changing formation close to the enemy, do you think it is a fallacy that this indeed happened ? In Spain maybe due to not seeing the enemy line clearly but not in the Continental battles where both sides usually showed their full deck ?

Regards,
Shane

Bowden concentrates more on the French side, for the Austrian aspect I'd say Goetz, Gill, Rothenburg, Castle, Duffy.

The plates from the 1807 regs would be good, though AFAIK they are not online or easily available yet.

Other than that you'd need to plough through German script.

Jeff Lewis

Hi guys, 1807 Regulations insite:

Napoleon's Great Adversary – Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army 1794 – 1814 written by G. Rothenberg states on page 143-144 the following :

"The regulations considered the line as the ‘ideal formation' not only for fire but, curiously de-emphasizing firepower in favour of shock tactics, advocated its use even when coming to grips with the enemy with the bayonet".

"For movement the regulations recommended the battalion column formed from the line on the right flank company, a rather old fashioned technique slower than the French method of forming simultaneously from both flanks to the centre".

And…

"Perhaps the best known, and often overrated, innovation of the 1807 regulations was a variant of the square, the ‘mass'. Considering the conventional three-rank square as too fragile against cavalry and incapable of manoeuvre, Charles introduced masses, that are closely packed columns with a depth never to exceed double the width. The so-called ‘divisional mass' comprised three two-company deep columns about 9 yards deep, and with a half-company frontage about 30 to 35 yards wide. These columns were to operate abreast but separated by 54-60 paces. Another recommended formation was to draw up the battalion in two divisions of three companies each. In defense divisions were to volley independently against the enemy and, if they were not under direct attack, they were to charge the enemy attacking column from the flank. For the charge, each division mass was to operate independently though in concert with the others. Requiring a considerable measure of independence from company grade officers, this innovation was not well liked and employed only rarely".

"On the other hand, the battalion mass, one company wide and six companies deep, was used frequently in 1809 and later. It could manoeuvre either in open or closed order, with the files touching the pack of the men in front, it could withstand cavalry charges. Maneuvering, though with difficulty on flat ground at Aspern, closed battalion masses advanced in the presence of hostile cavalry and shattered the charges of six cuirassier regiments with volleys delivered at short range. Such battalion masses also were considered useful for placing the maximum number of troops in a limited area. They were, however, extremely vulnerable to artillery fire and Charles prescribed that masses were to utilize cover whenever possible".

Regards,
Shane

Shane

They are described as being drawn up in mass in Krieg 1805. The 1807 Regs included it as a formation, but it had been used before that.

Whatever the regulations may have stated, we all know from experience that in practice things can be quite different. Certainly Charles, as I said before, was a great fan of the 3-rank line but battalion officers and even divisional officers had other considerations.

Take IV Kolonne's first attack on Essling. They approach in mass and then stop and get into a firefight. They do not change formation. Then again, at Sacile, virtually the whole army fought in line despite the difficuly nature of the Italian terrain. In reality Charles recognised the utility of mass as the war went on, especially for the 3rd battalions and Landwehr that struggled to form line and maneouvre adequately in that formation.

As for changing formation under fire, I am not saying the Austrians never did it, I just can't find any evidence that they did. More frequently they chose a formation and stuck to it rather than tiring out the men and risking vulnerability with endless changes of formation.

K

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, Charles advocated the use of Masse even though he was a firm believer in the 3 rank deep line.

So, as a result, his reforms for 1809 were to use Masse as a battlefield formation but these reforms were not used in Italy where the army there were way behind in the new reforms. Thus in Italy the army was still very "Linear" in its style.

My question is: The formation of Masse, such as the divisional masse in its both forms of a battalion; 2 masses of three companies or three masses of two divisions were such that once formed could not reform back into Line anyway? So, once formed into Masse the idea that a failed Morale check would trigger them to shake out into a Line is totally unrealistic ?

If what I am thinking about this is true then the idea for this in the rules would be totally against what actually happened anyway…would I be right here ?

Shane

The current 'state of the art' way to represent battalion tactics in Napoleonic games is to base figures on a 3" square, representing a brigade, and resolving combat between 3" square bases by comparing modified d6 rolls.

Or, you can put the figures on smaller squares and line them up as a brigade, and then assume totally unrealistic brigade formations with them. But hey, you can fight bigger battles!

I don't think there is any way to comprehensively represent all tactical situations without giving the players an unrealistic (and in my case, unwanted) level of control and a brain hemorrhage.

Don't make more of my rules comment than is really there. The Austrians fight perfectly well in column/masse and those are the preferred formations in my rules.

An extra source in english -:
Austerlitz by Stutterheim, translated into English in 1807.

(Grenzers – The attack of the Croats in advance of the 1st Column starts on page 82. It is clearly a light infantry assault – but makes no mention of formations on either side.)

link