"Austrian Commanders ability levels?" Topic

Apart from Archduke Charles himself, Lichtenstein and Radetzky has anyone found Austrian commanders that rate average or better? (Overall or specific to 1809)

I know all rules that use leader values tend to have different scales, but assume an average leader has no specific advantages or disadvantages.

Narrative descriptions of the Austrian officer corps vary between poor, very poor and even worse than the Spanish. But there must be exceptions……..

"Let not General Mack be employed; for I knew him at Naples to be a rascal, a scoundrel, and a coward"

I would argue on behalf of Melas.

Schwarzenberg comes to mind; Napoleon held him in high regards. Nordmann, Weissenwolf were very good, even maybe exceptionnal, Division generals.
Klenau was at the very least of average competence. Another vote for Melas.

-even worse than the Spanish -

Now that's just harsh.

The real strength of the Austrian army leadership came more from the regimental officers, though.

Schwarzenberg was a true coalition general – his real strength was in managing to keep the Austrians, Prussians and Russians at least semi-coordinated – given the three monarchs involved (especially the Little Father) this was no mean task! As well, during his mis-spent youth he achieved some acclaim as a cavalry commander before ill health forced him off a horse

Hiller (Johann von Hiller) was a pretty good general – he beat Bessieres at Neumarkt – but apparently was a pain in the butt who didn't get on with many people, notably Archduke Charles

Bianchi was a decent divisional general and Klenau did a decent job in charge of IV Corps in 1813 – Melas also pretty good, probably all that praying when he was a kid (his father and grandfather were evangelical Lutheran priests)

Von Vescey was a pretty good cavalry commander – well, at least until he got himself killed at Wagram; Frimont von Paolta was also an at least average cavalry divisional commander – in his younger days, Radestsky also was a decent cavalry commander

Nugent seemed to be a good divisional commander, spent almost all his career in Italy

Hohenzollern-Hechlingen was a pretty good divisional general, although he did not exactly shine in higher command

I agree with der Archduke – the Austrian army was strongest at the level of the regiment

My two thallers worth

The strategic game "Empires in Arms" rates individual commander who commanded armies of at least more than a corps (strategic rating, tactical rating, maximum number of corps they can command).

For the Austrians, Charles is rated as the second best non-French general in the game, after Wellington. The other Austrian generals rated (Mack, John, Schwarzenburg) are just a bit below average.

Wurmser.

Tactically there was nothing wrong with Mack, he just couldn't cope with Napolean strategically, but that was not a failing he alone shared.

Austrias biggest isseue was the size of the gap between regiment and corps/army command, a jump that the Austrian system was still trying to sort out in 1809.

The problem with Mack was that he pushed his men to march too fast at Ulm and got caught in the trap of his own accord just as much as Napoleon saw the opportunity and set it…

Mack, according to Kagan, spearheaded his army to march at a very fast pace to achieve his goals and subsequently got trapped. If you read his very in-depth narrative you will read about huge numbers of stragglers unable to keep up, worn out units well under strength due to the constant marching and counter marching and total confusion. Anger in his command structure and total disarray at the situation.

Mack really pushed and forced marched his troops in the real Napoleonic style but unfortunately not to the same skill level required. His performance was one of a sling-shot, he aimed his men at an objective and every ounce of force was used to achieve that goal. Once there and the objective reached he lost his idea of what to do next and confusion set in, this is where his problems really began…

I gleaned this all out of Frederick W Kagan's book :
The End of the Old Order
auction

A very indepth well researched book that enlightened me about many situations of the Napoleonic wars from 1801 to 1805. I highly recommend it.

Shane

Thanks guys. Gives me some names to go hunting for.

Bellegarde – not usually highly rated, but a significant presence in the later Austrian Army.

Keinmayer – Probably best known for leading the vanguard at Austerlitz, but had an interesting independant command in Bohemia during the 1809 campaign.

The Austrian leadership in the Napoleonic Wars is usually seen as sub-standard.
I wonder if this is because many of them were so pre-occupied in internal bickering and the deep rivalries that split the Austrian High Command that much of their potential was wasted.
It is common to talk about such divisions amongst the French but at least in the marshalate Napoleon inspired some respect, some fear & at least the sembalance of obedience.

I have been thinking about the percieved lack of Austrian staff skill.My conclusions lead me to this:
The Austrian commanders were generally not well-trained for managing larger forces, for which they often had limited experience, at the same time as their organisation was much more cumbersome than the more streamlined French corps-system. The shortage of commanders and/or too many Austrian units of varying type under the same commander realistically produces an often plodding and slow Austrian army – contrary to the French having more experienced commanders, better organisation and possibly some more skill at least when they were at their best.