"Austrian reforms 1792 - 1815" Topic
52 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article The fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article The gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2
| Defiant | 26 Oct 2009 1:14 a.m. PST |
I actually read in Nosworthy's book that the 1809 use of Corps was a failure because the Austrlain commanders of these corps were not used to commanding formations of the size these corps were…how true is this statement? |
| McLaddie | 26 Oct 2009 1:48 p.m. PST |
Hey Shane: I guess it would depend on what Noseworthy saw as their failure… I can't find where Mr. N says that, so I don't know if he explains it. An Austrian Corps wasn't any bigger than the column formations commanded between 1792-1805. They ran between 9,000 and 15,000 men, even 20,000, and so did the Austrian Corps 1809 through 1814. Certainly the corps system in general was new to the Austrian officers, so they couldn't be 'used to them'. However, it's not clear how different they were for the officers, or how the system was seen to have failed. My guess [and just that] is that they abandon the corps system because they had their army reduced by two thirds after 1809, and didn't have enough troops to justify a permanent corps system… particularly with them spread out across what was left of the empire as they were. Best Regards, Bill H. |
Pages: 1 2
|
paints a Napoleonic caricature.