"Austrian Light Infantry Philosophy" Topic

One of the great strengths of the Austrian army in the mid-18th Century was a number and effectiveness of the light infantry. Taun was able to stop Frederick's invasion of Bohemia in 1744 with light troops alone.

By the Napoleonic period the Austrian light infantry numbers, quality and tactical employment declines dramatically.

Simple question, why the change?

Thoughts gentlemen please

by light infantry, you mean grenzer etc.
these were native semi irregulars.

they became more regularised, mostly, IIRC, becuase they were not up to the length of campaign required during the 7YW.

this regularisation took some of their 'native capacity' away.

Same story for the hussars between 1740 and their poor showing against the Prussians by the 1750s

meantime, the main austrian army was attempting to become more like their preception of the Prussians of the 7YW, and thus, the need for such light troops was being downplayed at a higher level.

or so the orthodoxy seems to go.

I would agree with Keraunos' suggestions and add the fact that the Austrians had been in a perpetual state of cold war with the Ottomans, which actually flared into open warfare between the 1760's and the 1790's. The Grenzers who were a sort of local milita bore the brunt of this fighting and suffered greatly. This impacted the forces available to the crown as well.

Might it also have something to do with the light troops being perfectly good in smaller scale encounters and campaigns but had no training or proper role on a mass battlefield?

It is akin to Hussars and Cossacks having their primary role off the major battlefield.

French light infantry were perhaps trained to work as part of divisions on the battlefield and the divisional officers were trained how to use them.

The quality (and numbers) of Grenzer is indeed an important factor. In the late 1790s, early 1800s, there simply was not enough Grenz available, the army had bled out whole regions.

The idea to transform Grenz into some kind of line infantry is also to blame. By doing that, they removed the "esprit d'initiative" that had made Grenz so successful in earlier wars.

They weren't completely useless though were they? The Jaegers fought quite well IIRC.

Jaegers were superb indeed. They're just wasn't enough of them!

Only 9 battalions in fact.

Don't overlook the fact that the roles of light troops, and especially light infantry, were completely different in the Seven Years War from what they would become in the Napoleonic Wars. No skirmish screens on the main battlefield, and often no main battlefield presence at all.

When they WERE there, they stayed out on the flanks acting mostly in a scouting role – unless, of course, they could find a way into the rear and hit the enemy's camps …

As far as I can see, the grenzers were just as good at that sort of thing in 1809 as they had been in 1759. What they didn't do well (partly from lack of training) was the new battlefield screening mission, Which, according to the regulations was the job of the deployed third rank of the line battalions – not that THAT seems to have happened, either.