"Austrian Elite Units 1809 Campaign?" Topic

Austrian Elite units in the 1809 Campaign?

Would any of you Generals know if the Austrian's
had any troops that would be considered as Elite
during this campaign.

Who would have been their best troops?

Some of their Light Cavalry, Jaeger, Grenadiers perhaps?

Thanks in Advance

Cheers

C

Grenadiers for sure. Cuirsassier as well?

Usually veteran/elite (B-Class in most rules) would be:
Grenadiers
Cuirassiers
Hussars
Jaegers
IR 4 (Hoch- und Deutschmeister)

No A-class (like French Old Guard)!

Depends on how you define Elite.

GdB has some Austrian Grenadier and some Cuirassier as Elite. One of the GdB scenarios had some light cavalry also graded as Elite. Seems reasonable.

Grand Armee has all Austrian grenadiers, cuirassiers and hussars as elite, which seems generous.

Lasalle lacks the Elite grading and puts Austrian grenadiers, cuirassiers and hussars as veteran (the highest non-guard rating)

Elite for the Austrians, at least in my eyes, would be

Grenadiers, Cuirassier, Hussars, Jagers, and some reknown line units. There would be no 'guard' class units in the Austrian army.

Steve
"The Dial Dude"
dialdude.com

To the above I'd add the O'Reilly Chevaulegers. Possibly Klenau and Vincent Chevaulegers as well. All had a tradition of excellence throughout the Wars and I'd frankly rank them ahead of any of the hussar regiments.

Besides the infantry mentioned already you could make a case for IR#14 Klebek during the 1809 campaign.

Well said 21eRegt! I forgot about those regiments. And I would most definately agree about those.

Back to how you define Elite, but…

Jägers all as Elite? Most of the Jäger battalions were formed in 1808. Hence the 1809 campaign was their first (though many of the men would have been drawn from other units). Are units in their first campaign usually classed as Elites?

Similarly should ALL grenadiers be classed as Elite? There had been considerable losses in 1805 and grenadiers would have been kept up to strength by men taken from line battalions. Does the promotion to Grenadier of large numbers of line infantry automatically make them Elite? Veteran perhaps, but Elite because of the change of title?

When I mean Elite I mean the Best.

Perhaps I should have used Guard status if that is even better than Elite.

How far behind the best the French had, would the Austrians be.

If you use the French Guard as the best as a comparison.

Cheers

C

This is where you run into trouble with these definitions. The key advantage the French had was campaign experience – but most authors have mentioned all but Davout's 3rd Corps had been chewed up and considerably depleted of those trained for two years at Boulogne. So, you are actually talking about "veteran" status. there is nothing special about the Guard any more than the Praetorian Guard of Rome. They had special status and were best fed/kitted out, but the only requirment was that they had completed two campaigns – yet bizarrely we are told by some authors that high French officer casualties in these campaigns showed front line leadership! The problem lies in the bigging up of the Guard rather than a rational examinsation of how well each unit perfomed and of course where the Gaurd are concerned, there is a tendency to egg the pudding somewhat. Un Contre Dix is perhaps the best known line version, but there were long threads here about alleged French "handing it out" to Russian units, which turned out to be exaggeration.

Some of these grades reflect other factors – infamously Bowden ramps up the OReilly CLs and Hessen-Homburg Hussars in 1809 on the basis of theor perf at Austerlitz. In fact, two Austrian batteris had blown beaumont away and the Austrian cavalry just chased of the remains. IR4's reputation is based on its status as the Vienna Guard regt and so, it was fashionable. It is way down the league of bravery medal winners.

On the rating:

Guard
Elite
Veteran
Line
2nd Line
Conscript

Nothing the Austrians had came close to the Old guard, British Foot Guard etc (guard)

The best Austrians would be one step down, Elite, equivalent to 95th Rifles, Pavlov Grenadiers, 57th, 9th legere etc

Austrian Grenadiers (and Cuirassiers) in 1809 I would rate as Elite or veteran (mixed, but mainly veteran).

Jägers I would rate lower e.g. Veteran or even Line for many of the new battalions.

O'Reilly Cheveuxleger might be Elite, but more likely veteran.

On an A-D scale (A = guard; C = line) everything gets squashed as so Austrian Cuirassiers and grenadiers and O'Reilly would be a B (better than average). Jägers would probably also (just) be a B.

Dave – "guard" status is as you imply especially difficult to rate. I like rules which allow the "elite" or "guard" (whatever the highest status is under the rules) to have the possibility of a combined status e.g. Elite/Raw to model what they thought of themselves and how experienced they really were.

That makes sense, but there were several Guard units late in the period, who were just designated so to keep their loyalty (or cash). I would not even think British Guards were actually that good – pre-08, they had little battle experience. They were very similar to IR4 in their status being their base in the capital, where they were fashionable units. I remember it being said during the Falklands Crisis that the UK commanders had only reluctantly taken the Guard regts as representing the Queen directly, but then they refused to yomp across the islands and demanded sea transport, hence the calamity at Bluff Cove.

I suspect these grades do need to be examined as to what they actually represent.

There is nothing special about the (French Imperial)Guard any more than the Praetorian Guard of Rome.

It seems a bit unfair to lump the French Imperial Guard in with the Praetorians. I thought that the qualifications for the Old and Middle Guard at this time included long service and/or participation in all the Grande Armee's major campaigns? By the standards of the time that would seem to be 'elite' if anything is?

I suspect these grades do need to be examined as to what they actually represent

No argument with the general proposition here. 'Elite' should have something to back it up rather than be based on exotic titles, hats or both.

Regards

there is nothing special about the Guard any more than the Praetorian Guard of Rome. They had special status and were best fed/kitted out, but the only requirment was that they had completed two campaigns – yet bizarrely we are told by some authors that high French officer casualties in these campaigns showed front line leadership!

It is easy to make a point by either downplaying aspects of the point you are making or exaggerating others. When you wish to put emphasis on the point you are trying to make you will use either or of these two methods to make your point, get it across and influence the response of the listener you are trying to influence. Remember kids, hollins hates the French so he will down-play the role of the French Old Guard and use every method he can to portray them as nothing more than mediocre at best. You only have to go find the reasons why hollins felt so incensed by a book report on his book on Marengo to find how the other person criticized hollin's portrayal of the Consular garde at this battle.

You clearly have no idea of the experience and eliteness of the collectiveness of these men and their units have you? Hollins, your research is utterly biased and so shallow that you just don't have a clue at all. Can someone please place on here the "real" and acurate requirements for gaining Old Guard status so that hollins can go and think about his place in this period and the reality of the truth.

Hollins, I would like to know if you made up the stuff about the consular garde in your Marengo writtings? I am willing to believe you but can you clarify that what you wrote is 100% historically accurate?

So Dave, can you nominate 5 Austrian units in your opinion, that performed in 1809 above and beyond veteran status?

I have just read about one unit that did well defending a a building at Raab, not sure if that would count and if they would keep that status after such heavy losses. (Gill, vol 3)

Graf Bretlach – why ask Dave? In his post he talks about units (including Austrian units) being talked up grades. He didn't suggest any performed beyond Veteran status.

Perhaps the four earlier posters who did want some 1809 Austrians to be Elite should be asked instead.

I would add a tag to that, please state what you mean by "Elite" either using the GdB grades I listed (Guard to conscript) or the A to D nomenclature or anything else we can all relate to.

According to Elting, the 1804 req was ten years' service, including several campaigns and a clean record. N himself apparently approved all candidates. However, when the Guard reached 112,000 in 1813, I doubt that was enforced! Given the inaccuracy of Nap weapons, whether you survived was often a matter of chance (viz. Lannes). If you look at the hundreds of French memoirs, relatively few go back before 1807.

Certainly, they were vetarns and could stand in a line at Aspern, but the senior infantry units had two actions, in which they got smacked both times. Giving a man a big hat does not make him elite. The modern US forces do not have Guard units and the UK's Guards are certainly not its best men. The whole Guard thing is part of the mythology and a means to do Austria down in particular. There is no bravery requirement to join the Imp Guard or anything like that – demonstrable loyalty to the regime probably helped though. It was another means for N to base his regime on loyalty to his person, not a statemnt of military skill.

I don't think you can give a special status to one unit based on a single campaign – it was Salzburg LW batts at Raab doing very well, but 2nd Batt EKL did as well, if not better at Aspern and in the village of Baumersdorf at Wagram. Both were however volunteer militia.

I would love to have been a trooper in HR4 to ride with its Oberst, Simonyi, and HR11 Szeckler had a certain reputation! IR42 obviously spring to mind for Wagram, but overall, the French seem to have feared IR51 most of all (how that unit came back after taking serial heavy casualties is quite extraordinary), although its sister IR31 was not far behind. Over the 1805-15 period, it is actually IR61 (formed in 1798) who win the most bravery medals. IR2, 7, 14 and 49 also spring readily to mind, but ultimately, all the Allies were lacking in real veterans. If you were not in the Auxiliary Korps in Russia, an Austrian soldier conscripted at the end of the Second Coalition could have started the 1813 campaign with just 7 months campaign experience behind him.

You can overcome this with training of course and here the French of 1805-7 had a big advantage after two years in the Camp of Boulogne. Austria's Bombardiers were the best trained gunners in Europe, but they were scattered across the artillery of course. Many French units have their reputations built on myth – in 1809, the Terrible 57e actually just found a useful gully to the right of Baumersdorf, held by the remains of four LW battalions (many had deserted the previous night). However, I get the impression that they were very good overall and "harder" than many Guard units.

I think we need to get away from the glamour and focus rather more on a quality designation based on veteran components, training, new recruit components etc.

The Austrian Grenadier battalions that repeatedly assaulted the Granary at Essling would surely have to rate as elite by any measure. Also I do not agree that how long you've had the uniform on says anything about your morale, skill or quality.

I asked Dave's opinion because he is well read on the Austrians in this period, just interested in what units he thought were good.

If you are basing a wargame/campaign on 1809, you know how they performed and can base your rating on that, however in a campaign game everyone should start the same and build up their ratings based on experience, unless it is to be based on a historical campaign.

I think -

0 untrained
1 trained
2 experienced (1 campaign)
3 veteran (2+ campaigns)
thats it, no elites or super units, they can prove themselves with the dice throws!

of course things get complicated when a unit loses over half its strength (does it go down 1 grade?)

I do not agree that how long you've had the uniform on says anything about your morale, skill or quality.

The logic of this being that you don't recognize any 'experience levels' at all?

Regards

There needs to be a seperation between morale and experience/skill.

Being on the losing side on two campaigns does not improve your morale.

There is also the question of leadership. Excellent leadership can get green troops to behave like veterans and a lousy colonel can ruin a good regiment, given time.

I'm not convinced that a lost campaign had that much effect on the average soldier, from his perspective he survived, he possibly knows how to look after himself in the field, more familiar with formations and what is expected of him.
The Austrians in the SYW and Napoleonics got better if anything (or the Prussians/French got worse), a lost campaign may have more of an effect on generals than the ordinary soldier, the Austrians, the Romans, the French in the 18th C. just kept fighting, even after loss after loss.

of course we are now looking at how many of the hundreds of factors that have an effect, so depends how complex you want rules, although I do think generals rating should play a part somehow.

I agree it is not as simple as "losing" or even "winning" a campaign, but how it is done, how did your unit do, how was it lead etc

However, from an 1809 perspective Austria had lost the last 13 major battles against France and had been repeatedly "humiliated" (losing Austrian Netherlands, Italian duchies, Tyrol etc). To what extent is the battle "half lost" before it is even started under such conditions?

Leadership I would suggest might have a more immediate effect on morale than on experience/skill/training. Lousy officers can ruin a good unit very quickly.

No question that the French guard was diluted by 1813, but we were discussing 1809. Even in 1813, there were stringent requirements for OG and MG inantry, most being picked from regiments in the Peninsula.

As for Davout's corps, they suffered more casualties than most units in the 1806-07 campaigns. As I recall, the 13th light took 50% casualties at Auerstadt. The reason they maintained high status in 1809 had to be training, not experience.

As for French OG requirements, they varied by unit.

1st Regiment of Grenadiers or Chasseurs: 10 years service, "several" campaigns, clean record.

2nd regiments: 8 years service.

Except for the Young Guard, guard infantry were generally culled from the best soldiers in the line. Young Guard were merely the pick of the conscript classes. But the Old Guard and Middle Guard were "picked" men. No other army, except maybe the Russians, used this method to form guard units.

The British Guards generally were less experienced than the line, being generally confined to non-combat duties in England. They were certainly thoroughly blooded in the Peninsula, but no more than line infantry. They might be given an extra morale point, but in no way compared to French Old Guard.

Interesting double standard that the Austrians are criticised for taking the Grenadiers out of a line regt and massing them in reserve.

The criteria do not seem to warrant any special status for the Imp Guard units beyond being full of veterans, but would their skills not have been depleted by standing around doing nothing usually?

The Austrians didn't lose 15 major battles in a row – few fought at Austerlitz or Eckmuhl and many had served under Charles in his big victories at Wurzburg, Ostrach, Stockach, Zurich and (less decisively) Second Caldiero.

In WRG terms, the bulk of the Austrians would be Trained Regulars. The grenadiers would be Elite Line Infantry, possibly with a proportion of a battalion trained to skirmish. Some experienced (and probably understrength) units might be Veteran Regulars. Militia would probably be Raw, at the start of a campaign anyway.
"Elite" = a bit better than the run of the mill (or believing themselves to be).
There isn't really any scope – or need – to distinguish further. If you are partial to a particular formation, give them their own brigadier.

What were the requirements for getting into the Austrian grenadier units?

Mr. Hollins:

I'm not familiar with the "big victories" you list for Archduke Charles. The Napoleon Series doesn't list them, except for 2nd Cldiero, which they list as a French victory, with the caveat that some consider the battle indecisive.

Perhaps if you provided the years in which those "big victories" were won, I could do a bit more looking into them.

I managed to find:

Wurzburg, 1796. I'd call that a battle of the French Revolution, rather than Napoleonic per se. Charles, with 60,000 men, defeated Jourdan, with 30,000 French.

Stockach, 1799. Again with the Revolution. Again, Charles beat Jourdan. This time with a numerical advantage of 60,000 vs. 40,000 French.

Zurich, 1799. No numbers provided, but it was Charles defeating Massena. But again, this is a battle from the Revolutionary period.

With all these "big victories," during the French Revolution, it's a wonder France lasted long enough to establish an empire at all.

The point I'm trying to make is, this kind of side-track is a whitewash of the original point.

The Austrians didn't have "elite" troops. Sure, their grenadiers were, well, grenadiers. Their cavalry was very good. And I'm sure that many of their infantry regiments performed well.

And then I might make the other point that the original question related to 1809, not 1799. I don't know what Archduke Charles' battle record at the end of the 18th century has to do with it.

Quite a lot as the presence of an able commander was worth – what was it Wellington said of N "50K men"?

If you are looking for 15 straight defeats in major battles, I would point out that the list would take you way back into the Revolutionary period, but I think you illustrate yet another bias in popular perceptions about the French and their victories (the Austrian troops were up for another go after Marengo, which hardly ranks it as morale shattering).

I have never come across a statement of the requirments for Austrian Grenadiers, although they seem to take the bigger men and possibly the slightly older, who would be more able to fighta s veterans in a solid formation, but would not be expected to rush about as much as younger infantrymen.'

But then I do not see that this really differs from the Imperial guard and the only reason for giving them A status was the word "Guard" in their name. After all, the senior Guard infantry units did nothing across the period except getting turned over twice.

The French have greater battle experience, but there is no special training for these Guard units. yet they seem to be revered like modern US Rangers or UK SAS troops.

This clearly indicates dave has no idea about the comparitive quality of troops of the period. And you instead notice his complete bias towards the Austrians.

I think I recall 5,000 Austrian grenadiers surrendering in one particular battle…

"I have never come across a statement of the requirments for Austrian Grenadiers, although they seem to take the bigger men and possibly the slightly older,

"But then I do not see that this really differs from the Imperial guard and the only reason for giving them A status was the word "Guard" in their name."

Horse manure, Dave. Minimum ten years service for the first regiments of Grenadiers and Chasseurs, eight years for the second regiments, plus several campaigns and clean records.

And you compare that to "bigger men and slightly older" for Austrian grenadiers? You don't see a difference? Are you blind? Deliberately ignoring the facts? Both?

And when did the Austrians ever beat Napoleon in a battle? Leipzig? Not without Russian, Prussian, and Swedish help, and a large numerical superiority, especially in cavalry.

I've got nothing against the Austrians. But unless everything I have ever read is wrong or mistaken, they were never much of a match for Napoleon and an equal-sized French army. I just don't see it.

From where does this revisionist history issue?

From 1792-1812 (1813 onwards it was Austrians only as part of Allied forces) I know of 64 battles involving the French and Austrians. The French DID NOT win all of them, but they did win 41 of them. The most successful Austrian periods were Charles in Germany in 1796 and the German/Italian/Swiss fronts from March-August 1799 which included 4 victories for Charles (since Charles also won at Aspern-Essling against Napoleon it is clear the Austrians could beat the French when led well).

The 13 battles I was quoting were "encounters" that were big enough to count as a battle rather than a skirmish.

Last Austrian victory before 1809 was 14th August 1799 (2nd Zurich).

Then the French turn for victories:

1799
25th September Zurich, 3rd battle (also called the 2nd battle)

1800
3rd May Stockach (2nd battle)
5th May Möskirch
16th May Ulm
9th June Montebello
14th June Marengo
19th June Höchstadt
3rd December Hohenlinden

1805
11th october Haslach
14th october Elchingen
17th October Capitulation at Ulm
30th October Caldireo (2nd battle)
8th november Zell
2nd December Austerlitz (Russian/Austrian army)

As I miscounted it was 14 and not 13 battles. Dave, if you want to argue that Auterlitz doesn't count as "few fought at Austerlitz" you also have to say why the Russians were in the majority – because the French had 60000 Austrian prisoners by this point after the capitulation of the Austrian army at Ulm 6 weeks before.

Then 1809 starts with a victory for the Austrians on 16th April at Sacile.

Dave, the battles you cite are either pre my counting, Wurzburg (1796), Ostrach and Stockach (March 1799), Zurich (1st battle June 1799, 2nd battle August 1799, but the allies lost the 3rd battle in September 1799) or questionable (all sources I have read give the French victory at 2nd Caldiero) or confusing (Eckmuhl was an 1809 French victory and if we go as far as that we have to add Tengen, Abensberg and Landeshut as additional French victories – but as stated above the run of French victories were interupted at Sacile).

The net effect of the run of French victories was the humiliating Treaty of Pressburg, signed December 1805. End of the HRE, Confederation of the Rhine created, Bavaria, Tyrol etc all ceded to France or French allies, etc.

Yes, the Austrians are often under-rated (I have 15mm Austrians and my first 28mm Napoleonic army is Austrian).

Yes, the French are often over-rated (I have French opponents in 15mm and the first battalion I painted in 28mm was Victrix Old Guard – for a bit of fun, my opponent is doing French, I will do British and then Prussian after the Austrians).

However, bias one way is just as bad as bias the other way.

Would it be possible to return the thread back to the original topic instead of re-discussing the merits (or not) of the French guard?

Sadly bias blinds people and dave seems to be more biased than anyone I have ever met of this period. So much so that he downplays anything French while exaggerating anything Austrian. But his bias cannot let him see what he does.

I thought we were discussing the question really of "Elite" ratings and the presumption that because Austria had no Guard units, thus it had no units of A class, unlike the Guard, who are universally A, because they are called "Guard". This is the problem with the assumptions of wargames rules writers seeping into the wider consciousness to create a distported view of the period.

The bulk of the Austrian army was in Italy in 1805 under Charles and he was already planning to withdraw (as he had foreseen and then received news of the calamity in Germany). The claim that the French won that one is due to Charles' withdrawal! As for 60K prisoners at Ulm, it was actually around 40K taken in a strategic move down the german road system, which was facilitated by espionage. it ahs precisely nil bearing on how good any Austrian or French units were. Most of the Austrian infantry were 6th batts of raw recruits. Most of the battles quoted above are actually quite small – Marengo was hardly a stunning victory and it is of course quite typical that in attempting to "prove" French prowess, the inconvenient facts (like the 1796 campaign was fought over twoce the area of the Ulm campaign are forgotten and perhaps the biggest one is that N's greatest skill was ensuring he had a considerable advntage in men and materiel at most actions. Where he didn't – eg: Marengo and Aspern – it was pretty close. If we look at the two states, France was a military dictatorship with huge numbers permanently under arms, which bankrupted it in the end, whereas Austria could not even afford a decent size standing army, not least as it could not mobilise all its resources for internal political raesons. As for Leipzig, it was the Austrian high command, which could manage an army of that size on external lines – N's own system could only cope with about 180K men on internal lines (viz Wagram and Leipzig).

If we are going to approach the question of the prowess of individual units, we must therefore be careful not to factor in aspects, which are external to that. Of course, the French trained a huge army at Boulogne for two years, which was a huge advantage, especially in the management of large formations, but as that wears off, the position changes radically. Let us take a man up for selection to the Guard in mid-1805. So, he was conscripted in 1795 and as the largest armies were in Germany, he was on the receiving end in 1796 and 1799. 1800 had been considerably better, but there had not been much fighting as an armistice had been in place for much of the late summer/autumn. The next three years had seen almost nothing and hen he had been trained at Boulogne in 1805. I don't see how this makes you a superman, any more than the 1813 Guard was composed of people meeting these criteria. What did the senior units you mention actually do after marching out of Boulogne? Actually nothing at all, except surrender in a few squares in Belgium ten years later. If they are supermen stripped out of the line, what effect did that have on the rest? If you look at the artilelry allocation, they tend to have heavier calibre/weight weapons, which would limit theior mobility, which should tell you much about their operational purpose – either the last big smash through or the last ditch defence, not the kind of mid-battle commitment done with them in many games.

You are not addressing the issue of whether these units are any good, just an image and inbuilt advantage you wish to have. It would be much better to look at the veteran and training issues, alongside the war records of these units to try to establish a value, whichb reflects that unit, rather than external factors and the regime's propaganda. Until you sort out the criteria, you cannot allocate units to specific categories.

When considering the potential combat ability of any unit the first & primary point is its own command & control.
For each combat task how was its command distributed and how effective and flexible could it have been? Was its level appropriate to conditions?

If you want to know what makes a unit potentially elite, first consider its relative command & control.

Was the French infantry C&c superior to the Austrian? – Yes
Was Austrian Grenadier C&c superior to Austrian Line? – Yes
(& Yes the US rangers platoon of the 1990s had the best C&c of all US infantry platoons – so it applies in all eras)

Unless you do these comparisons you are in the realms of hyperbole & hearsay.

Dear Widowson

As much as I admire Napoleon and the French (we all have our own tastes), I soon found, while researching battles between the French and Austrians, that the Austrians soldiers generally fought equal to the French in many actions. But battles are won by many factors, good soldiers, good commanders, a plan working and an enemy making mistakes, plus the weather and terrain etc. In most cases in actions between the French and Austrians, most of the factors favoured the French, which was why they won so often against them. However, the Austrians did beat French armies commanded by Napoleon himself. 1st Caldiero in 1796 and of course, at Aspern-Essling in 1809, although, in my opinion, they made a bit of mess of that one in allowing Napoleon and the French to escape. But I'm sure Napoleon himself mentioned something about the Austrians at Aspern-Essling, in terms of respecting their fighting qualities.

I think Dave has a strong point. On any criterion you pick based on experience it is impossible for all of the Austrians to come out worse than their French counterparts in terms of experience.

In 1809, if the French 'selected veterans' are in the Old & Middle Guard, you have deprived the French 'Line Elite' companies of these 'selected veterans' – so an Austrian Grenadier Bn should be better than its French counterpart.
The gradations between the three should be small.

In 1805, a French line infantryman should be, on average, much better trained than his Austrian opponent – although equally experienced in actual war. Something of this should remain (less training advantage, more experience advantage) into 1809, but in 1813 Austrian infantry shouldn't be much worse, and in some cases better, than their French opponents. French Guard units should be barely equal to a British Line battalion in this year.

Of course, you may think that the French Army was simply 'institutionally better' than the Austrians: '+1 to the French'. But if you do think that, then it is hard to see how Dave Hollins can be accused of pro-Austrian bias, he just doesn't agree with your proposition.

Regards

Napoleon was a brilliant campaigning general. He won battles and campaigns when his forces were better, equal and worse than his opponents. IMHO this can sometimes be forgotten and wargames armies be made into proxies for him.

Regards

I agree with Whirlwind. Seems reasonable. I never said that the Austrians were inferior troops. Like most of the Monarchial dictatorships of the Ancien Regime, their officers were often aristocratic fops with little or no interest in military affairs.

Since rank was often related to social postition, there was little promotion based upon merit. This also prevented advancements in command and control. All the Ancien Regime dictatorships had this problem. There was some advancement over the period, but not much.

That aside, the Austrians did not have elites in the French sense. As a result, their line units did not suffer from being stripped of their best men. On the other hand, they had no guard. Line regiments were good from time to time, but they suffered attrition like everyone else. I'm sure their grenadiers were bigger or more enthusiastic, like everyone else's grenadiers. But that's it.

If you want to build allied armies with a structure that favors elites, your best bet is the Russians or Brits.

I'm afraid that is a myth as far as Austria was concerned – despite her offer of advantages, Maria Theresa complained that the elite would not join the military. It is really French Revolutionary propaganda – Austria drew most of her officers from volunteer cadets. That said, there were certainly problems in the officer corps, albeit Zach exaggerated them, but it was a fundamental lack of training, which was causing it. The change really comes with the numbers of NCOS commissioned to lead the Landwehr, leaving more space for advancement behind them as well. The heavy casualties also created lots of billets for able volunteers, which combined with the rolling training system, created a better core to the army in 1813, despite the obvious lack of battle experience.

The French are different – the Revolutionary zeal has been replaced by a militarised society, but when N starts conscripting in huge numbers, the middle classes get upset and so, he creates the Young Guard to give these young men a nice uniform and plenty of prestige. However, the constant campaigning removes their time for training and the heavier casualties are taking good men faster than the system can replace them.

Don't forget the French imperial garde had an effect on other troops, good for French, bad for the enemy, regardless of what you think of their actual rating. "la garde recule" springs to mind.

The problem with not having "status" units is there is no career path, no "standard" to beat, no one to look up to (or down in the case of English units)no unit to generate all those senior officers, a bit like communism, if everyone is the same, there is no incentive to do better.

Don't forget the French imperial garde had an effect on other troops, good for French, bad for the enemy, regardless of what you think of their actual rating. "la garde recule" springs to mind.

It sort of begs the question, this. Why do you think the French Imperial Guard had a unique effect on other troops? There is no particularly obvious reason to prefer the French Guards to the Russian Guards – or an Austrian Reserve Corps – in this respect.

The problem with not having "status" units is there is no career path, no "standard" to beat, no one to look up to (or down in the case of English units)no unit to generate all those senior officers, a bit like communism, if everyone is the same, there is no incentive to do better.

The Austrians did have 'status' units – its Grenadiers. The Russians had a large Guard. The British had a few regiments of household troops. I'm not sure I can see what was unique about the French Guard as a source of emulation?

Regards

It was in response to DH poopooing the garde, regardless of how good you THINK they were, they did seem to have a big influence on the French army and other armies, possibly out of all proportion to their ACTUAL abilities, this doesn't seem to have been the case with other nations guard units, propaganda maybe had a lot to do with this, but it seems to have worked.

Not sure I regard the Austrian grenadiers as "status troops" no more so than any other armies grenadiers.

I was only referring to the Austrians.
Russian, British and Prussian "status units" are well known.

The British line units tended to regard themselves as better than the Guards, and in some cases possibly were, but they still had the status.

That is not a factor in their performance, but in the morale of the surounding units. These ratings are trying to reflect the former, not the latter. I just don''t see anything in Guard infantry, which justifies the superman grade and much of it is really to do with the smart uniform and big hat.

The difference with the Austrian Grenadiers was that these units were committed in several battles – N refused to commit the Guard, which suggests that he valued them as a support for the regime and once they were gone, it was all over – Desaix's return aside of course.

They don't really seem to be anything more than 100% veteran, drawn in the earlier years from well-trained men and loyal to the head man in a way that many units (and indeed commanders) from the former armies in Germany were thought not to be.

Hmm… so maybe it all just boils down to personal taste then.

Id like to see the Guard given some benefit, a higher morale grade, or something that means they are harder to break than other French troops. Probably nothing more extreme than that. Certainly not anything that helps them shoot or charge better, or effects the enemy.

I doubt youd realise you were fighting the guard most of the time until you were in a position to stop and examine uniforms in a quiet moment.

Austrians, Id also be in favour of giving some kind of bonus to Grenadier battalions. Not as great a help as I would give The Guard, but I think you have to except that they would have been slightly better than they line brethren, wether that translate into elite or superior line or whatever then thats probably depending on your rules..

I will say I think lots of troops get radically over/under valued from Beserker Highlanders, Assasin Greenjackets, Guard Stormtroopers, British One Shot Cavalry, Worst of the Worst Neopolitans. Probably just a way of making the "game" part of the hobby more "gamey" or some way of adding character/flavour to certain armies?

N refused to commit the Guard, which suggests that he valued them as a support for the regime and once they were gone, it was all over – Desaix's return aside of course.

So I am correct, you really have no idea about anything other than the Austrians. The French guard was destroyed in 1812 but N rebuilt it within just a few months to a size that dwarfed what had been before it. It was much more than a "support for the regime" it was a symbol of power and strength for the rest of the army to aspire to. N knew the value of inspiration, a strength you obviously do not understand.

They don't really seem to be anything more than 100% veteran, drawn in the earlier years from well-trained men and loyal to the head man in a way that many units (and indeed commanders) from the former armies in Germany were thought not to be.

And Austrian grenadiers, line infantry, jagers, cuirassiers and every other habsburg unit is not devoted to the head man? The set of power in Austria??? C'mon dave, you gotta do better than that.