"Austrian "Light Divisions" and mixed brigades." Topic

Does anyone have any information on the "official" tactical or grand tactical use of these formations? If it makes a difference, I'm looking at the 1813-1814 period.
Thank you.
Mark C.

If you find one let me know, because my Austrians in Empire are still trying to figure out a good use for that mixed up mess.

Austrian light divisions and mixed brigades? Light divisions had a different purpose than just mixed brigades. I am assuming you are referring to the mix of cavalry and infantry in the same organization used by Russian and Prussian forces rather than the French and British practice of having cavalry and infantry separate?

Considering how long the practice lasted through the Napoleonic wars, they must have served some purpose[s].

So what is the question again?

While to concept of instant combined arms seems good in practice the Austrian use would seem to limit the cavalry by having slow infantry tied to them, and the artillery is generally so light as to have little battlefield impact beyond noise-makers.
I too have had a difficult time finding a proper use for them. Not enough infantry generally to take and hold a position in advance of the army. I believe the Austrians went away from it for the force that invaded Russia in 1812, but then came back to it in 1813-14. So there must be something about it they liked.

The question, McLaddie is how to make use of a formation on the battlefield that includes,

1 btn Jagers
1 6lb horse btty
2 rgts of cavalry.

The jagers are the problem here. Other brigades of the same type typically had a couple of btns of regular infantry as well.

I have no basis, but my thought was that these brigades (designated advance guard brigade in the force org I've been drawing from) were designed for scouting/foraging purposes. You've got (typically) enough infantry to send out foraging parties while maintaining enough for a formed body to fall back on. You've got cavalry to protect against marauding/scouting hussars, and you've got artillery for support.

On paper it looks good. THe problem is, what do we do with it on the battlefield? At a guess, I would suspect the units would be doled out to other brigades/divisions for the duration of the battle.

In wargaming terms, the rules we use (Empire) more or less force the cav to remain tethered to the infantry. It's a handicap to all the arms. So how does this work as a BATTLEFIELD formation? Did it? Should we be using it for strategic purposes, then reassigning for tactical purposes?

That's what we are wondering.

A light division or brigade of that make up would most probably be used to take an objective well in adance of the main body. It would only be expected to beat the enemy's own advance force to the objective and then deny it to them until the main Austrian force could come up. I would certainly use it that way in wargame and have done so in the past when commanding Austrians.

Cheers RR

this is just a complete guess, but…
depending on what type of cavalry was used, it could fulfill the "Bufords Cavalry at Gettysburg" role of "Dash ahead and seize the good ground, hold until support arrives"

Its a complete guess but that how I would use it, operating under the assumption that the cavalry that we are speaking of is of the Light variety and armed with carbines to make them capable of dismounted action.

I suppose that the Jagers gave the force a little staying power, and precision fires capability to destabilize and disrupt the leading elements of the attack force to buy more time for the Infantry to come up and occupy a favorable position for the coming battle.

again this is just a guess based on how I would use them, please don't guillotine me

~Joe

Joe,

depending on what type of cavalry was used, it could fulfill the "Bufords Cavalry at Gettysburg" role of "Dash ahead and seize the good ground, hold until support arrives"

Not trying to pee on your parade, but can they really do this?

No cavalry of the Napoleonic period had the stopping power of ACW Union Dismounted Cavalry. There aren't enough infantry included to offset the cavalry… so can they accomplish this mission?

Now with my criticism stated, I can find examples of when such mixed Austrian units attempts essentially this mission. To Bill's point, there do seem to be examples of Austrians attempting to use one of these mixed formations in some way as Joe describes (though generally with the cavalry remaining mounted) during the 1805-Ulm campaign. Yet they don't do well. Are there examples of such a formation actually accomplishing this mission?

Cheers,

The Bandit

In general it is my view that many of these mixed formation s(a bit like the prussian brigades) was an operational and not a tactical entity. The point was to get a mixed formation forward to scout or harass the enemy, but tactically the jaegrs/grenzers/light infantry fought separately tactically from the cavalry. You will see the french constantly forming the same ad hoc fomration of a few btn.s of legere some cavalery and two guns acting as avantgarde.
I think we are sometimes hampered by these OOB when trying to learn how units acted on the battlefield. It is my impression from reading battle accounts that cavalry and infantry almost never acted as part of the same tactical unit on the battlefield – even if they were organized together operationally. As an exampl You will most often see the prussian brigades operating with the infantry, and leaving tha cavalry in another position or with the reserve cavalry.
So look at the handling of these formation in detailed combat accounts and not on how they were organized on paper.

First, IIRC the Light Divisions in 1813 included at least one regiment of Grenz in addition to the Jager Bn. That's 3* the infantry as you have listed. Second, if you look at the expected dispositions of an army on the march on a map, you'd see that the light division would occupy the area in the front, the cav as long range recon and flank protection and the infantry as their immediate support. It may not make as much sense on a battlefield but for a campaign it makes the advance guard a homogenous unit under a unified command.

though not 1813 – in 1809 those light divisions were used to enable the rest of the corps to deploy into battle line of two to three deep lines.
They provided shelter and also did battle field reconnaisance.
A mix of infantry and cavalry was typical for battle field skirmishing tactics.
Also as pointed out above they had the usual advance guard duties as well.

The Austrian have been using Avant Garde (mixed light cavalry, light infantry and artillery in the same brigade)since befor the 7 Years War.

They are mostly made up Hungarian and Croat troop, how are stationed/live on the boarders with the Ottomans.
Where this mixed formation come in very usful.

If you have ever wargamed with the Austrians you may find this formation a little odd at first, but it works well with the lack of good Austrian Brigadiers.

Thanks for the clarification.

Every army at one point or another had light brigades, divisions and designated advanced guards. And yes, they were often more of an operational asset, rather than designed for battlefield use. The feelers out in front of the main army. But even on the battlefield, they had their uses.

For instance, At Austerlitz, the Allied 'Advanced Guard' column was sent against the French right, an area of streams, woods and BUAs where lights were always employed.
Even here, you see the Advanced Guard the first Allied force to hit the French. They would be a fast, mobile strike force, even if a lighter weight than regular infantry brigades.

As for the Buford-type claiming of terrain. Light troops and cavalry were always used that way, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Having a specific light column for that mission isn't all that strange and there are plenty of examples of that kind of effort during the Napoleonic wars.

Thanks guys, that all makes sense, but in the framework of a tabletop game how do I use it? The rules in use don't allow Austrians to break up maneuver elements. That means the cav can't put the jagers in the woods or leave the extra infantry (if there is any-my corps does not) behind to go do cav things, and likewise if the jagers want to go into the woods or other broken terrain the cav can't follow.

So the question then, is this a shortcoming of the Empire rules? Should I just give up on that brigade as a maneuver formation and stick them in reserve somewhere to fill holes locally? Help?

As I stated, I was just guessing based on the troops available. I don't claim to know which types of cavalry were capable of dismounted action, my guess was kind of assuming they could. I'm gathering from the information provided by the rather more well informed members of the discussion, i.e. everyone else, that certain parallels can be drawn between the mission of the Light Divisions and the Cold War-Modern era US Army Armored Cavalry (The Corps level Regiments and Division level Squadrons most specifically)

Would I be incorrect in stating that, if we were to define them with modern terms, the Mission statement for these units would be; in the operational sense: to provide march security and local reconnaissance for the main force on the march, perhaps detaching mounted elements to provide deep reconnaissance for said force commanders in a situation lacking in dedicated reconnaissance forces. In the the tactical sense; once the enemy is located, to hold the enemy lead elements to cover the deployment of the main force, while using the cavalries mobility to seize key terrain features for utilization in the coming battle, and using the sharpshooter infantry and light artillery to hold said positions. then effect a "battle hand off" maneuver to the lead elements of the main force to persecute the battle proper.

I know that was long winded but it kind of seemed right to me.
as I said before, Im guessing here.
~Joe

*In general*, I think you are right Joe.

Dan:

I think you might redefine what constitutes a unit/brigade. Having not played Empire for ages, I can't give specifics, but as the cavalry/infantry/artillery mix was a brigade or column force or larger, I am not sure why some movement flexibility isn't possible… or easily modified to take into account the obvious abilities of the formation.

I would wager that the same issue is inherent in those rules as is in many/most rules, being concerned with the battle proper, there isn't much role for these forces in most "line em up and knock em down" scenarios. Its the same issue I run into when playing ww2. I am quite infatuated with reconnaissance units, but with the possible exception of German armored infantry recon units, the very qualities that make them indispensable to operational level actions hinders them in a battle. they don't seem to have the staying power, nor are they intended to, fight a whole battle. this would put them at a decided disadvantage compared to a unit that is designed for the battlefield dominance role, IE an Infantry division. they really need to be a small part of an overall force for their qualities to be recognized. I find most wargames have trouble modeling this.

Sparta, Murvihill and von Winterfield have it right-
In a campaign, if you play out advance guard clashes on the table as quick small games that can have an effect on the bigger ones to come, you have a good model. Sometimes these small actions take on real importance, as they sometimes did at the time.
I would venture the simple best answer is to find and use a set of rules that allows a more 'realistic' deployment and use of the units in question, if that might be considered. 'Grande Manoeuver' and 'Carnage & Glory' come to mind as very good, and I'm sure there are others.

Hello Engmark!

Presently I don't have an "official" statement on these forces. Although I think I have seen something in a book or two that I read a number of years ago. To the best of my recollection they were used as has been stated by others, but also as flank guards on the battlefield.

I think these formations were great in theory, but didn't really have much of a chance unless they were brigaded into larger formations like the Avantgarde of 1809. Even so the problem in Napoleonic warfare was brigade vs brigade. If they came up against a French infantry brigade they didn't have enough infantry to stand up to them. The same thing happens if it's cavalry. So on the wargame table they don't really have a chance.

In most periods they are simply one of three Divisions in an Austrian Corps. So if they are deployed as flank guards you have broken up the Division with one on each flank. You have divided your strength and the French just pick a flank and overwhelm it. They send in a brigade of cavalry to remove the one Austrian regiment. Follow it up with a brigade of infantry to take out the one or two battalions of infantry. Even if you concentrate the Austrian Division on one flank the French just up their game by committing their cavalry Division followed up with infantry. Although intended to be able to stand up to a French Corps they really can't hold their own if the French attack one of their mixed force flanks.

We have played many, many games with historical formations and the Austrians are pretty much always taken out once the French locate and destroy these mixed formations.

Best regards,

Glenn

Thanks all for the lively discussion.

IIRC I had found a couple of references to the Austrian 2nd Lt Div under Bubna at Lindenau. It was split up between the 3 attack "columns"! At Dresden some Jagers from one of the divisions formed a storming party! I'm assuming in the latter instance the cavalry were well out of the way!

I'm actually using "Snappy Nappy" rules in 2mm (yes I know), for the Autumn 1813 campaign. I can't quite figure out how to "place" them in relation to other brigades/divisions. I think it's a case for experimentation with these rules as they obviously aren't just "normal" brigades/divisions. Even under these rules the brigade cannot be "split" for different roles as DW II said, but then again the rules are used to refight campaigns, so I'm looking at use at that level.

"If they came up against a French infantry brigade they didn't have enough infantry to stand up to them."

I have to disagree, the Austrian infantry had the numbers and the tactical tools to deal very well against a French brigade, the Austrians even had the advantage to form an extra reserve from their third rank, which the French couldn't.

So far – what I understood from the remarks of 1809 – the light division would form the first line of battle.

They were backed up by two or three lines – line infantry, which could form additonal reserves – or tactical units by their third rank.

von Winterfeldt – The austrians could theoretically form skimishers from the third rank – which was not used that often as far as I can see. The notion that they could form additional tactical units is faulty.

I believe the Austrian light infantry could fight well together with the line infantry – you can see examples of this such as Teugen 1809. The question is more whether the cavalry actually fought together with the light infantry, again Teugen prves that this was not the case tactically.

@Sparta

"von Winterfeldt – The austrians could theoretically form skimishers from the third rank – which was not used that often as far as I can see. The notion that they could form additional tactical units is faulty."

I completly disagree, it was already common from the Revolutionary Wars onwards to form reserve units from the third rank, and this is veryfied in the Exerzierreglement of 1807, in case take your time and look into the thread about it and you will see clearly the plans for it.

Also the third rank of skirmisher was used when in need – and that again was a common practise from the Revolutionary Wars.

Hello von Winterfeldt!

Not sure why you decided to take my comments out of context. Perhaps I was not clear, if so I'm sorry.

I was addressing the topic of Austrian Light Brigades vs a French infantry Brigade. The Austrian Light Brigade was often 500 to 1,000 infantry, French 2,000 plus. The Austrians can adopt any formation they want. The French numbers will generally prevail.

"the Austrians even had the advantage to form an extra reserve from their third rank, which the French couldn't"

I don't think this was used by their light infantry. If so I don't recall reading about it. In fact I don't recall even the line doing this on a field of battle. Can you give me some historical examples? It's been many years since I studied the Austrians and it's certainly possible that some of the finer points have eluded me.

Anyway even if they did it would not be an advantage. The French clearly have the advantage by simply holding back part of their Brigade. No need to try and create different formations.

Best regards,

Glenn

G'Day Hans – Karl,

Your comment about the French unable to form a reserve with their third rank is wrong…they could and did up until 1808…as long as it did not violate le regle de compagnie-peloton ou regle de pelotonnement. Once le troisieme rang was detached, la colonne pelotonnement mecanisme etait binaire.

With that said…the small body of troops formed from the third rank could also be grouped to form an appui mobile, or en potences for a colonne d'attaque, colonne de retraite, or colonne de compagnie.

Best Regard
Art

artpdn

I stand corrected about the French

I think discussions of tactics are helped a lot by actual combat examples of described depoloyments instead of theoretical ideas from drill books.

Hans – Karl…

Shortly…hey…I can see the light in the tunnel…

I shall catch a flight…with a stop over in Italy…and I shall indulge myself in a semi frizante – served cool…or what about un jara rosato frizzante ;-)

Best Regards
Art

Nicolai,

First you have to understand the general principles, their military system, then seek out evidence as to whether a formation or general principles were applied in their ordre tacique. Which I feel both I Hans – karl and I do…

Why would we or anyone attempt to discuss purely theoretical ideas…

The notion that the Austrians could form additional tactical units from their third rank is not faulty at all….hmmm…and it is not even notional…because they did.

As for actual accounts…I leave that to those who read German…but if the French Military explained that the Austrians did in fact use the third rank to form an appui mobile, or en potences…than I shall go with them as my source.

As a matter of fact…if the French could and did…I do not see why any country who detached the third rank, couldn't form them on appui mobile, or en potences as well…

As an example…it took me months to find an account of the colonne d'aile being used in 1805…and years to find a written account of the French assaulting un pied ferme breach…in accordance to the French l'ordre tactique…which everyone took as purely theoretical.

But for someone to just say…give me an example of a historical account of such a formation &c…

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Dan,

You ask what might be similar as:

1 btn Jagers
1 6lb horse btty
2 rgts of cavalry.

A force of this mixture was quite common with the French. It is called a Brigade de Flanc…or Flanking Brigade…

As an example…Colonel Marbot during Waterloo commanded a Brigade de Flanc, it is used as an appui mobile…

But in Marot's case, it was not meant to stop an advancing enemy on the flank of the Army at Waterloo.

Not only was it used as a small force to reconnaitre with…but it could also give the Army enough time to execute a counter movement…I use them in wargames that have hidden movement…

Best Regards
Art

Thanks, Art. I CAN see the use as a scouting formation. That's absolutely clear. Unfortunately the whole of the Corps cavalry is tied up in this brigade. In tactical terms that means that against a French Corps which has all three arms I am at a severe disadvantage. The most my cav can do is the occasional counter charge because they are tethered to the Jagers.

Now if we played more multi corps grand tactical games with hidden movement, I'd probably appreciate my brigade a lot more. Unfortunately because that kind of game (particularly with Empire and several new players) is a multi day affair, most of our games are corps on corps. In that light, my advance guard brigade has little place on the battlefield other than having my four best units tied together in a formation that fails to accomplish anything.

G'Day Dan,

Empire game design…hmmm…

Place the Light Brigades on the flank…then detach the battalion Jagers of each light Brigade to a village…cross road…field works…with a garrison order to each detached battalion…now you have two cavalry regiments and a battery of horse artillery free ;-)

I believe that would work with the rule mechanics in Empire…I do know that the game design really needs to be updated…so much has been learned since the 90s…

Best Regards
Art

Good idea, Art. I'll have to try that idea next time and see what our group thinks of it. Our typical "throw down and play for a day" scenario rarely has features in a ready made spot for deployment, but I'll have to see what I can do.

For one of our typical battles go see the blog post here.

link

or here

link
Both are corps on corps meeting engagements.

Note that in the second link I did exactly what you suggested by garrisoning the jagers in Wachau. That freed up the cav to essentially win the battle for me. (The Austrian's only victory to date among our little group.)

Dan,
Use R&E at least, or another rule-set that doesn't require convenient BUA's to model mixed arms deployments on a field. That is not a good idea really.

Obviously, this opinion by a man who was there would presume that the relationship between the two arms was more symbiotic.

LIGHT CAVALRY, IN CONNECTION WITH INFANTRY. If during a reconnaissance at the advanced guard or the Light rear guard, the Infantry is, for the time being, under the Cavalry command of a Cavalry officer, this officer ought to take great care of it, and regard it as his duty to consider it even more than his own Cavalry. In bivouac his foragers must share like brothers with the Infantry. When under fire, they must support them and never abandon them. If the ground is open, the Cavalry must appear in the first line. If it is enclosed, the Infantry must march nearest to the enemy, but the Cavalry must keep watch on the wings that it may not be cut off, and in the rear, so that, if repulsed, the Infantry may find a prompt and vigorous support. -deBrack

G'Day Dan

In the second link that you posted…do I see French battalions advancing in column with an added figure on the right?

To represent the grenadier on the right of the column…therefore permitting a french column to have a four figure frontage?

If that is the case…that is soooooo wrong… ;-)

If I were an Austrian player…or any player…I would not permit it… ;-)

That is such an absurd rule in Empire…

When I was a kid…I saw the first movie "300 Spartans"…and they marched in a triangle…piercing through the Persian forces…

So I based my Spartans in the same manner…and created a special rule for the Spartan triangle…soooo wrong ;-)

I wonder what movie was made that had grenadiers on the right of a column, so that a French battalion in column would have a three peloton frontage ;-)

Best Regards
Art

@Sparta

"I think discussions of tactics are helped a lot by actual combat examples of described depoloyments instead of theoretical ideas from drill books."

I am not disagreeing, on the other side – it is also theoretical that to say that the Austrians did not use the third rank to form reserves – in case one does – one must be prepared to be asked, how do you know??

Coburg stated the use of the third rank to form additonal reserves – in his instruction in 1794 for his army – in case a commander in chief did stress this – it then seems most likley that it was done or could be done.

As for the Austrian Light Division, it was a part of an Army corps or another form of multiple Divisonal unit (wings).

It would fight as part of the corps – so it is not purly a French Division against an Austrian light Division.

The Division Mesko which was badly mauled at Dresden

2 brigades

1st brigade
3 bat. of Grenzinfantry, 6 squadrons hussars

2nd brigade
beaulieu infantry of 3 battalions
6 squadons hussars

2 Batteries

This disivision was part of Klenaus command
consisting another
2 divisions

with 21 battalions and another 5 batteries

To that command
another 8 squadrons

I would deem an Austrain battalion almost double as strong as a French one, so I do see a powerfull light division which would do advance guard duties as well as being a powerfull command on the battle field.

Yes, Art that's probably what you see. Our group is interesting in that we have three players that have been playing empire for 20+ years (I am the newbie), but not with one another. Our little group of gamers just discovered one another over the last 2-3 years and Empire is something that is just getting added into the mix in the last 12 mo or so. That being said, some of the guys use some of the older outdated notions (grenadiers on the right for French and a two company deep line for Austrians). We've been going back over the rules of late and ironing out some of the things that were part of the rules at one time, but are no longer there. That game was last fall, before we convinced everyone to do away with that idea.

You may also see some French columns in the first link with an extra figure in the front rank. That's only because they are 10 man units, and when put on the proper 3 fig frontage, they have an odd man. We allow them to put the odd figure in front, but it is not counting as grenadier, and is the first one removed.

@artpdn

Don't forget to eat a semifreddo as well, in case they have it, I will catch up on all this – my next trip to Italy is not that too far away.

Hello von Winterfeldt!

"I would deem an Austrain battalion almost double as strong as a French one, so I do see a powerfull light division which would do advance guard duties as well as being a powerfull command on the battle field."

If I use your reference to Dresden as an example I'm not sure how your able to establish this.

My rough numbers for a French battalion at Dresden was about 650 men.

The Austrians under Mesko were 989, 1,266 and 1,171 for the first brigade. Second brigade 1,791 for 3 battalions or 597 each.

The Austrians under Liechtenstein were 636 and 663 for the first brigade. Second brigade 446 and 1,193.

Certainly some Austrian Light battalions were bigger then a French one, but at least half of them were not.

We also know that in a major battle single battalions are not generally directed at one another. The normal commitment is at least by brigade. An average French brigade would be 6 battalions or roughly 4,000 men. Your Austrian Light brigades are 3,372, 1,791, 1,299 and 1,639. So only one brigade out of four appears to be an equal match to the French. The other three need an entire Division before they can stand up to the French.

I think this was a serious problem for the Austrians and it's clearly one on our wargame tables.

Best regards,

Glenn

@Glenn Pearce

Thanks for those exact figures, obviously I overestimated the actual strength of the Austrians.

Still I think 650 soldiers for a French battalion is quite a bit optimistic.

Hello von Winterfeldt!

"Still I think 650 soldiers for a French battalion is quite a bit optimistic."

I got those numbers from Scott Bowdens 1813 book. I just looked at Victor's and Marmont's Corps. A quick glance at some of the others certainly confirms 650 is a good number. I noticed some battalions were actually greater then 800 so 650 seems very reasonable to me.

Best regards,

Glenn

Empire and to a lesser extent R&E both struggle with the type of, for want of a better term, advanced guard-type units described above for many of the reasons previously mentioned. Art's suggestion as to the use of a Garrison order is certainly one work around. Another is to simply treat the unit as its own ME and issue orders (Attack, Maneuver, etc.) to it from the appropriate commander.

In a similar vein, both rule sets have some difficulty in dealing with formations like the Prussians in the later period. The notion of 'treffen' or lines rather than 'brigade' seems a bit problematic within the construct of the command and control mechanisms. The rule allowing a Prussian commander to move two regiments at a time is simply not historical unless those two regiments happened to form a single 'treffen.'

The third rank also poses problems within those rules. From memory (and it could be faulty I've not played either game in seven years) the Pussians from 1812 on can deploy up to 1/3 of their musketeer battalions as skirmishers. I assume this was intended to represent detaching the third rank, but in practice does not model this very well. It reduces the fighting power of the battalion for both melee and fire combat while providing only nominal skirmisher protection.

As Art pointed out, the rules need some updating as so much new information has come out in the last 15+ years.

Good to see you back on the forum, Art.

Cheers,

Tom

The use of the third rank isn't represented correctly (or isn't represented at all) in all rules.

@Glenn Pearce

When force marching to battle fields, usually a third of the French army was lagging behind.
Eye witness reports of 1813 point out how much the strength of the French Army suffered by those marches.
I will look further into this topic, one of the very disadvantages of the new 1808 organisations were the small French battalions.
By detached elite companies, as happened very so often, one would have left 4 fusilier companies, certainly not stronger than 500 men.

It is interesting the discussion of the Austrian Light Division. There is no complaints against the use of the British Light Division. The balance of cavalry, infantry and artillery are almost the same.
Stephen

Hello von Winterfeldt!

"When force marching to battle fields, usually a third of the French army was lagging behind."

That's impressive, but where did you get that statistic from? What about the Austrians what is their number, half? Anyway what relevance is lagging behind to battlefield strength? Do you have evidence that the French were a third short in all their battles?

"Eye witness reports of 1813 point out how much the strength of the French Army suffered by those marches."

That's very interesting how an eye witness was able to obtain that conclusion. Were they actually able to observe the entire French Army?

If I use your example of Dresden again, how would you describe the effect of Klenau's entire Corps that had fallen hopelessly behind their march schedule?

"I will look further into this topic, one of the very disadvantages of the new 1808 organisations were the small French battalions."

Didn't seem to bother them before or after 1813, so what's so different about 1813?

"By detached elite companies, as happened very so often, one would have left 4 fusilier companies, certainly not stronger than 500 men."

Interesting that it seems it's an advantage for the Austrians to detach troops to form a separate force, but not the French? Even when they did in most situations they were simply an extension of their parent unit.

Best regards,

Glenn

Dan Wideman II
Having some experiance with Empire, (not claimimg to be an expert, however), I was wondering if Rule 2.09, Page 24 of Empire V, ("Task Force"), would solve your problem. It would be a mixed ME with all the rules applying as such. If I am not mistaken cavalry regts. in mixed ME's are not quite so limited in their movements as in the previous editions of Empire. I was thinking that that would be most likely how our group would handle the force you described above. Just a thought.
John Miller

Hello Stephen!

"It is interesting the discussion of the Austrian Light Division. There is no complaints against the use of the British Light Division. The balance of cavalry, infantry and artillery are almost the same."

To the best of my recollection the British Light Division contained 7 or 8 battalions of infantry. This was generally a lot more infantry then what was in an Austrian Light Division. There was no cavalry or artillery attached to the basic organization. Can you give me a date and the name of the commander of the Division that you are referring to?

Best regards,

Glenn

Thanks for the advice, John. I looked closely at that rule as well. Discussing it with the others though we found that a single Austrian corps cannot form a task force. Division commanders are ruled out. That leaves you with one officer, the Corps commander himself. If he is commanding what amounts to an extra division, then he cannot command the corps. Since a TF must be formed at the beginning of the scenario, the Austrian couldn't issue any corps orders.

In a multi corps game it's doable. You can have one of the corps commanders lead the TF and the Army commander can take over the corps. Frankly, a lot of my problems could be solved if I was allowed to field Charles regardless of whether I had multiple corps. It would even be fairly historical since he had a penchant for putting himself at the point of decision, which is cited as one of his problems in Armies on the Danube. (see p.25)

@Glenn Pearce

For example Friant arrived with 3 500 combatants at Austerlitz, 2700 lagge behind, according to Stephane Bιraud, who wrote – in my view – the best books about Napoleons system of war – Napoleon reckoned to loose about 25 percent of his soldiers when he concentrated his army.

As for detaching elite companies from a partent regiment, usually those elite companies formed ad hoc battalions or even brigades at the disposal of the corps commander and not the divisional commander. In case of combat they might be used anywhere the corps commander did like – the Austrians used their units built from the third rank – as tactical reserve for their own units within the brigade.

You can dismiss of course any eye witness reports as much as you like, but if they observe that the roads were littered with young soldiers who collapsed due to the fatigues – I take this observation as a valid point.

The French Army of 1813 was very much different to those in earlier wars because it had a high percentage of very young soldiers – who maybe did well in battle but suffered enormously by the rigors of a campaign.

As to Klenau's failure, I have no clue I did not research the battle of Dresden in particular.

I cannot see anything wrong in an Austrian light division – as it was part of a bigger force, the composition of it seems to be well suited for their tasks, I confess hoever that I don't play Empire V rules and have no clue about their bents.