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

Hello von Winterfeldt!

I'm not disputing the fact that armies had stragglers. I just don't see any justifiable difference between the French and the Allies. I think they probably compare fairly equal in all years.

The adhoc French formations were just that. They were not present in every battle. Although used at a higher level they are doing exactly what the Austrians (may have done) at the battalion level. Same idea, create more units.

Klenau's failure was apparently due to "exhausted recruits".

If the Light Division is absorbed into the battle line of a bigger force then it is supported and will probably be okay. The problem with this however, is you have to break down the structure of the Division. How it could function like that I have no idea. Another option is to use it as flank guards for the main battle line. The sort of traditional roll of having cavalry on both flanks. If you do this your Division is now divided and prone to being overwhelmed by the French as both their infantry and cavalry brigades are generally bigger. If they concentrate the Division on one flank then the brigades can better support each other. But the same problem arises the French Divisions are bigger.

This problem is not unique to Empire. These Divisions are a problem with most rules. So it's not really a rule problem. It's a natural problem with the structure of the Division. It's simply not strong enough to stand on it's own for very long. Something that the Austrians may very well have intended, i.e. advance or rear guards. However, finding a practical and sustainable role for it in a main battle line is very elusive for most wargamers.

Best regards,

Glenn

This problem is not unique to Empire. These Divisions are a problem with most rules. So it's not really a rule problem. It's a natural problem with the structure of the Division. It's simply not strong enough to stand on it's own for very long. Something that the Austrians may very well have intended, i.e. advance or rear guards. However, finding a practical and sustainable role for it in a main battle line is very elusive for most wargamers.

Perhaps hitting the nail on the head, Glenn. Pitched battles occupied a very small proportion of campaign time. 95%+ of a campaign was operational/strategic rather than grand tactical and thus a mixed force with officers who knew each other and had gained experience in small scale mixed-arms co-ordination would be making their main contribution outside a conventional battle rather than within it.

Allan

Dan Wideman II: We always allow the Austrians to have Charles in our current scenarios, (1809), though they have never formed a TF as of yet. I believe Glenn Pearce has the right idea, (above), but we would not be averse to fudging a little an allowing the TF to operate as a mixed ME with it's own commander, taking orders from a Corps or Army commander, formed before the start of the game. If you guys have your heart set on having this avant guard force I think, with a little fudging, it could be worked out and still function within the spirit of the Empire system. I would be very interested to hear how you guys handle this. Thanks, John Miller

Hello Allan!

Thanks for that! I've actually looked at this problem for years and noticed more then once that these Divisions were often broken up on the field of battle. You see individual units placed in certain locations which are generally away from their normal chain of command. I also sometimes see brigades or part of one tasked with a mission that appears to be divorced from the main battle line.

To me this clearly indicates that these Divisions can't be treated in a conventional way. The Austrian player in any rule set must be allowed to create ad-hoc formations on the field of battle. Which would include attaching units to other brigades. It seems to me that their role was in fact customized for every battle. So players must be allowed to do the same thing. Which is pretty much what Art, and Bill were saying.

Best regards,

Glenn

You see individual units placed in certain locations which are generally away from their normal chain of command. I also sometimes see brigades or part of one tasked with a mission that appears to be divorced from the main battle line.

To me this clearly indicates that these Divisions can't be treated in a conventional way.

Glenn:
My first two thoughts when I read this were:

1. Light units were always "placed in certain locations which are generally away from their normal chain of command," regardless of the army, and
2. Are you saying that a good number of regular infantry and cavalry in 'conventional' brigades and divisions weren't found to be placed in certain locations away from the normal chain of command on the battlefield? ….

John,

I wouldn't say that we are dead set on having the advance guard formations in our games. They just happen to be part of the OOB. It happened like this. For many years I played Napoleonics in 25mm when I was able. Then my old gaming group drifted apart. A couple years ago I got together with the guys I game with now. They played Empire in 15mm. One of them was nice enough to say, "hey I have these Austrians paint them and they are yours."

I started painting.

His French were organized for Wagram, so I did the same. I started with I Corps under Bellegarde. It contains a single advance guard BRIGADE. So, we aren't concerned here with the Advance guard divisions of the Advance Corps. Just a single brigade that has the II Jagers, Klenau Chevau Legere, and a 6lb horse battery. So, it's not that I WANT to use and advance guard brigade, it just happens to be where Bellgarde's corps has its cavalry organized. Since for a long time (until I started painting the Kuirassier division) this was the only cav I had (I added the 4th (or was it 3rd?) Uhlans just because I had them and they spent some time under Bellgarde earlier in the campaign.) so I needed to find a way to use it. Hence the lengthy discussion that brings us here.

Next time I play I'll try the garrisoning idea, and next time we do a multi Corps game (typically once or twice a year) I'll have someone lead a TF and let you know how it goes.

Hello Bill!

1. Yes, I know, I was not suggesting otherwise. I was just making the point for these formations. So we could try and get a handle on what these formations were all about.

2. No, I don't see anything about that in my comments. All formations can be found away from their normal chain of command.

All I'm saying is when the Austrian Light Divisions are on a major battlefield the Austrians seemed to have picked them to customize their line of battle. Since they are small brigades to begin with the detachment of any troops reduces the remaining force to another detachment. This means on our table top games your rules must allow these troops to act independently and or be temporally brigaded with another force. You must be able to do exactly what they did, customize the structure of this force.

Best regards,

Glenn

Dan Wideman II: Thanks for your update and I'll see if we can try this in our next game. John Miller

Glenn,
I'm pretty late to the discussion and it's been a while since I looked at these, but my recollection is that if you look at the Advanced Guard divisions in the Austrian corps through the course of the campaign they kept the same units in the division and shifted around the brigade organization. I would go ahead and do the other brigade of I Corps Advance Guard division (as you seem to have with the Uhlans from earlier in the campaign – grab the other infantry too).

I would suggest flexibility – you could put all of the cavalry together as one ME and use the infantry as a brigade ME separately, or one big mixed division or two mixed brigade MEs depending on the day. Or even attach out some battalions to your line divisions for specific purposes. I would do this reorganization on a game by game basis.
Phil

Phil, I'll assume that was aimed at me (due the to Uhlan reference). The thing I've been trying to clarify for several people is that (at the time of Wagram at least) the Austrian corps didn't have an advanced guard division. They had a single brigade. At least 1st corps did. There was an advance guard corps. That had a couple of divisions, but the others didn't as far as anything I've seen has shown.

You're right, it's odd because that brigade is within one of the line divisions (commanded by the guy that had the advance guard division at Eckmuhl when there were also two line divisions) There seems to have been quite a bit of reorg between Eckmuhl and Aspern, and a little more between Aspern and Wagram (but there just with the lights – different cavalry, formerly had two dropped to one jager battalion) Source I'm using is Bowden's armies on the danube because it's handy in one volume. I think the better source is probably Gill's three volumes of Thunder on the Danube.
Phil

The Austrian Light Division has almost the same structure as the British Light Division. I have never seen a British player complain. I have certainly found that the Austrian Light Division or the Prussian c1813 Brigade was the best things to take on the British Light Division.

It is a flank or advance/rearguard. Alas players do not consider fighting in a succession of lines. Command and control can be an issue but that is why you have brigades.

In addition this was the adminstrative organisation and often was changed in the battle where brigades were attached to commands for particular purposes.
Stephen