"What are the traits for an Austrian Army ?" Topic

Hi Guys

Just curious as to the traits of an Austrian Army from a players point of view .

Just want to know what to expect as I would imagine most rulesets will treat the army roughly the same way .

Are my commanders going to be of decent quality? From what I am reading this is a bit hit and miss ?

What are my quality of troops like ?

I take it this is not an army with dashing Cavalry making runs into opposition forces like the French do?

Would like very much to read your thoughts :)

Many thanks

They wear white coats. The usually have large regiments.

The austrian army was not all that bad. It's infantry might not have the élan of the French, but the cavalry was very good. They had lots of light troops (Grenzer etc) and very solid grenadier formations. The command was another matter, especially combining larger formations. But all in all a nice and quite colourfull army that gave Napoleon serious opposition at Aspern Essling and even at Wagram.
Napoleon himself would speak respectfully of the Austrian soldiers after 1809.

Tactically, at regimental level and below, the Austrians were a match for any nation's troops. Their leadership at a Bn level and below was equal or superior to the best nations throughout the Napoleonic wars. They even managed to be innovative from time-to-time.

Strategically, the Austrians suffered from poor to non-existent higher level leadership and staff structure. Add on to that the issue with many empires…multiple languages within the same command structure and your result is slow, plodding, and rigid command with little ability to adapt as the tactical situation changed (and frankly due mostly to politics, little incentive for cmd below the army level to express initiative)

Depending on your rules you might get bonuses (firepower, stamina) from the large regiments, or run into problems due to their unwieldy size especially in line. Historically they tended to penny pocket their cavalry and never really trained large formations of cavalry together, which caused them problems against the French. Then again, depending on your rules having a squadron or two of hussars near your artillery batteries might be useful. Anyway, I always felt my Austrians are a solid bunch with quite a few romantic units (grenzers, hungarian hussars) and a wealth of incompetent generals I can blame my mistakes on – pointing finger visible on my 15mm commander vignette link
Cheers,
Aksu of GeMiGaBoK

Oh, forgot to mention – they are one of the few armies that actually had infantry in mass charging cavalry as part of their doctrine (1809). If your rules allow for that to happen then good luck to you!
Cheers,
Aksu

Not so sure on the infantry charging cavalry. They did use a close battalion column (batallionsmasse) that could rapidly turn into a solid square to repel cavalry. They also had the nominal ability to divide a battalion into 3 divisions. These moved in close column that could assume solid square (divisionsmasse).

The latter weren't seen that often.

OH yeah, high ranking officers of impeccable noble pedigree.

Hullo,
About the infantry charge – not that it should be attempted – to quote Osprey Austrian Army of the Napoleonic Wars 1 – Infantry: "Charles believed that a three-deep line could even charge cavalry, ceasing to fire within 50 yards and then pressing on with the bayonet – a questionable tactic leading to some rash attacks in 1809". This got muddled up with their closed column formations in my mind, sorry about that.
Cheers,
Aksu

If you look at the geography of Austria, where was the best ground to conduct cavalry operations? I would submit in the east. Perhaps charging cavalry in a valley wasn't such a silly notcient in that context. In the open, that's an entirely different situation.

Can field a large army for this war, and the next one. You will find that Austria is in nearly every war of the period.

Russian closed battalion columns on the frontage of 2 platoons (1/4 of the battalion) would not uncommonly charge cavalry with the bayonet …. without fancy stuff like stopping to shoot.

If the enemy cavalry was engaged or in any other way unlikely to just prance away, there was little hesitation in launching infantry at cavalry. Seemed to be reasonably effective, far as the Russians were concerned.

I thought every nationality did this. Am I wrong?

- Sasha

Well guys thanks again so far. I feared TBH to be much worse than this . I did hear a few sniggering laughs when I did draw Austria out of the hat for our club new Naps Challenge . Some of this laughter is probably because they know I hate painting white :)But I am going to show them and shove it up them at the same time:)

So for what I can conclude so far is that its more of a "steady eddy" type army with nothing really bad but nothing really good either.

So for Army construction I will base it around solid and large line infantry Formations with a decent amount of Artillery with perhaps some Hussars ( painters dream?) guarding them and some heavy hitting cavalry tucked away ready to strike out.

Tactics wise I will probably play the waiting game , ie play defensive a bit like black in chess. I must make sure I am not outgunned though, artillery wise, otherwise this could make my infantry formations rather messy .

You might consider adding a battalion of light infantry – Jagers or Grenzers to plant in those pesky woods that keep popping up on battlefields. The Austrians used artillery as part of their brigade and divisional organisations if you want to get inspiration of how much arty you need. Please check out e.g. Abensberg orders of battle to get an idea of some historical groupings they used: link

"Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!" (wrong country and era, but still…)

Cheers,
Aksu

Getting back to the question of what to expect.

Solid infantry
Good Cavalry
Lots of "ok" artillery (some Korps have 12+ batteries)

Do not expect to win sweeping victories. Steady, methodical, deliberate attacks will work better. On the defense keep a reserve.

Remember that it is better to preserve the Army (and hence the Crown) rather than win the battle

One word.

Bricoles.

What the OP has posted does not mention the rules he will be using. Hopefully it's not one of those, French show up and everyone lies down type of rules.

Likes wine, women and song, waltzes, Kirschtorte and whipped cream.

Good rule of thumb
Adv Garde DIV- lead by the better of the Generals
1 Brigade
Grenz regiment
Hussar regiment
3 lb Grenz battery ( Have the labors be Grenz Inf with 1790's style headgear)
2 Brigade
Hussar or Uhlan or Chevalegere regiment
More Grenz or Jager or EZK legion/Frikorp jager types
Cavalry Battery ( guns with the seats attached to it- can't remember the name for it).

Inf Div 1
Brigade 3
INF regiment- 3 x battalions ( large)
Inf rgiment – 3 x battalions ( large)
Brig 6 pdr battery-foot
Brigade 4
same as above under brig #3
Add Position 6 pdr battery
Inf DIV 2
Repeat as above in DIV 1

Korps Reserve Artillery
3 x 12pdr Position batteries

RES DIV
Inf Brigade 7
4-12 battalions of Grenadiers
Res Cav Brigade 1
2 regiment – either Dragoons or Cuirassiers
2 x Position or Brigade Batteries
2 x Cavalry Batteries

BTW:Good Idea if Hungarian infantry- entire Brigade is Hungarian infantry. You Sub an infantry regiment for a few Battalions of landwehr also

Can't go wrong with this mix.
my 2 cents…
MG

or per Akselia's link

I hate painting white

Paint the infantry white, hit them with a dark ink wash (or the dip). When dry, highlight with more white and get the crossbelts. It's easy and looks great. This works best when the figures have a lot of sculpted detail for the ink to settle in.

Some grenadiers and cuirassiers won't hurt.

a staunch opponent to France in in a lot of campaigns, from 1792 to 1800, 1805, 1809, 1812 with the French and then 1813 to 1815

Sort of on topic:

I read once that Napoleon dropped the white uniform experiment because he though bloody wounds on white uniforms were bad for morale.

How come that didn't bother the Austrians?
(or Saxons for that matter)

Apfelstrudel

Then slow, just average, good numerous artillery in 1809, as said before, good cavalry.
Bad command overall, if your rules does not take command properly, then an excellent army!

They look beautiful and when you win with them it is so much better than with half the imperial guard.
When you lose you can blame them too.

At tactical level, never properly served in rules as most writers ignore German and mash every one doctrines into a French like mix.

The basic quality of Austrian troops was good; some such as the Grenadiers, Jagers (not enough!) IR Deutschmeister, IR Kaiser outstanding. Cavalry were at least as good as the French if not better squadron by squadron, but not well organized into larger formations. Artillery competent at worst.

Infantry Weak at skirmishing and fighting in broken ground.

SLOW on the advance in the Strategic sense due to extensive logistical tail.

Higher officers unfortunately mediocre to poor =- Charles Karl- subject to seizures)), Liechtenstein being notable exceptions. Radetsky as well but only a brigadier to Divisional commander at this time.

Staff work fairly poor, new to the Corps system in 2009.

Excessive interference with military affairs by the court and Aulic council.

Bonus points for persistence – fought Napoleon/France in 1796-7 (Italy), 1900, 1805, 1809, late 1813-14; unequaled in years and size of contingent; only Russia comes close.

Grenz were well respected by the French as well, and brown coats with light blue pants are cool!

Napoleon said that the Austrian soldiers were "Lions led by donkeys."
I game Austrians and they are tough, get them in a good defensive position and you will be fine.

"How come that didn't bother the Austrians?
(or Saxons for that matter)"

White uniforms were the cheapest. Get dirty? Rub some chalk into them.

The nominally bigger battalions were, in reality, not so much bigger. While a German battalion was supposed the have nearly 1100men and a Hungarian 1200, in reality, they would probably have 800 at the start of a campaign. All those men needed to be fed, clothed, housed, and equipped. That took money, of which the Hapsburg monarchy never had enough.

THE book on the Austrians is Napoleon's Great Adversaries by Gunther Rothenberg.

Solid infantry, good cavalry, lots of guns – while the higher command were not known for initiative, the Austrians could take a lickin' and keep on kickin' – as noted above, Napoleon could beat them but they would always be back

One interesting thing is that they had no Guard infantry – the Austrian Guard never left Vienna. The Austrians did group their grenadiers into converged units which were grouped at the divisional level

I love the Austrians – my favourite Napoleonic Army

I read once that Napoleon dropped the white uniform experiment because he though bloody wounds on white uniforms were bad for morale.

How come that didn't bother the Austrians?
(or Saxons for that matter)

Also, it didn't bother the French soldiers of the Ancien Regime.

Maybe it bothered Napoleon?

As Frederick says, no Guard infantry but their converged grenadier units were available in abundance & were well above average troops.

Many thanks again guys and also for the funny off beat traits as well.

It just goes to show what a useful resource tool TMP is and its also been a pleasant education of which I again thank you all .

Also thanks to the Marshall for the sample army idea. I will use that as a guide as I appreciate and realise this is going to be a longer term project .

As regards rules nothing has been cast in stone but Black Powder is looking favourite as it handles large multiplayer games quite well .

x 2 to all of the above on the battlefield.

On campaign, a different matter. At the start of the 1809 campaign, there were poor daily march rates, a tendency to send off brigade-sized detachments in all directions to guard against every possible threat, an inability to concentrate at the decisive point, and a habit among the mediocre generals of thinking that if they could show they'd obeyed orders to the letter, then, win or lose, that was enough.

Aspern-Essling and Wagram were different – defensive battles with the army already concentrated.

The infantry reflected the fact that they had large territories to occupy and defend. Which they did rather well over the centuries.

That meant quantity rather than quality for the Line.
By which I don't mean the individual man, musket, nor officer but rather the battalions.
One of the greatest costs and scarcest resources was officers.

Occupying ground requires men, rather than officers.
Being tactically flexible and high stress tactics requires a higher proportion of officers.
So expect that trying to employ Austrian Line the same as KGL or British Line would not be a happy outcome.
The Austrian Grenadiers had a much higher allowance of officers as well as preferential recruitment so were pretty capable.
They did make some improvements from 1807, so it also depends which dates you are fighting.

Hopefully your rules have a balance that Austrian Line comes cheap, otherwise they are not permitting realistic situations for you.

Don't miss out on Hungarian Insurrection units.
They are a real ball. Pikes and all.

I have a soft spot for the Austrians. Back when I started to take an interest in wargames (the 1970s) the wargames literature (and most English language histories) rated them as hopeless in pretty much all departments apart from cavalry. Since then there has been a lot of rehabilitation, which is quite interesting. Once people started to examine German language sources and pick apart what actually happened, it became clear that there was no reason to rate it behind the Russians or Prussians – each army had its strengths and weaknesses. So here's my two ha'pworth:

1. One of the biggest problems in assessing their success is that the senior leadership wanted to preserve the army and not take big risks with it. Consequently they lacked aggression and did not reward enterprise in the leadership. There was one very interesting exception: in 1799 when led by Suvarov the Austrian troops were handled much more aggressively, in the Russian style (where casualties weren't a problem). They performed very well (officers and men alike, including the generals, mostly). Suvarov was pleased with them, but they took heavy casualties, so the Austrian leadership did not see this as an example to follow.
2. Lower level leadership was generally good. I speculate that a bit like the British army, if there is not much promotion on merit (you had to have good family, etc too) then a lot of talent was left in the lower ranks! The problem was that ratio of cadres to men was quite low (the company size was larger than the French but not the cadres per company). This led to a loss of flexibility.
3. In 1809 line infantry had quite a significant skirmish capability from the third ranks – something which wargmers often forget. Battles such as Teugn-Hausen (despite an article in one of the magazines this month) showed that these skirmishers could hold their own – but they lacked the depth of the veteran French units (so 15-30% were trained skirmishers; the French veterans could do 100%).
4. The artillery is pretty highly rated too. That they lost so many guns shows that they stood by their comrades even when the enemy got a bit close. Some people downgrade the cavalry batteries as being just watered down foot artillery. But they were assigned to cavalry brigades and can be treated as horse artillery. The crews weren't mounted on horses but rode on "wursts" – these weren't as fast but meant they could get into action quicker; swings and roundabouts.
5. As has been said the cavalry did not perform so well in big units.
6. Command was weak in the middle levels. Less because of the individual capability of the officers (often good), but because the divisions and corps weren't settled formations and lacked any staff capability. Top level staff were good, but they had to give much more detailed instructions than their French counterparts since there were no corps or division staff to add the necessary detail. And this tended to suck away at initiative. This is were the French system really scored in my view.
7. The advance guard formations are interesting. They generally had the best generals, and have a combination of three arms – who seemed to work well together.
8. The Austrians looked good, but not flashy. There are witnesses who say that the uniformity of appearance of Austrian units in the field made them look smart compared to other countries. So you should aim for a tidy and uniform look – not like the scruffs in the French and (later) Prussian armies, for example.

Many thanks again guys and also for the funny off beat traits as well.

It just goes to show what a useful resource tool TMP is and its also been a pleasant education of which I again thank you all.

Agreed mysteron, and I've also enjoyed reading this thread given that I'm about to commence putting my own Austrian army together! Thanks to everyone for all the comments!

Same as matthewgreen said, I have a softspot for Austrians. Not only were they the most enduring opponents of Napoleon, I also think the white looks spectacular and further colour is added by the facing colours, hussars, grenzers etc.

I'll be assembling this big pile of Perry Austrians into an army over the coming months, and documenting the progress on my blog if you want some further inspiration and ideas – see here: link

Thanks to the later comers your posts have been very interesting.

For an army I knew nothing about before I started posting , you guys have given me the confidence to get started .

And yes Markconz above I will look on your blog periodically because I am quite sure there will be something that I didn't know before :)

Older rules try and force the poorer high level command structure on the troops' factors, and at the same time "baking in" Napoleon into French troops' factors (I'm looking at you, Bruce Quarrie :) ) and that gives them their older reputation of being poor on table – but newer rules generally depict the infantry and artillery as very solid, much of the cavalry as above average, and the higher commanders as weak/slow/cautious.

By the time they got the Corps structure sorted out by the end of the 1809 campaign IMO they were starting to be on a par with the Fench at a grand strategy level IMO (as results showed)

IMO the Grenzers were better at "kleinkrieg" than other countries' lights but less reliable in the line And they do look good. (I aso include a few Insurrectio units for colour)

Also I think some of the Austrian units were de facto elite and so a % of the Austrian force on table should be as good as other nations' Guards IMO.

BTW I went to the Austrian military museum in Vienna, the Austrian "white" is ever so slightly cream, the belts etc seemed whiter than the uniform. I agree with the "spray, wash n' drybrush" approach above.

One interesting thing is that they had no Guard infantry – the Austrian Guard never left Vienna.

Technically the guard was about company strength performed ceremonial duties in the imperial and royal palace. Regualar line units were rotated through Vienna to act as the Guard.

The Austrians were my first Napoleonic army and are still my favourites (and all fabulous 25mm Warrior Miniatures, so cruelly slagged off in another topic…). I can only agree with the comments above but will add what I did to Neil Thomas' rules to make them behave as something other French clones…

1. Simple command and control rules. The Austrians have fewer staff officers so less of the army is active.
2. Modify the formation/direction changes. Makes the infantry sluggish without penalising the fighting quality.
3. Rate the cavalry at least the same as the French. Elite hussars and cuirassier are useful!
4. Good supply of artillery, but limited horse artillery so best fighting from fixed positions.

I've found this reproduces their battlefield behaviour reasonably well (from what I've read anyway!) so that they are pretty strong on the defensive but a blunt instrument when attacking.

Excellent comments here.

One point: I find it effective to paint the crossbelts on Austrian line uniforms a slightly different shade of white than the tunics/pants. Makes the white pop more.

Interesting and unique field formation in 1809, the division mass, where a single battalion of about 1000 men broke into three separate "mass," which were densely packed columns that were an excellent formation for defending against cav and which allowed them to take advantage of terrain to avoid arty. At the same time the three mass could quickly form into a line formation when required. It's a hard formation to model (it'll give you something to think about, trust me) but worth it. It also makes getting a large battalion through rough terrain easier.

Here's a 1000 fig Austrian battalion in line (3mm):

Here is a 6 company battalion in mass:

In the field the three divisions would be spread out more than this.

Actually a formation that was ahead of its time, it was, by some accounts, rarely used outside the direct supervision of the Arch Duke.