"The Austrian Imperial Guard" Topic

In a recent discussion TMP link the fact that there were no Austrian Guard units was made. I did know this but it's always struck me as odd. Is there a good reason why the Austrians never had their version of the Imperial Guard? Everyone else did.

I realise that Austrian armies used combined grenadier formations but its not the same thing: at least in wargaming terms. In ELAN Guard are class 6, grenadiers are class 5. In the games where I field Guard (occasionally) this makes a difference if their opponents are Whitecoats.

I know I could adjust this but it's worth a post to hear your learned views.

Short answer is 'Dual Monarchy' – but if your rules don't grade some of the best Austrian Grenadiers as being top troops, then have a look at your rules.

I agree about the Grenadiers . Bearskin hats and all . These are guard to me in every way but name and I would look to classify them as Elite.

Something I have noticed about the Austrians being very new to them is that quality was sometimes overlooked for quality such as the many Landwehr regiments.

That apart I am beginning to like my Austrians and despite the "White Coats" they are a very colourful army. Not many opportunities to use my favourite colour which is purple in military modelling hence I have Stains regiment 50 which had purple facings in my fledgling brigade.

They had some esoteric household palace guard units, but they were not combat troops. The origins of this situation goes back to the 30 Year's War, where Wallenstein got too big for his breeches and seemed to be angling for a coup. The Emperor had him assassinated and they distrusted any over-powerful soldier, even a Habsburg, since. Someone in command of a guard corps would also fit that description, so Vienna was guarded in rotation by line troops.

@ Mallen

Thank you very much. Now I know.

Sorry guys…. have to strongly disagree on your ratings.
It comes down to the process of recruitment.
Guards were as a result of experience, field results and size.
These were all the best of the best to become a guardsmen.
The grenadiers were just typically big or experienced men from that recruitment region, for that infantry unit. So the units gets watered down so to speak.
Those grenadier units that contained men from such units as IR4 Deutchmeister and other exceptional infantry units would produce a grenadier battalion better than the average one.
But simply making all the Austrian grenadier battalions elites is way, way to optimistic.
My 2 cents
MG

I will have to make sure mine contains Grenadiers from IR4 :)

Thanks Marshal

A lot might also have to do with the sorry history of Russia. Remember that in the period 1720-1815 no less than 3 Czars or would be Czars were overthrown by internal coups, in which the Guards played a part (Ivan IV, Peter III, Paul I).

Same thing in the Ottoman Empire with all the Jannisary and Qapiqolu coups. So you got some really strong examples of the dangers of elite units.

Interesting theory , However I can't see the link with Austria though.Also neither the Brits nor the French had problems with their guard units as far as I am aware .

marshalGReg is quite correct,but where did all those big aggressive blokes go? In the French- into the Imperial Guard. In Austria – into the Grenadier battalions.

Hello Ochoin!

I think as Khusrau has suggested the root of your problem is your rules. It seems you have at least 6 troop levels. That is over kill to me. We simply have 3 levels, poorly trained, trained and well trained. All Guards, Grenadiers, elites and crack troops are considered well trained.

The Austrians considered their Grenadiers and the first 4 line regiments as crack troops. Whenever the French were opposed to these troops they knew they were in for a tough fight. It was the same for the Austrians when they were against French Guards, combined Grenadiers and or elites. I think treating any of these troops differently is wrong. With the exception of experience. Some Guard or elite units had no experience or a solid core of veterans. Until these units prove themselves I would simply treat them as trained (average).

Best regards,

Glenn

As noted, the Hapsburgs did have Guard units, but they were very small and never left Vienna

I suspect that as noted the legacy of the Thirty Years War was part of it

We do rate the Austrian Grenadiers as elite – but, then again, if you have the right sized Austrian army you don't have very many of them

"No Gaurds, no Janissaries, no Praetorians"

Forget the source of the quote but lifted from Napoleons Great Adversaries; the hapsburgs were all about preserving the dynasty above all else and were always aware the army was a potential source of revolution as well as security. Hence their ambivalence around the Landwehr and reluctance to gamble with the army the way Napoleon did.

Agree Grenadiers should have a range of quality though if your rules allow it.

"but where did all those big aggressive blokes go?"

For later period Russians ….

The Russians selected men for experience and skill from the "center" companies of infantry regiments for the grenadier company in each battalion. The bigger men went to the grenadier platoon in the grenadier company, the smaller men went to the стрелковъ / strelkov / marksmen platoon of the grenadier company.

Russian infantry regiments were manned with conscripted recruits, taken into the regiment through 4th reserve or "recruit" battalions. After intial training, the recruits were sent to the first three battalions. The first and third battalions were the "active" battalins of the regiment. The "center" companies of 2nd battalion was supposed to be used to fill up the active battalions to full strength "present under arms" and collect any sick, injured, men about to muster-out, etc. from them. The grenadier companies of each regiment's 2nd запасный / zapacnyy / replacement or "depot" battalion were grouped together to form 2 combined grenadier battalions which went on campaign with the division. While the 2nd battalions were supposed to stay in the regimental depots to train replacements, they were pressed into service in 2nd line rôles in 1812.

Russian grenadier regiments did not typically get recruits directly and did not have 4th reserve battalions. Instead they were manned by selections from the veteran infantry regiments. The annual selection was typically 5 of the "best men" per infantry regiment, thereby providing about 36 new grenadiers per grenadier regiment per year. These "best men" were typically from the grenadier companies of the "donating" infantry regiments. Typically, they entered a grenadier regiment in the "center" companies of that regiment's 2nd battalion (i.e. 6 men or two files per platoon in that battalion).

The Guard heavy infantry did not have 4th reserve battalions either. Also, their 2nd battalions were considered active battalions and the Guard regiments took the field with all three battalions. Additionally, assimilated with the Guard were various training establishments for NCO's, drummers, etc. The guardsmen were typically recruited by drafts of 12-15 "best men" per year from the grenadier regiments (as well as occasional individual selection for a specific heroic act by a soldier or NCO), yeilding up to 45 new guardsmen per Guard regiment per year (up to 9 men for the various establishments, and 12 men per active battalion or 1 file per company). Again these would typically come from the grendaier companies of the grenadier regiments.

This system was initially less developed for jäger regiments, but was brought into line with the later creation of grenadier-jäger regiments and two full-sized Guard light infantry regiments. The less complete selection system for Guard light infantry might explain the less-than-typical performance of these units compared to Guard heavy infantry in 1812.

For 1812, the intended result was 1 Guard infantry division (12 heavy infantry and 6 light infantry battalions, all active), 2 Army Grenadier divisions (each 12 active heavy infanry and 2 active combined grenadier battalions), and the equivalent of 24 Army infantry divisions (each of 8 active heavy infantry, 4 active light infantry and 2 active combined grenadier battalions). The selection process was thus roughly 24 --> 2 --> 1.

So, a typical Russian guardsman was supposed to have been :
- recruited into an Army regiment's 4th reserve battalion for intial training and movement from the recruiting area to an infantry regiment
- passed to the infantry regiment's 2nd replacement battalion for additional training until a replacement was needed in an active battalion
- passed to a "center" company in an active battalion of the infantry regiment
- selected for the grenadier company of the active battalion ("best" 25% of the battalion)
- selected for and transferred to a grenadier regiment (one of 5 "best" men in the infantry regiment), intially in the 2nd replacement battalion of the grenadier regiment until a replacement was needed in an active battalion
- passed to a "center" company in an active battalion of the grenadier regiment
- selected for the grenadier company of the battalion ("best" 25% of the battalion)
- selected for and transferred to a guard regiment (one of 12-15 "best" men in the grenadier regiment)
From here the guardsman might be selected as a gefreytor / lance-corporal and eventually then promoted a Guard junior under-officer / corporal -- who thus would typically have about 20 years service upon selection.

This was the intended system. Wartime needs and inefficiency or inconsistency in administration contributed to some degree of variance in actual practise.

- Sasha

We appear to have wondered onto the Russians again :)

Great post though !

The key once again is the Russian system was very similar to the French and British for recruiting the elite men. The Austrian grenadiers lack this since they were just the biggest, possibly the bravest and or most experienced from the infantry regiment and infantry's regiments recruiting area. Thus mostly recruited straight to and not necessarily by experience/exceptional valor, to become the Grenadier. So some what watered down from the other countries' elites.

Sorry Glenn

I have to disagree somewhat to your discussion on the rules, there needs to the reliability factor.
With a 3 rating system, differentiation for troops that were very reliable (to get things done, or would fight to near extinction) needs to be presented. So the best of the best should have some weight in such match-up. The 3 level system will not provide that and to me is an issue with a such a rules.
The exception being the units are higher level ( strategic game) such as representing a brigade. With this level of play there would certainly be the presence of less capable battalions mixed in making up the brigade and thus would "water down" such an elite formation ( or enhance a brigade filled with mostly "green" units).
With formations typically water down, this would make sense for only have a 3 level troop rating system for such level of play.

my 3 cent worth.

MG

'…British for recruiting the elite men'
Nope. Not even near. If you got snatched off the street by the recruiting party of the Coldstream guards thats the regiment you were in. If you turned out to be a scrawney little oik you could find yourself transferred to a lesser regiment (this happened a lot). However the British Guards did not get first choice of big tough squaddies nor did experience direct veterans to them. Indeed you would be hard pressed to argue that the 'guards' were any better than most other regiments, in terms of battle performance, Hyde Park notwithstanding. Theirs was a significantly social status, but nothing like the military status of the French or Russian Guards. Social status does affect war motivation to a degree and you might argue a better sense of self and regimental discipline because of it. Russia and France had unique systems.
Where do you get the sense of formations being 'watered' down? Not purposefully surely?
And of course you must remember that Austrian Grenadiers formed combined batallions. The composition of these could change.
'The Austrians considered their Grenadiers and the first 4 line regiments as crack troops' The men in these regiments might believe this to be the case but your argument fails because they were never employed as such. If IR3 was in the 2d corps it sure wasnt there because the rest of 2d corps was crap, it was there, well, because it was there. It was better looked after by its inhaber perhaps and that may have made it feel better about itself, but its Corps commander 'probably' never stopped to consider its 'eliteness' over its brother regiment. Or at least I have never gotten that impression.
I agree there was a range of quality within all armies and that identifying such different regiments is possible from battle accounts, its a different argument then to leap to a conclusion that 'they were considered elite' and were used as such.

"We appear to have wondered onto the Russians again"

Sorry …. it seemed we were beginning (and have continued) to compare how various nations made up their guards, so I thought I would put in the one that I knew, for comparison.

From a rules perspective, the Russians in the era saw a quality difference between :
- veteran line regiments' "center" companies
- veteran line regiments' grenadier companies
- grenadier regiments and combined grenadier battalions
- guards regiments
which may or may not be easy to replicate with a particular set of rules.

Maybe I was off-topic.
Again, my apologies.

- Sasha

Wyeayeman is right- although I'd add I couple of supplementary comments. The Guards recruited from the common people as did all other regiments, although they were somewhat choosier about physical size and appearance.

Like other regiments, though possibly to a greater extent, the Guards also took drafts of volunteers from the various county militias. This was seen as a good thing generally by the regiments- the Militia was reasonably well run outfit by the Napoleonic wars and the recruits were often big tough farm boys from fairly respectable families who were already quite well trained when beginning their regular service. Because of the combination of choosiness over recruits, the fact that they were in action a great deal during the wars, and because of a real cachet of the regiments' history and social position- I think the Guards do lay proper claim to elite status- though as wyeayeman notes- definitely not super troops.

As far as the Austrian Grenadiers are concerned- I beg to differ Marshalgreg, they were a genuinely merit-selected fighting elite.
They were the best 200-odd men out of a regiment of usually 2500-3000. IIRC they took the best performing (discipline and behaviour in peacetime selection, with steadiness and bravery added in wartime selection) experienced men from the ordinary Fusilier companies, and could give them back if not up to standard.
As Christopher Duffy noted of them during the Maria Theresa period- the whole reputation of a regiment could rest on that of its Grenadiers. Although Colonel-Proprietors were naturally loathe to give up their best men to the Grenadiers when the latter would invariably be detached, the regiment's reputation (and also potentially the Colonel's prospects of future favour and advancement) depended on it- so the best men they gave.

This is why I much prefer rules with greater granularity in rating troops. To be honest I'm put off by a system that has just 3 ratings grades. I think there was a wide range of differences between training, morale, experience, battlefield cohesion, officer cadre quality, etc and I like a system that allows me to reflect these differences. Rating Austrian Grenadier battalions is a case in point. They were not all the same any more than the French Old Guard Regiments and indeed battalions were not all the same. Nor do I rate all my Russian Guard Regiments the same (although I don't have the information to make distinctions down to battalion level within the Russian Imperial Guard).

There's plenty of information available about the Austrian Grenadier battalions allowing us to rate them accordingly.

Troop ratings have to be somewhat elastic or a little more nuanced. How do you rate Prussians after Jena and Auerstadt? They went from well drilled and disciplined to a defeated army that was dispirited and all too ready to surrender. The effects of the campaign and casualties on a unit could have profound effects.

On top of that, how did the Generals look at their regiments and Brigades? I doubt it was "A class to E class", or even veteran, well drilled, drilled, etc. Maybe it's time to start calling them "Capable, Unfit, Daring, Dextrous, Suspicious, something to represent how and why they were brigaded as they were and what was expected of them.

Thoughts?

Hello marshalGreg!

Nice to hear from you.

Guards and Grenadiers were recruited differently by different countries at different times. Some countries even recruited different types of Guards differently. Conversely some of them recruited in a similar way at the same time. The Napoleonic period was almost 25 years with manpower in demand for almost all of it. Filling the ranks by the books was not always possible. That fact alone makes it impossible for me to even come close to agreeing with your blanket statement that the Austrian Elites were a watered down version of the rest of Europe. Simply based on their various and constantly changing recruitment practices.

A 3 rating system has never made it difficult for us to find units that are reliable. Our "well trained" troops very often get the job done, but their not super troops. It sounds like your looking for super troops, so yes a 3 rating system makes it very difficult for that to happen.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello wyeayeman!

The first four infantry regiments were line infantry regiments. That's all the Austrians had, other then their lights. The Grenadiers were created from the line regiments.
The Austrians considered the first four line regiments as crack troops. Even today armies have regiments or forces that are not guards, but are considered to be crack troops.

Other then the Grenadiers the Austrians did not have any elite infantry brigades. So it would not have been possible to put them in an elite brigade. I do recall reading that Austrian commanders did know the quality of these troops when they were under their command. Whenever they came up short in an encounter, as most elites will sooner or later, the Austrian commanders were shocked.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello perfectcaptain!

There is no real need to rate troops that will run or surrender, because they will run or surrender. Prussians who stood up to the French after J&A performed okay, so I would and have rated them as "trained". When we played the entire campaign of 1806 and 1807 the Prussians still lost. There was never a need to downgrade them. The French were simply better in a number of ways.

To the best of my recollection of reading accounts Generals simply referred to their troops as crack or elite, regulars or line and unreliable or poor/green. Three basic categories.

Best regards,

Glenn

I'm looking for an OOB for the Austrians. How do you know which Grenadiers are the good ones?

For the British, the status of Guard is more a historical quirk, dating back to the Restoration. Of course, ALL British troops are elite, with the exception of Paras and Marines who are obviously Double Elite (as I have been assured by both, though not necessarily about the other).

"No Gaurds, no Janissaries, no Praetorians"

Forget the source of the quote but lifted from Napoleons Great Adversaries; the hapsburgs were all about preserving the dynasty above all else and were always aware the army was a potential source of revolution as well as security. Hence their ambivalence around the Landwehr and reluctance to gamble with the army the way Napoleon did.

Duffy uses it in "The Army of Marie Teresa" – where he got it from I don't know my copy is in storage.

Last Hussar, I study the history of the Campaign and the various actions, noting which regiments and battalions did well and why – was it training, morale, officers, fatigue, etc. It takes a bit of research work but the research is wonderful fun and a part of our hobby.

1. Explicit thanks to Sasha for his – as always I may add – very informative post on the Russian system which might not fit to the title of this topic but in any case to the most interesting comparison of military systems.
2. "The Austrians considered the first four line regiments as crack troops" – may I ask for sources for this assumption which is new for me? Those regiments HAD a formidable reputation, but there were others, too. I would not reduce this rating to only four regiments.
3. In theory at least Austrian grenadiers were selected from above average fusiliers – so after basic training and some time of service. Therefore they should be some form of elite. In long drawn wartimes – as from 1792 to 1815 – this theory could of course get "watered down".
4. Hard to compare the French Imperial Guard with other European Guard or Elite units: the Old Guard at least was often deliberately kept out of the fighting, Austrian grenadiers saw a lot of that. I do not dare to open the Pandora Box of troop rating for wargames …

I like the the republic to empire system; where lower quality grenadiers might be rated "Drilled Elite" (higher morale but no combat bonuses) all the way to Veteran Elite who are effectively Gaurd quality in game terms.

I seriously doubt that the Austrians habitually regarded Ir 1-4 as particularly special, beyond the fact that the Inhabers of these regiments were royal princes. This 'may' have led to some form of enhanced status within society and even perhaps the army, but does not, as such, translate to better battlefield performance – unless one can specifically identify such performances. napolun.com (generally very thoughtful in its approach and backed up by relevant sources) can help us in this regard :-
At Marengo the Austrian 63rd Infantry Regiment {Wallons} defended Fontanone, took 443 casualties, their colonel was shot 3 times and they still held ground.
The 51st Regiment {Romanians} came from mountainous country of Transylvania where in the past ruled the cruel Vlad the Impaler. It was an unit full of brave warriors and was named Legion Infernale by the French. In 1800 at Marengo the 51st {Romanians} participated in the defeat of Bonaparte's grenadiers of Consular Guard.
At Kulm the 54th Regiment {Czechs} captured Color of French 33e Ligne.
At Wagram the 32nd Regiment {Hungarians} took Color of III/4e Ligne and the 35th Regiment {Czechs} captured Color of II/106e Ligne.
At Caldiero the 7th Regiment {Czechs} captured Color of I/5e Ligne.
In 1809 at Neumarkt the 14th Regiment {Austrians} and 39th Regiment {Hungarians} attacked French cavalry with bayonet !
At Aspern-Essling the columns of 17th Reuss-Plauen Regiment {Czechs} advanced forward with great bravery, their band playing, soldiers singing war and religious songs. At the front marched sappers who wielded hatchets to breach village's garden walls. Disregarding artillery fire they entered the village. One of French officer described this fight. It was "without letup, inside, outside, … the furious combat continued along the streets …" Their captain Komadina had his feet taken off by a cannonball but continued to encourage his troops and shouted "Long live Austria !"
The 47th Vogelsang Regiment {Czechs} also distinguished itself in this fighting. Austrian battalions fought so tenaciously that the French 18e Ligne lost half thousand man in the struggle along Aspern's main street !
The 1st Kaiser Regiment {Czechs}, 4th Hoch-un-Deutschmeister {Austrians}, 12th Regiment {Czechs} and 31st Regiment {Romanians} were also considered as hard men.
This is a great start at identifying better than average Austrian infantry (limited as most of us are, to sources translated into English).
You could perhaps argue that some regiments thought highly of themselves and this added 'swagger' to their everyday activities, but this does not mean that they were more reliable in the smoke of battle.
This brings me to the Prussians. I suspect that the Prusians up to 1806 rather thought of themselves as the bees knees. After all, they followed the principles of the Great Frederick in training and discilpine. What no one was prepared to acknowledge was that things had changed significantly. I imagine they went into the 1806 campaign expecting to clobber the French (they had done this before in some style).They were kept in line by strict discipline, and perhaps it was this Frederican autrhority that was their down fall. Facing an army whose key strength was innovation (see Napoleons Apogee) The Prussian elan counted for very little on the day. I would rate the 1806 Prussian infantry as the best overall in terms of quality, but their leaders, and the army's ability to respond to a changing battlefield as practically nil.
'Real' Guard quality was only to be found in the French and Russian Imperial Guard. Or rather the potential to influence a battle either way could only be found in those two formations. Self contained and regulated as they were and at the direct command to the commander (and then we need to compare Alexander and Napoleon – if there is a point).
Perhaps Napoleon's fantasy of creating dozens of young guards was only fleetingly successful, only giving a veneer of quality unsustainable in the long run.
The Austrian grenadiers, whilst exhibiting above average fighting capabilities could never duplicate the battle influence of 'Guards' because they were never organised and imagined in such a decisive role. Terrible to face if you came upa against them, but not a generals battle winning tool.

Well said sir, I second your observations.

And there's me thinking it was he colour of the facings that mattered most when choosing troops for your force.

Well what do I know anyway?

Some great informative posts guys:)

Many thanks

"Ir 1-4 as particularly special, beyond the fact that the Inhabers of these regiments were royal princes"

OK, some more at least partially off-topic info on the Russians, for anyone who likes to see comparisons between different nations (with apologies to those not so interested) ….

Several Russian Army regiments had a "shef" who was a member of the imperial family and who acted as an honorary colonel (usually the shef of a regiment was an active serving general officer who was commander-in-chief of the regiment). When there was an honorary colonel, the regiment's officers were entitled to wear special buttonhole galons on the collar and cuffs and the regiment usually had an above-establishment staff officer to compensate for the absent shef.

During the period 1800-1815, the effected regiments were:
- HIM Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich's ulan regiment (formed 1803 from the Odessa hussar regiment, promoted into the Guard 1809)
- Riga dragoon regiment (had an honory colonel 1800-1814)
- Life-grenadier regiment (senior regiment of the Army with the Tsar himself as honorary colonel, the men were also allowed white buttonhole tapes at the collar and cuffs, promoted into the Guard in 1813)
- Astrakhan grenadier regiment (had an honorary colonel 1799-1814)
- Kiev grenadier regiment (had an honorary colonel 1803-1813)
- Malorussia grenadier regiment (had an honorary colonel 1801-1807)
- Moscow grenadier regiment (had an honorary colonel 1800-1814)
- Tauride grenadier regiment (had an honorary colonel 1801-1814)
- 1st jäger regiment (had an honorary colonel 1811-1814, promoted to "1st grenadier-jäger" in early 1814, renamed "1st carabinier regiment" in mid-1815)

The selection of regiments for this distinction was honorific for the regiment and, sometimes, in part based on the interests or preferences of the imperial family member. I do not think that the Russians saw this distinction, in and of itself, as marking a substantial difference in unit quality. For examples …. 1st jäger regiment (later 1st carabinier regiment), which had an honorary colonel, was not seen as of substantially higher quality than 3rd jäger regiment (later 2nd carabinier regiment, honorifically renamed for the marshal prince Barclay-de-Tolli in 1826), or that the Moscow grenadier regiment (with an honorary colonel) was of substantially higher quality than the Saint-Petersburg grenadier regiment (honorifically renamed for the King of Prussia in late 1814) or the Pavlov grenadier regiment (promoted into the Guard in 1813).

- Sasha

Hello wyeayeman!

Were talking about rating Austrian troops for a wargame system. A silly topic no matter how you look at it. You seem to suggest that battlefield performance is the criteria. Although surely a consideration I also think the military perspective is perhaps more important. That includes troops that may never have saw action or even suffered defeat that was more or less beyond their control. In other words were really talking about intangibles.

However, in the military world little things are important to them. Just being number 1 or a senior/old regiment, etc. gives them status.

As you have pointed out the first 4 regiments were controlled by royalty. They have status 1-4 and were known to contain some of their best officers. You also quote 1 & 4 as being considered as "hard men".

You then go on to quote a number of other outstanding Austrian regiments. I'm not excluding these. I'm simply saying that for wargame purposes all of these regiments should be rated the same. To separate them into different classes of elites does not seem to mirror the military reality.

I think how the Austrian Grenadiers and French Guard were used is a totally different discussion. If a player does not use them in their historical roles does he get a deduction or a bonus?

Best regards,

Glenn

Interesting thread.

Nobody's mentioned cost. Guards were often paid more; their officers might ranked higher than in equivalent line regiments. Certainly true of the French, and I strongly suspect of the Russians. The Austrians, being parsimonious, would be doubly suspicious of an overpaid corps of elite soldiers in the system, and would probably have regarded them as poor value for money, as well as a political risk. They would probably have been right.

I share Glenn's distaste for rating troops (and generals for that matter) by hindsight. What I like to do is to rate troops based on the facts known at the time, and let the dice do the rest. The facts were basis of recruitment, experience, training etc. The trouble with using regimental reputation in this mix is that part of the regimental system is inculcate the idea that every regiment is better than the rest. Though it's clear than in most armies the social status of some regiments was better than others, and this might translate into something.

The best clue as to what was known at the time is the roles that regiments were given. The Austrian grenadiers were held back as reserves of shock troops. The best case for giving other Austrian regiments a "crack" status is where they were selected for more important missions, such as being put in the Avant-Garde. This isn't very conclusive for 1809 though.

When considering elite formations, one perspective is to consider what proportion of the mix they were. The Austrian grenadiers were top 10%. The French Old Guard were a much smaller proportion. But as the Guard as a whole got bigger in the later era, they would start to resemble the top 10% too. But that would mean that elite companies in the Line and Light regiments (top one third after the Guard were creamed off) and could not be of the same standard.

In my system Grade A are elite of elite (top few%, high status, etc), B is top 10% (must have some form of selective recruitment), C are the better non-selectively recruited regiments, or the top-third selective ones, and so on…

Mysteron- that's how we chose WSS Units. And the flags, of course.

Glen (in particular-but open to anyone who can answer) I am still in the dark about your statement that Austrians 'considered the first four line regiments as crack troops'.'I have read around the subject for some time and I cannot put my finger on any such notion.
Since we are talking about wargames ratings then surely the ONLY relevant criteria is historical performance, where it can be found. By using this ‘evidence' you remove yourself from quite a bit of subjectivity.
"The best case for giving other Austrian regiments a "crack" status is where they were selected for more important missions, such as being put in the Avant-Garde." I have had a quick scan through Nafziger collection and much of the time Austrian ‘Avant Garde' consisted of grenzer or Landwehr Plus some stalwart line infantry on occaision-Look at 3d July 1809 for instance – . including the 4th IR. Now I know Matthewgreen qualified his statement somewhat stating his argument may not be so convincing for 1809, but if not 1809 then when? Looking at 1813 the OoB for 29 Sept 1813 shows two light divisions principally made up of grenz and Landwehr too. If the argument had some merit then why would both light divisions be composed of arguably poor troops. Of 16 identified regiments only half might be considered ‘elite' – there were 5 jaeger batallions plus both the Blankenstein Husars and the Vincent Chevaulegers.
One has to wonder if the troops accompanying these were chosen with much care or were simply what was available. And was the ‘Kaiser' Landwher regiment a cut above the rest of the Landwehr?
Grenz troops appear among the line regiments in the remainder of the columns, often attached to cavalry brigades, but sometimes in infantry brigades. We also find Kaiser IR in the 2d brigade of the 3d Infantry divison (1st Column) and Erzherzog Karl in the 2d Brigade of the 3d Division (2d column) neither placement suggests any notion of preference or consideration of eliteness. Both regiments always seem to have performed well (on evidence) but no thought has gone into which brigade/division they ended up in.
Had they really been thought of as crack (as in status) you might think that brigading them together would be a great idea. I think a good argument can be made to say that they (and numerous other regiments were good or very good) but this did not (emphatically) influence their position or deployment in the Army. Oddly enoughIR Kaiser is listed after IR Kottulinsky in Nafziger. Now there is a social faux-pas of some significance.
The top 10% – this is an odd notion. I am not even sure that in specific numeric terms Austrian Grenadiers represent 10% of their army. Should all armies be able to denote 10% at a very high status? Think about the Neapolitans, the Spanish. No, clearly there is no evidence for this. Even where the ‘Old Guard' were less than 10% of available man power it was still a case of ‘F**k me, it's the Old Guard!!!' out of all proportion to their numbers- This is consistent across the entire period up until ‘Merde!'
The best Neapolitan soldier was never (ever) going to be as motivated or as competent as the average Austrian. Can anyone really argue that Spanish Guards were any match at all for the French 10th Light infantry – a regiment of consistently high performance. Surely not. Guard does not automatically mean any good. Not all Grenadiers are equal.
Things are what they are (or more correctly were what they were).
I must stop now. The effects of a bottle of Rochefort 10 are beginning to work their way through to my brain!

Hello wyeayeman!

I'm sorry that I presently don't have any other support for the first four other then what I have said, seniority, royalty, etc. It was something that I read over 20 years ago. If I stumble upon it again I'll let you know. I would also say, however, that my readings over the years have supported this viewpoint as it's not been unusual to read about their status when looking at individual battles. You have noted the 1&4. If you look carefully at your sources again you might be able to pick up something. I think the 2&3 may have seen less action so digging up details about them could be more difficult.

By only using "historical performance" you are removing all the units that were not committed to action. You also have to carefully examine every event in great detail to try and establish the circumstances of their good or bad performance. A task that is way beyond most gamers.

It's interesting that you want to include regiments that were selected for important missions. I'm not to sure that too many wargamers go to this extent when selecting their ratings. I'm not convinced that the Austrians thought of their Avant Garde units as elite formations.

As far as I know other then the Grenadier brigades the Austrians did not have any elite infantry formations. So there was no place to put crack troops other then to mix them in with the other units.

"Guard does not automatically mean any good. Not all Grenadiers are equal." That's exactly what I have been implying as that is one of the major problems of a multi-tier rule system. The good and the bad are often mixed together simply based on a players limited knowledge.

Best regards,

Glenn

We play BP.

For all those who haven't turned off, I'd like to explore weyayeman and Glenn's discussion on performance vs wargames ratings.

We often field a unit of Saxons amongst the French. They don't get any special rules. They don't get any better stats. In an army replete with both they are sub-standard. Yet they have consistently been magnificent. Their stats are based on Glenn's point, but how we all think of and remember them is closer to weyayeman's.

Are they elite? No, but the last few battles they've always been dealt with by a full brigade(and still done well)!!!

"a unit of Saxons amongst the French. They don't get any special rules. They don't get any better stats."

For 1812-1815, I would say the regular infantry and cavalry was about the same as veteran well-led French units of the same types.

The Garde de Corps heavy cavalry was rally as good as heavy cavalry could be – as good as French grenadiers à cheval de la garde or so close to them that that they should have similar or same stats under most rules.

Saxon late period artillery had new-designed and really excellent material, as good or better than any nation and fielded in somewhat greater quantity (pieces/infantryman or pounds-of-throw-weight/infantryman) than the French.

Some might claim that the Saxons' horses were better cared for than the French over a long campaign, so that Saxon units preserved their intended mobility longer.

- Sasha

Hello wyeayeman!

Well today I have to prepare for our first battle of 1815 for our replay in 2015. It's "Tolentino", Austrians vs Neapolitans. The 2&3 Austrian regiments are present. So based on my research I'm going to rate them as "Well Trained" which is the highest in my 3 tier system. You probably don't agree with that, but that's okay. That's not my problem. It's this:

"The best Neapolitan soldier was never (ever) going to be as motivated or as competent as the average Austrian"

Which I actually agree with to a point. However, in the early stages of the 1815 campaign the Neapolitan's have actually managed to push back the Austrian's in a couple of minor skirmishes. It also seems that if they had not withdrawn from the battle of Tolentino they might have won it.

So if I was actually going to just use "historical performance" as my one and only guideline I would be forced to rate the Neapolitan's higher then the Austrian's, would I not?

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello Adam name not long enough!

Well in my 3 tier system there is no problem. The basic Saxon and French line units are just "Trained" (in the middle). The Saxon success record would appear to be the result of two possibilities, great tactics vs poor tactics or good luck vs bad luck, or a combination of both.

I think the multi-tier systems are a bit of a cop out. Units have an edge simply because they are rated higher. The units don't have to be used in a tactical superior way they just win because their rated higher. I find it kind of cheapens the game overall. I realize this has not been the case with your Saxons, which is nice as they seem to be clearly beating the odds.

Best regards,

Glenn

Rating battle effectiveness is subtle business and I guess a three rate system works for you. It does not work for me because it does not give enough credit down the line to ensure that all possible experiences can be taken into account, nor can it credit history
"It's interesting that you want to include regiments that were selected for important missions." No that was Matthewgreen who said that, whereas I was trying to argue the contrary.
Units are singled out by being mentioned in reports etc by dint of doing something exceptional. Troops who were never engaged – well how could they ever be anything but average on a generalised level based on whatever bias we bring to the table. Thus Line troops are always average, Landwehr are worse etc.
Regiments which shone or who clearly performed well, are often consistently mentioned suggesting that there was a ‘certain something' about them. This is tangible evidence rather than (please forgive this) your rather flimsy supposition that regiments 1-4 were regarded as crack simply because they were regiments 1-4.
In fact I would agree that Kaiser, Hiller, Erzherzog Karl, and Hoch und Deutschmeister were rather good because, from what I have read they seem to be so from their battlefield experience. But equally there were others like Klebek and Jordis who suffered very bad casualties at Ebelsberg but were at Aspern ready to fight it out again, and many others who were equally tough or perhaps tougher. They took this ‘certain something' everywhere they went, whether this was by dint of excellent officers and NCO's or simply ‘esprit'.
How do you rate the British 95th? The Tirailleurs Corses?
You can't reduce this to a dice roll. I can just imagine the horror felt by the infamous French ‘Terrible' 57th on being told that their victories were the result of some random die roll, rather than their own confidence, training and guts.
I think the direction I am coming from is essentially that I am interested in ‘Napoleonic' warfare and that requires quite a bit of trust in the historical sources (where one can). What is very clear from history is that battles were not in any respect fair or in the least bit balanced.

Hello wyeayeman!

Sorry for the misquote, obviously my speed reading failed me. Yes I forgive you for your words, but not your conclusion.

I have stated that 1-4 had seniority, were controlled by the royals and had read some years ago that the Austrians considered them as crack troops. I also stated that I have picked up on this in some of the details in other books when reading about individual battles. I didn't mention that they also have a pretty good battle record, but now you have. The evidence is clearly mounting. I of course know all of this and would rate them at the top of my limited 3 level system. On the other hand you would not do so until they have established their record and then plug them into some unknown level in your system, but clearly above average.

If I understand your position correctly nobody has any credibility above average until they have established their battlefield record. Records that were constructed to the best interest of the author! From this I gather everybody starts at ground zero around 1775-1800. Which means you can't treat the "Terrible 57th" as terrible until such time as they have established themselves as such, yes? So if you are going to replay a certain battle where a given unit achieved it's moment of glory you really can't rate them any higher then average until after the game, yes?

It also seems that the Austrians actually have no elite or crack regiments. Even their Grenadiers don't qualify until such time as they have established themselves. Is that correct?

I think all the regiments that established themselves and many others who didn't have that "certain something". Those who managed to show it off in battle conveniently will meet your criteria while the others are left as average or below. Seems like a (and please forgive this) flimsy system.

I realize you acknowledge that what your doing is "subtle business", I just don't think expanding it beyond three makes it any better.

I would rate the 95th, Tirailleurs Corses and the 57th as "Well Trained" (top tier) at any time in my system.

All games are pretty much controlled by the dice. Our three levels incorporate the various units confidence, training and guts. Why do we need more levels to reflect that?

My group/club and I are dedicated to studying Napoleonic warfare. Next year will mark our 50th anniversary. We are well aware that battles are not fair or balanced and none of our games have been for years.

Best regards,

Glenn

Napoleonic Miniatures Wargame Society of Toronto
Miniature Brigade

IMHO, if you want a game that will yield historically accurate results, the units within the game should be rated as to how they performed in that battle or how they would have performed based on their prior performance… THIS is what enables you to come to a greater understanding of how and why a battle unfolded as it did…

If you want to just rate units generically, just play chess and you'll have the same amount of realism…

However, if you want your game to provide you with greater historical understanding as well as enjoyment, then research and individually rate units to match their historical performance. Not only does this provide a more historical basis, but also gives a game much more flavor. The difference between just eating a bowl of rice and eating a bowl of rice with multiple ingredients in it.

In my opinion this is truly the way forward…and in the end isn't that why we game history instead of checkers or chess?

Frank

FML Baron Hiller, the Inhaber of IR 2, was no "royal" person, just an ordinary general.
Therefore the statement "the first four infantry regiments were controlled by royals" is only partially correct.

Crikey I am going to have to digest all this lot over the weekend before I start organising a unit of Grenadiers .

Lots of differing opinions and I dare say all valid too and as a bonus no heated arguments

This is what makes it a great hobby as nothing appears to be Black and White .

Well done guys :)

Hello Frank!

I agree with you, however, if you have a system that only rates units according to the reports. You really can't give a unit a higher rating for a battle based on a report that was not yet written.

I think everyone is advocating individual rates. There just seems to be a different point of view on how you decide and rate those differences.

Best regards,

Glenn

"This is what makes it a great hobby as nothing appears to be Black and White . Well done guys :)"

I agree. I really appreciate all the great info on the Austrians provided here.
Thank you! to all.

- Sasha

Hello grenadier corporal!

Sorry for being too brief. Just change out the word royals for aristocracy. I don't think a Baron considers himself an ordinary general.

Best regards,

Glenn