Tango01 | 01 Jun 2016 3:21 p.m. PST |
"French under Napoleon, 24,938 and 54 guns rising to approx. 75,000 and 150 guns by 2nd day Austrians under Archduke Charles, 104,839, 264 guns Weather: Hot, clear. River fog in the morning. Blowing dust about midday of the 21st. Location: 481247N 163009E 6 miles (9.66 km) due east of downtown metropolitan Vienna, on the north side of the Danube. First Light: 03:30 Sunrise: 04:09 Sunset: 19:35 End of Twilight: 20:13 Moon Phase: Waxing Crescent Moonrise: 10:34 Moonset: 00:22 (calculated for the location and date from U.S. Naval Observatory )…"
From here link Amicalement Armand |
Brechtel198 | 01 Jun 2016 3:30 p.m. PST |
Two of his references are suspect: Schom and Nosworthy. And he repeats the error that Berthier was commander of the Army of Germany. He was never appointed commander and never acted as a commander because of that fact. Berthier position with the Army of Germany was that of Major General and chief of staff. The major staff muddle that began the campaign was the result of Napoleon sending dispatches to Berthier from Paris by both courier and telegraph, and they didn't arrive in sequence which would have been confusing for anyone. The issue was finally decided when Berthier bluntly told Napoleon that he should join the army as soon as possible. |
Gazzola | 01 Jun 2016 4:00 p.m. PST |
Bechtel198 Yes, and I was very disappointed to see the author had not employed Volume 2 of John Gill's excellent 1809 Thunder on the Danube series? I also see he has offered an historical novel in the source list, although, to be fair, he does admit that people should read it more for 'atmosphere' than anything else. Nice pics though. |
nsolomon99 | 01 Jun 2016 6:28 p.m. PST |
|
C M DODSON | 02 Jun 2016 4:57 a.m. PST |
Thank you for this in my opinion excellent link. Lots of detail, story well told. I gave a hankering to re fight this battle and this info us invaluable as it will enhance my resource bank. Thank you. Chris |
138SquadronRAF | 02 Jun 2016 6:54 a.m. PST |
Two of his references are suspect: Schom and Nosworthy. Three. You left out Bowden/Tarbox. A quick reading of Gill shows up the faults in Bowden on the Austrian army. Overall I liked the site though and thought it was good effort. The major staff muddle that began the campaign was the result of Napoleon sending dispatches to Berthier from Paris by both courier and telegraph, and they didn't arrive in sequence which would have been confusing for anyone. Thank you for admitting what I realised when reading an account of the early '09 campaign, the muddle in April is Napoleons responsibility. |
SJDonovan | 02 Jun 2016 7:38 a.m. PST |
Seriously? Does this strike you as a reasonable way to behave? Tango drags something over from some guy's hobby site without asking his permission and we start slagging him off because some of his source material doesn't meet with our approval. |
Gazzola | 02 Jun 2016 9:17 a.m. PST |
SJDonovan If you put things out into the public domain, then one must expect both praise and criticism. But I don't see any slagging here, only some points raised concerning the sources employed and those not employed. I think the article, after a very quick read through, is sadly slightly spoilt by the journalistic angle the author has employed. Due to that, I am not sure if the reader is expected to believe the author is trying to be amusing or if he really believes what he states about Napoleon- 'bully Napoleon', 'true Genghis Khan style', 'Napoleon's callous attitude'? If he believes that of Napoleon then it suggests his article may be too biased to be taken seriously, let alone the problems with the sources. But it is just a short article with some very good maps, which I am sure will be appreciated and possibly helpful to anyone planning a future game based on the action. |
SJDonovan | 02 Jun 2016 10:04 a.m. PST |
The guy makes a point of saying he is not a professional historian. He also specifically states that whilst he doesn't mind people linking to his site, no part of it should be copied, which Tango has chosen to ignore. Your argument that everything in the public domain is fair game is pathetic and doesn't alter the fact that your behaviour and the behaviour of certain other posters on this thread is pretty darn shoddy. Why not leave the guy to enjoy his hobby and keep the petty bickering and pointless points-scoring on TMP, where it seems to have found a home. |
Beloved Leader | 02 Jun 2016 10:05 a.m. PST |
There is no such thing as unbiased history. Everything has an angle. Of the nine biographies of Napoleon I've read so far, they have ranged across the entire spectrum, from categorizing him as worse than Hitler to more angelic than Lincoln. Historical writing is just another form of editorial. Also, as a former intelligence officer, I am very aware that some sources are more reliable than others. That's one of the first rules you learn in the profession. You also look at the provenance of a source. Some may prefer one source over another because it reinforces their bias. In writing the blog in the manner I do, I'm trying to get people to rethink accepted narratives (besides simply amuse myself). That's the "obscure" part. And, among all of those biographies of Napoleon, the consensus was that he was a callous, vindictive bastard, even from the ones who praised him. It's a pretty hard judgment to avoid. |
SJDonovan | 02 Jun 2016 10:30 a.m. PST |
My apologies Jeffery, I didn't realize you posted here. I'll leave you to fight your own corner. |
Brechtel198 | 02 Jun 2016 10:33 a.m. PST |
And, among all of those biographies of Napoleon, the consensus was that he was a callous, vindictive bastard, even from the ones who praised him. It's a pretty hard judgment to avoid. That just isn't correct. The negative 'biographies' such as those by Schom, Barnett, and Dwyer certainly give that impression. And those are either extremely biased against Napoleon and/or are riddled with factual error. However, those by Broers, Cronin, and information on Napoleon by John Elting certainly do not. And of you read such memoirs by Fain and Meneval, who worked closely with Napoleon on a daily basis, they clearly demonstrate that he was not 'a callous, vindictive bastard.' |
Ben Avery | 02 Jun 2016 10:43 a.m. PST |
I thought you statement about sources on the blog was perfectly clear and it's obviously a labour of love. I do have a stack of Austrians that need re-basing, so perhaps this is the impetus I need. Out of interest which software package did you use for the maps? I like what you've done with ground scales. |
Beloved Leader | 02 Jun 2016 4:18 p.m. PST |
Thanks, Ben. Always happy to be somebody's imeptus. I built the maps using Adobe Creative Suite, using Photoshop for the the base maps and InDesign to add the troops and text. I started doing this a few years ago to make myself a digital "sandtable". Much neater and takes up less space. I actually play games in InDesign, moving GIF units around like stands of figures. |
Beloved Leader | 02 Jun 2016 4:27 p.m. PST |
I do know that the very subject of Napoleon (and one's opinion of him) is very contentious, even two centuries later. I once co-founded an ad agency which we incorporated as "Elvis & Bonaparte", which we thought was funny. My partners wanted to call it "Elvis & something" and since they knew I was a Napoleonophile, suggested it be "Bonaparte." You know, the King and the Emperor; Entertainment and Strategy. Though we did very well, we had a new, startup client in Silicon Valley who had a French investor on their board who, in a meeting at which we were present, asked the CEO of the company in front of us, "Why did you hire an ad agency named after history's greatest, genocidal monster?" One of my partners, not being able to resist a straight line when she heard it, said, "I know Elvis had some rough times, but I don't think you could call him a monster." The investor had no sense of humor and demanded that the company fire us. Ooops. |
Gazzola | 03 Jun 2016 4:49 a.m. PST |
SDJDonovan I never said anything was 'fair game'. What I pointed out was that anything placed in the public domain is open to being praised or criticised. And from what I can see, Berry's article has been both praised and criticised. That is nothing unusual. Yes, I am well aware he is not an historian. He certainly should be praised for his efforts, especially concerning the maps, which, as I say, I am sure will be very welcome to wargamers. Not sure why he did not use Gill's work, but that is his choice. I have his site linked and if I remember rightly, it contains maps for others 'obscure' battles, although I'm not sure if this action could be considered as obscure. |
Gazzola | 03 Jun 2016 5:07 a.m. PST |
Beloved Leader Yes, it is amazing that Napoleon raises such reactions two hundred years later. There are those who admire him and what he achieved and those that hate him and don't admire what he achieved. I think that will always be the case. But sometimes, if one dares to stand up for the great man you get insulted and attacked as if you were bringing the Emperor back to life. I enjoyed your article and felt the comments about Napoleon were out of place and a journalistic effect which spoilt the article overall. But that is only my opinion. But despite the reaction of some here, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you can't state your opinion then it is pointless having any discussion boards at all. Offering your opinion is not insulting the author, it is only pointing out a viewpoint and why that viewpoint is posted. And how can anyone not like a company named after two incredible legends who made history? LOL |
Decebalus | 03 Jun 2016 6:45 a.m. PST |
I really, really like all the work, that was put into this. And i also think even the journalistic tone was appropriate for a wargame article. |
LORDGHEE | 03 Jun 2016 9:26 a.m. PST |
Well Beloved Leader, some points. The use of Battalion Mass was the Austrians relearning lessons. o A short digression. Against the Turks use of this formation was common. In the late 1600 the Austrians in battle where able to deploy their infantry in one great line anchored by a river on each side. This allowed them to shoot down the Turkish cavalry and so linear warfare was born. The Austrian's generously showed this tactic to the rest of Europe. If I remember it was the French around 1700 who frontally charged a line that explain that this was not a foolproof method and so the second line of battle was introduced. Use your grenadier battalion to cap off the ends of your brigade and you have a square to fight of cavalry. The Russian always seeming to have disagreements with the Turks never let the close column go out of style. I wonder that a Corsican kid who was probably not around great rivers flooding growing up just would not grasp how difficult the bridging would be. The Dyke saved the French. o The French gun line was basically fighting a long-range duel with the Austrian artillery. As being in cover (see Kreigspiel) reduces the effect by half at least. The Austrians could not build up enough guns to gain superiority over the French gun line. o The French infantry also got benefit of cover and of not being seen reducing the long-range fire by half again. o The French Guard being in line was not to reduce casualties but to keep the line of battle intact, which gave support to the guns and reduced the frontages that the depleted units had to be responsible for. Infantry in line or column under long-range fire is the same effect unless over time the artillery can see the unmoving target. See General Hughes book firepower. o From the account of Lannes wounding troops seem to have figured out where the artillery was landing and moved, as there was no one around him. o The Austrians seem to attack the Dyke at Lannes side near Essling where he open fired at close range, this looks like a perfect crossfire spot as it bows toward the French. Terrain favored the French. Command and control, Charles was moving around the Battlefield, at least on the Austrian right flank and center how could he not want his left to move faster. Was it just a matter that you move in line of battle until you swing around? Did Hohenlohe just lollygagged or was this the plan? Waiting for this movement on the first day then starting the battle would have been better. I liked your tone. Blogging should be fun and entertaining at least for you. Great maps and the ones for the town using satellite images excellent. Seem all your powerpointing was useful.
Remember this is TMP where PHDs are asked trival question so that we game with style. Thank you for all your postings. |
Beloved Leader | 03 Jun 2016 10:20 a.m. PST |
Thanks for your supportive comments, Gazzola. I agree; if we can't have disagreements, then what's the point of a discussion board? As my grandfather (who loved to argue for argument's sake) used to say, "Pick your side, pick your argument, and let's go." |
Tango01 | 03 Jun 2016 10:36 a.m. PST |
Well Beloved Leader … congrats for your great work!!… My respect and admiration sir… Amicalement Armand |
Beloved Leader | 03 Jun 2016 10:45 a.m. PST |
LORDGHEE, thank you so much for your kind and supportive words. You don't know how much they are appreciated. Your points are well taken. Actually, my article reinforces some of them (re: the Austrian use of battalionmasse, the effect of a linear formation in reducing artillery casualties, the tactical effect of the "elevated berm"--TMP won't let me type the "d" word; I think the robot thinks it means something else). To your question about whether the slowness of the Austrian left (Rosenburg and Hohenlohe's columns) was due to the geometry of swinging a line of battle or that Hohenlohe was lollygagging (love that word); I think it was mostly due to the fact that in an era before radio communications, a wide-ranging, envelopment plan is problematic because of simple timing coordination. It just took Hohenlohe longer to physically march his men to Gross-Enzerdorf and get them deployed, by which time Hiller, Bellegarde, etc., who had far less distance to cover, had been fighting on the Austrian right for hours. This is the lesson of the strategic advantage of the Central Position. However, in Charles' defense, he probably did feel some urgency to get the battle underway before Napoleon could build up his center. |
LORDGHEE | 03 Jun 2016 11:08 a.m. PST |
I keep go back and forth over this every few years but at long range a line probably increased casualties. One more reason that columns came to be used heavy. It seems that the hook took 8 hours to get going. Is there somthing that I just cannot figure out. example I wonder why the French did not meet the Purissians in the woods at Waterloo. Well the VI corp command arrived at 11 and the troops on the field at 1 and after marching in the mud. So as they streamed up the road they deployed to cover Planceniot they did not have the time to move to the woods on the right. (most show VI on field at Waterloo but a gamer got a French source and showed the corp still moving up.) So if they orders went out Austrian right to left, time could have been lost just for this reason. If Charles gave order again moving right to left and did not put a delay in the right then it is a command error.
|
LORDGHEE | 03 Jun 2016 11:16 a.m. PST |
Your map show it 12 miles, so at 2 mph 6 hours not 12 and Hiller coverd 9 miles to get to the French left. Humm. |
Beloved Leader | 03 Jun 2016 4:18 p.m. PST |
And thank you, Armand, for linking my post to this forum, and to this community of thoughtful people. |
Beloved Leader | 03 Jun 2016 4:25 p.m. PST |
Some of you have recommended John Gill's "Thunder on the Danube", which is not in my library. I have ordered the second volume, so thank you. I'll check it out and see if it changes my analysis of the battle (making edits if I think they're needed--that's what's great about a blog). Though the title is so cheesy it makes me wince. Really, "Thunder on the Danube"? That's the best he could come up with? Or was it the publisher's idea? Also, my daughter has been urging me to unload some of the hundreds of volumes groaning on my bookshelves. So when I order another book, she groans herself. It's not hoarding. It's research…I tell her. |
Ben Avery | 03 Jun 2016 4:34 p.m. PST |
Heaping coals, Beloved Leader? ;) I've not used InDesign in a long time, nor PhotoShop to date. A friend is going to teach me Inkscape soon though, so I'll bear it in mind. I've used Powerpoint for a hex based game in the classroom though. Which rules do you use and how do they play? Is it possible to produce a stop motion effect to show how your battle has gone? I'm mulling over alternate ways to present things. |
Beloved Leader | 03 Jun 2016 5:17 p.m. PST |
Ben, I've written my own algorithm to run games, since I play solo. I keep the OOBs on Lotus 123 files, which I use as a database to apply the algorithms on. Animation would be interesting, but since each file is about a 750 Mb, I just don't have the computing capacity. |
Gazzola | 04 Jun 2016 8:05 a.m. PST |
Beloved Reader I don't think you will be disappointed with Gill's book, but it is a shame you are not considering his other two volumes in the Thunder series. He also has another title worth considering, which you may not be aware of – With Eagles to Glory – which is all about Napoleon's German Allies in the 1809 campaign. And tell your daughter books are not just necessary, if not vital, for research, they are also investments for the future. Tell her they might be worth quite a bit in the future, her future. |
Beloved Leader | 04 Jun 2016 9:22 a.m. PST |
Gazzola, Have to get past the gaggy titles first. We'll see. There have been some pretty badly written histories and biographies. But not many historians are also great writers. But I'm open minded on Gill. I can sympathize with my daughter. And books aren't that great an investment. Last year I got rid of a little over 500 in my library (barely made a dent on my shelves), but actually sold fewer than a hundred to Powell's, got a total of something less than $250 USD for them. The rest were donated to the local library. So, when I die, she's looking at a ton of dead weight (pun intended). |
Tango01 | 04 Jun 2016 10:25 a.m. PST |
A votre service mon ami!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
eldorado | 04 Jun 2016 3:02 p.m. PST |
A very enjoyable read and I must concur with those who have complimented your maps – very nicely done. In the past I have tried to create maps of this type in Photoshop for my own enjoyment but I really did not know what I was doing and my results have paled in comparison with what you have done. Now I would hate to make work for anyone but if you ever get the urge to do a tutorial on how you do what you do I would be an eager student. |
Gazzola | 05 Jun 2016 3:02 a.m. PST |
Greenleader Sadly, in my opinion, you have included at least one of those badly written works in your source list. LOL In terms of books not being worth much, perhaps they too were badly written titles? But from what I can see, unless there are reprints, trying to obtain some past Napoleonic titles can often cost a bomb. Therefore, I would suggest you request your daughter to look for a Napoleonic market when selling any Napoleonic titles you may own. But hopefully, that won't be for a long time yet. In terms of space. All my shelves are full and books are now on chairs, computer desks and anywhere else they can be placed, much to mine and everyone else's annoyance. And in terms of the name of Gill's 3 volume 1809 series, Thunder on the Danube, I disagree with you completely on the title name. In my opinion, it is not cheesy at all. And if you had volume one you would see how it connects to the campaign. In his preface the author describes the actions at the start and end of the 1809 campaign involved thunder storms, so it is a very appropriate title. And I think it is a very catchy title, although in any title of merit, it is the contents that count. But we all have our own opinions. |
Ben Avery | 05 Jun 2016 4:58 a.m. PST |
Beloved Leader, I assumed the files would be large, but doesn't realise they'd be so big. I agree on the books. Unless you're looking at something very niche then postage costs make it difficult to get much return. I picked up a job lot of around 150 books for £120.00 GBP on EBay. When I went to collect I found out that they'd belonged to the seller's neighbour and his family had decided to throw them all away after his death before they were saved from the skip. Mind you, I was at a militaria show and there was a guy who's turned up to sell his father's wargaming collection for a pittance. Had friends of mine arriving earlier not given him some advice it would have been even less. At least one of my brother's knows how much my stuff is worth and would actually game with some of it. |
Gazzola | 05 Jun 2016 10:37 a.m. PST |
Two quick ones- The 1995 hardback edition of The Campaigns of Napoleon by-Chandler is going from £40.00 GBP-110 on Amazon. The 2015 hardback edition of The End of Empire by Nafziger 2015 is going for £26.00 GBP-50 on Amazon. Imagine how much they will be worth in a few years. |
basileus66 | 05 Jun 2016 10:58 a.m. PST |
But I'm open minded on Gill. As military history goes I would recommend Gill's to anyone interested in the 1809 campaign in Austria. It's thorough and well balanced. The author has used a wide arrange of sources, from Bavarian, Austrian, French and other German archives. It also includes a lot of maps, although a little bit in the small side (a problem of the edition, not the author). I would have liked a more deep analysis of the Austrian army, but given the books are an operational (mostly) narrative is comprehensible he doesn't dedicate more space to that topic. |
Beloved Leader | 05 Jun 2016 11:31 a.m. PST |
Though I have ordered a volume of Gill (based on some of your recommendations), to try it out,, I have to admit that my interest in this campaign has waned. After having just spent four months on this single battle, my eyes are a little glazed over with it. To be honest, I wanted to finish a hi-res map of AE I had started years ago and thought it would be fun for my blog. But lately, I've been researching the opening battles of the American Revolution, so my history reading has all been bracketed around those. Working on a book written in the same snarky style as my blog. |
Beloved Leader | 05 Jun 2016 11:34 a.m. PST |
Just read in Jay Winik's "The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800" where there have, in the past 200 years, been over 250,000 titles written on Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars. Don't know how Winik found that figure but it doesn't sound that far fetched. |
LORDGHEE | 05 Jun 2016 4:12 p.m. PST |
More books have been written about Napoleon than about any other person in history. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that over 200,000 books have been written about him; the French historians claim that the number is closer to 400,000. It's amazing, isn't it? From link link in the late 1800 there where some index printed up and they had 50,000 titles (from memory}
Think about it every one who served with and under him and against him who wrote a biography would number thousands. |
GeneralRetreat | 07 Jun 2016 5:47 a.m. PST |
I have read all the obscure battle reports and loved em all – thank you Beloved Leader for putting them up for public consumption. I would also second the opinion that you would enjoy Mr Gills books on the 1809 campaign. |
Brechtel198 | 10 Jun 2016 10:05 a.m. PST |
The Esposito/Elting Atlas gives over 250,000 books on the period-that was in 1964. David Chandler and Don Horward give a figure of 220,000 in 1986. Don Horward's Napoleonic Military History: A Bibliography has a little over 7200 volumes listed in 689 pages, so if anyone even attempted to list over 200,000 books it would have to be a multi-volume work. |