"Austrian tactical doctoring " Topic

Hi
Can anyone shed any light on this, I have been looking the Austrian tactical doctoring on what formations they used in 1809.
I can find that they used line, and Mass seemed to be used the most, But very little about columns of attack.
Did the Austrians use columns of attack, as what I have read says that the line was used in attack and defence, with mass being used when Calvary are around.
This got me thinking how they attacked the towns of Aspern and Essling in 1809. as it seems strange they would use mass or lines to attack them?.
Thanks
Darren

Doctoring, or did you mean doctrine?

Regimental doctors and medical staff were pretty rubbish across the board during this period.

As I understand it, the battalionmasse was basically an attack column which halts to repel cavalry. Rather than form a completely hollow square, the assault column would just peel off enough men from the center of the column to fill the gaps between the ranks of companies in the column. It had the advantage of being a lot quicker and easier to form than a classic square, but the disadvantage that a lot of men were left in the center and unable to fire.

You need Thunder on the Danube. It's been a while since I read it but it's all in there.

Agree with 4th Cuirassier- excellent source and a must read!
1809 the Army was in "truly" more of a transition from Linear to columnar Army.
"truly" being more of "we must apply now" what we have been practicing!
Battle masse being now a default formation.
Column of attack is different than the french version and was pushed by AdC (and not valued/truly understood by his Korp commanders yet)- so only used to some degree when he was present and probably mostly after the expulsion from Bavaria.
Each division ( IE 2 companies) formed "column" ( ie
more of a double line of one company behind the other) and they deployed side by side with an interval between them.
Thus the formations depth was 6 ranks and the frontage was 3 companies with a spacing of x paces between them. X, IIRC, was min 1/2 company distance to allow the central division to form line when it needed to w/o the other two divisons having to move out of the way to do so.
Happy research and good luck!

MG

TMP link

Here's one of several conversations we had on this topic a few years ago when I started my 10:1 Wagram project.

Trying to capture how the Austrians deployed on the table top in 1809 is one of the primary drivers of my effort in the hobby over the last few years. It's tricky to do. And sort of impossible at 28mm. I had to go down to 1:1 to get close, and I'll still need to make special bases for the division mass.

Division mass is where the battalion breaks up into three divisions that stack up on a zug frontage, dispersed across the battalion's full in-line frontage. The masses are small targets for enemy artillery, while also having some protection from cavalry. The overall effect of a division thus deployed is like a dispersed checkerboard. It also allows an unwieldly 1000 man battalion to maneuver to the point of attack more efficiently. Or it was supposed to. "Only used when the Archduke was present." Which makes me wonder if that means it was used generally at Wagram or just in the immediate vicinity of the HQ, along the ridge behind Wagram itself? Or if it was used in a very scattered manner? Last time this came up no research arose to answer the question.

A little bit late:
According to the Exercierreglement and the accompanying plates the Divisionsmasse had a half-company (ie two Züge) front, therefore twelve ranks deep.
How much this was actually done on the battlefield, especially at Wagram, will remain unclear I am afraid.

Ahh, two Zug, that's right.
Thanks, grenadier corporal!
Division mass is one of the more ethereal topics of the Napoleonic era, certainly.

"Only used when the Archduke was present." Which makes me wonder if that means it was used generally at Wagram or just in the immediate vicinity of the HQ, along the ridge behind Wagram itself? Or if it was used in a very scattered manner? Last time this came up no research arose to answer the question.

Actually, the Austrian Krieg 1809 study is filled with examples of the Divisionmasse use when Archduke Charles was not around. The Divisionmasse basically made a large Austrian battalion into three small ones. The formation was so popular that was still the mainstay formation in 1866. The Battalionmasse, not so much. The problem was that it could quickly form line or maneuver and was more of a 'force in waiting', though it did serve well as solid squares against cavalry [because it couldn't form a hollow square quickly…unlike the Divisionmasse. I read somewhere that Charles 'outlawed' the use of the Battalionmasse after Wagram.