"Grenzers?" Topic

I feel a little embarrassed to ask such basic questions but a quick look at the reference books I have on the Austrian army of the Napoleonic era, hasn't yielded the answers, so here goes:

1) uniforms – as far as I can see, their uniforms look almost identical to the Hungarian infantry in shakos. Would I be able to use Hungarian line infantry, painted in the appropriate colours, as grenzers?

2) formations and employment on the battlefield – were they used principally as skirmishers, as close-order troops, or a mixture of the two? Comparable to French Legere in this respect?

3) any reference books or articles specifically on Austrian light troops?

Thank you, in advance, for any replies.

There is an Osprey book on "Austrian Support Troops" that covers Grenzers. Sorry, but I don't know enough about the Austrians to answer the question.

I believe that the Grenzer shako is different from the line. It seems to be more of a straight stovepipe style, without a back peak, rather than flared styled of the line. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there was variation between different units or at different times (early vs. late war), in the Nap. Wars.

During the Seven Years War, the Austrian Army deployed the grenzers as irregular light units not as battle line units. But by the Napoleonic Wars, especially 1813-1814, the grenzers, although still used as light troops, were more often being used as battle line units.

By the way, the name grenzer is derived from the German word grenzer and the Serbo-Croatia word graničari meaning border guard. Austrian grenzers were the troops raised in the Austrian Balkan provinces along the military frontier with the Ottoman Empire.

See link for a brief history and link for more on-line sources about grenzers and their uniforms.

Jim

At times in the Napoleonic Wars they wore brown coats and at times white coats. The group I game with prefers brown to make them more easily distinguished from line troops. Their shakos were more stove-pipe type rather than bell but depending on how persnickity you are about the perfect uniform and the scale at which you are modeling, do what you want to save money on figures. Many authors state that at some point they began being trained at line tactics to the detriment of their their light tactics agility. Again, depending on the rules you use, do what you want and it won't be wrong. One very specific thing you have to remember. Have Fun!

Here is a link to a lengthy paper about the Austrian Grenzers. They can be a fairly interesting splash of color in the army.

link

As far as usage is concerned, one clue is that even as late as 1813 Grenz units were found in the 1. leichte Division and 2. leichte Division. Interestingly, when Gallina wrote in his chapter on 1813 (see Gallina, J, Beitrage zur Geschicte des osterreichischen Heerwesens, v1, Vienna, 1872) he grouped the jaeger and Grenz together as a category of troops, so they may have been perceived as having a similar function.

As noted above Grenzers typically wore brown uniforms with shakos a little bit more "stove pipe" than line infantry, although for minis the difference would be hard to see

They were raised as troops from the settlers-soldiers of the Military Frontier – the cordon sanitaire between the Austrians and the Ottomans – and were skirmishers with some training in linear warfare. Napoleon respected them as light infantry although I am not sure they were as effective as, for example, French volitgeurs. When used a linear infantry most authors seem to indicate they did not perform as well

Also, there are plenty of sources of Grenzer figures out there depending on the scale you are working in e.g. the Perrys make some excellent 28mm figures. There should be no need to 'make do' with converting other troop types.

There is a line from translating Clausewitz that sticks with me: he cites the "Cossack-style character of its Slavonian units" (i.e., the Grenzers) as one of the "reasons why the Austrian army of [1799] must be considered a much less cohesive and stable mass than the French army".
Carl von Clausewitz (transl. & ed. Murray & Pringle), "Napoleon Absent, Coalition Ascendant: The 1799 Campaign in Italy & Switzerland, Vol. 1" (Lawrence: UP Kansas, 2020), p. 248.
link

they would wear white in the French Revolution and yes Hungarian miniatures are a good match, Grenzer could fight in open and closed order.

Brown uniforms come up only in the Napoleonic Wars.

Of course you can spice your Grenzer with Grenz Scharfschützen and also Grenz Artillerie.

My old blog post on the Grenzer may be helpful as well:

link

A pedantic point about German as well; while many German words have their plural formed by adding an "s" to the end, as in English, that is not universally the case. German for "Border" is (die) Grenze, "Grenzer" are the troops in question ("Borders", if you will). A single such soldier is "der Grenzer", while a body of such troops are "die Grenzer'. So Grenzer is both singular and plural! So saying Grenzers" is sort of like saying "Borderers-s". If you know any German at all, read Mark Twain's essay on the illogic of the German language; it's hysterical!

question 2)

Yes, I use Grenzinfantry as something like french Legere. But IMO they are a very bad type of light infantry, more used to skirmish combat and having problems with the disciplin for formed combat.

So in my rules they have a low morale, that is not so bad in skirmish combats (they will evade regardless), but in formed formation they fight like militia.

Many thanks to the "usual suspects" for your, as always, informed and helpful replies. I think that answers my questions.

Re Artilleryman's comment on why don't I just use grenzer figures: never one to make things easy for myself, the project I'm planning is in 20 mm (rather than my usual 25/28mm scale) and I prefer Newline's Hungarian infantry to their grenzers.

Von Winterfeldt suggested some other less usual troop types but the unit that is intriguing me at the moment is the Erzherzog Karl Legion, which fought at Teugn-Hausen.

On the white or brown coats question, I might be able to shed a little light on the subject. I have a very useful Italian book on the Austrian infantry, 'L'Esercito Austriaco 1805/1815'. I'm afraid I don't speak Italian but it has some English text and I can work out the captions and tables. The suggestion there is that, in 1809, only one regiment (no 12 – Deutscher-Banater) had received brown coats; by 1813 most of the regiments were wearing brown.

Enrico Acerbi wrote an extensive series of articles on the old napoleon series org, which still should be available, as to 1809 seemingly he comes to a different conclusion as above

Grenzer uniforms
With the "kaiserliche Entschliessung" of August 18, 1808 the former difference between Home and Field uniforms was abandoned. Difference from Home and War uniform disapperaed but still remained differences between campaign uniforms and camp uniforms. Campaign uniforms were received by the central Government without fee, while camp uniforms had to be home made, with a little compensation from the regimental cash.
In fact, earlier during the war, while going outside the Military Border, Grenzers were obliged to carry Battalion white "Montur", which they got from the military warehouse or from military suppliers. Domestic and peacetime uniforms were brown and were worn during service in areas within the Military Border. The new regulations had eliminated differences in color between the two uniforms, so that both were brown. The only difference between them was what actually they intended for peacetime uniform: old ones or made within the home cooperatives. The color brown began to become the distinguishing hue of the Grenzers, easy to note among the white infantry. The main reason which led to the adoption of this new colour, was the depot large availability of the former old Home uniforms.

According to Article 2. of the 1808 regulations, in the robes were comprised: shako (čakov), linen camp-cap (Foragiermütze), the croat national neck tie, the black "Halsbindel" [5], two pairs of lower and upper underwear, two shirts, a white "Weste", the dark brown military jacket (jakna) (Waffenrock – same colours for Unter and Ober officers), the work "jakna" (Kittel), an overcoat, required only in war (Mantel), tight blue pants "à la hongroise", heavy shoes with laces (Schnürschuhe) and bag of bread. NCOs in addition of the aforementioned things had to have leather gloves and the saber (Porte d'Épée). Auditore, Rechnungsführern and Verwaltung officers had same uniforms but without shako (they wore the "Dreispitz" hat, tricorne). The selection of the Uniform magazine and the tissues quality were left to the Grenzer regiments choice. This determined a bit of confusion.
Note: with the 1807-1808 reform the Grenzer battalions had to change the old white jackets with the new brown ones, comprehensive of black shoulder belts. In 1809 few units had assumed the new ordinance uniform and among them coexisted regiments dressed in different way. Moreover the regimental facings, at least regarding some colours, had a bad impact on the new brown background. Insofar, in the following years, some regiments changed also their own historical facings. This table regards facings:

years, some regiments changed also their own historical facings. This table regards facings:

>>So in my rules they have a low morale, that is not so bad in skirmish combats (they will evade regardless), but in formed formation they fight like militia.

Wholly baseless and corrupt IMO classification of excellent skirmishers and otherwise high morale corps.
They exhibited none of these characteristics in 1805, nor I believe in 1800 campaigns.

The belittlement of them by both their Germanic masters and subsequent moralising British 'experts' regurgitating the same cr** over and over, doesn't make it true.

We've seen the same over Russian jaeger etc.
~d

It was Grenzer who fought to the death at the Malgaboreth Blockhouse, "Austria's Thermopylae", in 1809. The Grenzer, even the 3rd and 4th (Grenz Landhehr) fought very well at Gospic, also in 1809.

I've posted before a conversation I had with David Hollins a few years back link

Basically, given the fact that the Austrian system of reequipping a third per year was pretty inefficient and the Grenzer tended to be at the back of the queue, I'd suggest some in any unit would have been in brown, since it was home supplied and there was plenty of it. When I finally et around to painting Grenzer, they'll be a pretty motley bunch, with a mix of white and brown, with more white in first or second battalions. Third and Landwehr battalions didn't serve outside the Grenz, where they all wore brown, but some of them didn't even have uniforms.

Remember too that the 14th – 17th (Siebenburgen) regiments had a much darker brown (almost black) Gunjac jacket and black hooded capuchin coat rather than the red cloak.

Grenzers were considered elite, although quite why is a mystery. A political sop, I wouldn't wonder. I certainly wouldn't rate them as such. Veteran light perhaps.

They generally performed well, although Macks meddling prior to the 1805 campaign (he tried to use them as ordinary line), messed up their performance.

>>Remember too that the 14th – 17th …

Can't remember what you don't know.
Where is this factoid from?
For 1805 I have both 14th and 15th present, in that they joined from 'interior' or somewhere and hadn't been impacted by any/ a lot of combat.
Compared to my single battalion 7th, who were a composite of 1-2nd bns due to their constant campaigning and attritional loss.
By Dec2 they must have qualified as 'veteran' if a little jaded…
~d

Hi Dave,

I posted a link in that same message relating to the 14th-17th regiments. It directs you to a Wargamerabbit blogpost on replaying the battle of Gospic (1809). In the comments at the bottom of that post is a discussion I had with David Hollins. He discusses, among other things (mainly in generous response to my incessant brian-picking) the darker uniforms of the Siebenburgen regiments. Of course, in theory at least, since that was their hausmontur, at Austerlitz they should probably be in white feldmontur anyway.

The Grenzer were notoriously the worst supplied and the brown hausmontur was locally produced in the Grenz regions, so I suspect a number of them, even in 1805, may have turned up in whatever they had, which is likely to have been brown, whatever the regulations said.

Cheers,
John

thegeneral wrote:

"Grenzers were considered elite, although quite why is a mystery. A political sop, I wouldn't wonder."

I'm not sure 'elite' is the right term. It tends to carry connotations of status. They were regarded as effective during the 18th century although even that is disputed for the Napoleonic wars. My own impression is that they were better than their critics suggested.

"A politic sop" is something I would very much doubt. The Grenzer came from the most neglected regions in the Empire. They were notoriously poorly equipped, often being the last to get any new kit. They were often looked down upon by establishment officers, even if their immediate commanders may have held them in higher regard. The idea that they received any kind of "political sop", in terms of official recognition of elite status seems unlikely to me.

Cheers,
John

Hi all
there are a lor of misinterpretations about Grenzers.
1) They lived in military regions. Their homes and families had assets borrowed from the state and the commanders of the provinces were military.
2) Their armies were regular armies with cavalry and artillery. So they weren't Light Troops at all. The mistake was passed down because they were often used as vanguard troops, but not because they were light troops, just because they were "cannon fodder". The Grenzer Volunteers, however, were truly light Troops, like Jäger.
3)They weren't Elite troops.
4) In Wartime they received White coats from the Army Depots. In Peacetime they had to provide their uniforms.So because the black cloth was widespread in Croatia and Slavonia and was cheap, it was adopted for the first uniforms. Since it was not of quality, it happened that, washing it, it lost color, becoming dark brown. This resulted in the use of dark brown jackets in peacetime and sometimes in war, in the event of a shortage of official clothing. Their duty was with brown coats. In war many (some) had white coats by the Treasury.

Enrico

Vaniček Fr., "Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze aus Originalquellen und Quellenwerken geschöpft", Band 1-2- 3 und 4, K.k. Hof-und-Staatdruckerei, Vienna 1875.

In my opinion they were light infantry – otherwise why give them a special drill regulation – which is much reduced in size and where Karl also emphasizing that a lot of is just not printed because is is contrary to the Grenzer as such and their use – for me it looks like a light infantry regulation (that is to fight both in close and open order) – of course they are not like Jäger but like any other light infantry units in other armies, as for example Prussian Füsiliere.
Yes, I am glad you stressed the misconception about white versus brown coats.

Sorry but from what I researched their training was that of regular infantry … not light (this is a mistake of anglosaxon literature )
Just curious … In which battle they fought in open order?

So in my rules they have a low morale.
Wholly baseless and corrupt IMO classification of excellent skirmishers and otherwise high morale corps.

I agree, I also see some rules given them low moral and i really do not understand why. They are light troops which may be mainly trained to fight as light troops, but I do not understand why they are considered as low morale in some rules. Perhaps as the early French light troops they may be short, although i am not certain if even this is correct, but morale wise they are good troops. The Austrians often used them in advanced Guard formations, which is not a low morale task.

In which battle they fought in open order?

This raises the whole question of light troops and what this means. The French Light regiments were formed in mountain departments and the men were supposed to be short and stocky. But by 1815 they were mainly used as Line troops, so I suspect that distinction was gone. The Grenzer were similar, while they were able to fight in a skirmish manner through difficult terrain, this was very rare in a formed up battle in open terrain. They were often placed in the advanced Guard formations, which required greater mobility and I suspect initiative.

I can talk abot three examples:
1) Loano 1795 – the terrain was very bumpy with many natural obstacles … there all (also Masséna) fought in open order
2) Arcole 1796 – For two days they fought on a dike 2 meters wide elevated above a swamp, but also the French did it. The third day, deployed in the left side of Arcole village, they fought in Line.
3) Rivoli 1797 – Four Austrian columns passed on frozen paths where it was impossible to ride (the Ulans were afeet). There it was fought in open order also bythe Line regiments and this was one of the causes of the disorder of that battle.

All in difficult terrain fought in skirmish-like order because of terrain. The French Light (Chasseurs) were made by mountain people during the Revolutionary Period not during the Empire when all Line regiments had Voltigeurs.

>>This resulted in the use of dark brown jackets in peacetime and sometimes in war, in the event of a shortage of official clothing. Their duty was with brown coats. In war many (some) had white coats by the Treasury.

Uniforms- They had their own clothes. Period.
IF they were issued 'whites' it was probably a misguided attempt by bureaucrats to make them 'conform' to look the same as others.
Did they care- probably not? Was it 'ever' applied 100%, almost definitely not. Thereby the question isn't important.
In most events, NOT having whites would have been an advantage to such a corps. This is both obvious and compared with Tyroleans, equally appropriate. They too did not change to whites from their custom dress.

Tactics-
>>The French Light (Chasseurs) were made by mountain people during the Revolutionary Period not during the Empire when all Line regiments had Voltigeurs.

Formation of such units may have commenced in the far distant 'experts' of mountain warfare; but the vast majority were eventually just those not fit for 'line sized' regimentation.
Voltigeurs were an attempt (driven by but not devised by N.) to equip line troops with sufficient expertise when it was clear, insufficient legere were available (these had been used piecemeal just like others were) to cover/ mask/ support the much larger formations of line troops.

No-one should believe they were made equal and skilfull as each other. The unevenness of skills and experience, not to say discipline and drill, marks out some regiments as better than others among the French.

It is too easy to generalise corps/ time/ campaigns as if things never changed, which is false as it is the only CONSTANT. But good info A/ E!
cheers dave

"In which battle they fought in open order?"

Gospic.

Yes, the situation suited it, but that's always why any light troops did it. And they acquitted themselves well doing it. And, being border troops, tasked with the responsibility of patrolling and securing the Ottoman borders, most of their day to day service was as skirmishers.

I don't think there's a problem treating them as light infantry in rulesets. They won't be in extended (skirmish) order most of the time anyway I would expect.

As to the perennial discussion of brown vs white coats in "away" service, I think a mix is appropriate, with brown at home.

Cheers,
John

It is a misconception to think that light infantry always fought in open order or that all of it fought in open order, it would depend on the tactical situation. The regulation for the Grenzer were simplified due to their specifice origin and role, that is at least what Karl says, also as you pointed out they were often part of the advance guard, a classical aspect of light infantry role. In the Exerzier Reglement of 1808 for Grenzer there is an extensive part about skirmishing. A typical light infantry regiment in the Napoleonic time could fight in close and open order – of course they are different to Jäger units no doubt about that.

Fighting in skirmish order required reasonable training, initiative and confidence. The British noted their skirmish troops, taken from their line infantry, would sometimes go out, empty their ammo on the ground, wait in a safe spot and then come back claiming they used up all their ammo and needed to reload. The Prussians overcame this by ensuring their Fusilier skirmishers went around in pairs.

As for the difference between skirmisher, jager and light infantry, that is a difficult question. As far as I can work out a light infantry battalion is trained and capable of adopting a full skirmish formation, if required, which remains a highly effective combat unit. There are a few of accounts where French light infantry battalions would fully adopt a skirmish formation when facing artillery. I am guessing Grenzer could do the same, as would some American 1812 battalions, I would guess. I am not aware of Prussian Fusilier ever doing this, although a third to half a battalion would start cycle skirmishers in an Attack Brigade formation in 1813. Its possible they could fully adopt skirmish as well, but I am unaware of any references.

Russian Jager are the most puzzling, some were clearly jager, but many battalions look like light infantry to me, similar to Prussian Fusilier. I am uncertain of this and am currently looking for references to help me base my Russians correctly.

The British are also a real puzzle, as they had a full Jager style regiment, the 95th, which seemed to fight together. Most Jager troops tended to break up into company sized formation and go hunt enemy skirmishers, as well as other targets of high value.

Please consider this source and you'll have many answers (I repeat it)

Vaniček Fr., "Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze aus Originalquellen und Quellenwerken geschöpft", Band 1-2- 3 und 4, K.k. Hof-und-Staatdruckerei, Vienna 1875.

There are no problem to list the differences between skirmisher (plänkler), jäger and light infantry (1800's Lights Battalions and their origins) of the Austrian Army and history books written in German or Italian language are reliable.

Have a good play

Enrico Acerbi

@pfmodel

My sources tell me differently to the British Light Infantry, in fact the Brits seem to husband their skirmishers better and were able to keep up prolonged skirmishing. To fight in pairs was an almost universal practise for skirmishers of all nations. The Russian Jäger stopped employing rifles from 1808 onwards and were equippend with rifles. But they are – or could be, employed as light infantry or screen the line units, being employed in the first line.

@Alvinczy

Thanks for the source. I read the section on Germany in 1809 and it seemed to confirm their use in classic (at least to my mind) light infantry roles in the Avantguard of the various Corps, with several references to fighting in forests and built-up areas.

I am unable to find the reference of a British officer who noted the tactic of lone skirmishers to throw their ammo away, hide and return claiming they had fired all their ammo, but I suspect if someone was writing this down it would have been quickly corrected. I know the Germans had to relearn this lesson later.

While I find primary source material very interesting and useful they sometimes contradict, as you can see in some of these quote about light infantry and skirmishers below. Its part of the reason why I find some aspect of Napoleonic warfare hard to conceptualise in my mind. As a figure gamer who is researching different rules, I want to understand the reality so I can determine how accurate the rule are, or not. It also assists if you are creating house rules, or justifying what something occurs in a set of rules.

But I must admit one result of researching source material is my conception of Napoleonic war has changed dramatically, at least at Battalion level. The Prussian war manual of 1812 is something which really surprised me, in terms of the actual arrangement of Battalions in an attack formation (Fig.2). (The French manual of 1837 shows a similar arrangement, link by Roguet below). It does not resemble figure gaming, at battalion scale, at all. Perhaps one day I will try it with the old WRG Napoleonic rules to see what happens.

Ordre Perpendiculaire > De la Colonne Double, par ROGUET
link

Austrians: Grenz
link

French: Differences between Light and Line Infantry
link

Prussian: Light Infantry
link

British: The Light Infantry
link

Skirmish Tactics
link

Other URL's of interest
Jeffrey%2520-%2520The%2520Firepower%2520Syndrome%2520from%2520EEnL%25201982-83.pdf

I sense, through this and just about all previous discussions and information transfers, tainted by [years of] 'wargamer logic' on the subject; that 'analysts' have lost sight of the ball while trying to describe how to score a goal!

1- Grenzer DID NOT NEED to be 'retrained' as LIGHT INFANTRY. Skirmish and ambush was their natural stance.

2- Austrian hierarchy TRIED to formalise them because they couldn't control them. That failed.

3- In all other nations of Ancien Regimes, trying to create 'light troops' was a matter of breaking down the formalities of linear warefare, just a bit.

4- Where 'natural' light troops existed (lets say the Pyrenees and Alps regions, Tyrol and 'Borders' to start with, their units were superior to others who were 'trained' to become them. In some places it worked, in others not.

5- The teachings of the 'Light Infantry' [invasion] camp in Britain showed what could be done, when led by efficient and competent officers who were capable of educating, not just drilling recruits and experienced alike.

Sorry I cannot agree the 'napolun' site as a source; it is so full of over generalisations and trite comments of 'fact' that its more a womens gossip magazine (a la 'Elting') than a serious resource. IMO anyway,
regards d

I feel your analysis of light infantry is correct. As for Napolun I tend to use it for the "quoted" references more than anything else. I can easily provide a URL, but i agree some of their opinions are suspect, based on specific sources perhaps.

For example I am rather suspect about their Grenz comments. Most Austrian German sources seem to indicate they were highly regarded by their Austrian commanders, which was the same opinion the French had.

John Cook wrote a good series of articles about Skirmishing in the Napoleonic period, but its not on the internet to share.

Sorry I cannot agree the 'napolun' site as a source; it is so full of over generalisations and trite comments of 'fact' that its more a womens gossip magazine (a la 'Elting') than a serious resource. IMO anyway,
regards d

yes, just reslying on that side you take all the generalisation with you, as for example light battalions of the KGL were not fully armed with rifles – contrary to their say.

@ pfmodel

I can't make sense of the diagrams in that Roguet link. It seems to be tiny so that if you blow it up sizewise, you then can't make out what the diagrams are showing.

Agree on comments re napolun – some sort of agenda there.

Thanks all…

<<John Cook wrote a good series of articles about Skirmishing in the Napoleonic period, but its not on the internet to share.

Yes I already have it thanks.
d

Over 30 years later, I know, but perhaps relevant: Grenzer played a very large and at times primary role among the Austrian imperial forces in the Hungarian War of Independence of 1848-1849. I don't know whether their manuals changed significantly between 1815 and 1848 but I suspect not, given that they were still using the same weapons and had fought no serious campaigns in that time.

The Grenzer were used as regular line infantry, often in entire brigades of four or five Grenz battalions. They fought in line or Masse as required, throwing out skirmishers or forming assault columns like any other infantry. Occasionally Grenz battalions were found in mixed brigades alongside line battalions; such brigades often had a Jaeger battalion or companies thereof for the true LI tasks.

The Grenzer's equipment and performance seems to have depended largely on whether they were a regiment's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th battalions. The 4th and 5th battalions in particular often lacked uniforms and weapons and at times proved ill-disciplined, mutinous, and/or worthless in combat. Equally, there were occasions when Grenz units fought skilfully, stubbornly and bravely.

In short: it depends (in 1848-1849, at least). Perhaps the same was true prior to 1815. I hope that this helps – and if not, that it was at least interesting!

Chris

Hungary 1848: The Winter Campaign
link
Hungary 1849: The Summer Campaign (in press)
link

"The Russian Jäger stopped employing rifles from 1808 onwards and were equippend with rifles."

More precisely, Russian Army Jäger were generally issued rifles, if available, until 20 April 1802.
From this date, rifles were issued to NCO's and 12 men per company (2 files per platoon).
From 25 June 1808, they completely stopped issuing rifles to Army Jäger

However, there are no known references or records of rifles being handed in. In the establishmet of 29 November 1810, those armed with short-swords for use with rifles were *not* to have them replaced with briquet-style. And specifically rifle rounds have been found at all major sites from 1812.

One might thus conclude that the use of rifles ended rather slowly, by dilution (as the size of the regiments increased, and also perhaps as companies were used as cadres for new regiments), loss and wear-out for the lower numbered Jäger regiments (through number 32 formed in 1806).

I've read Schels. The problem is that I have also found a lot of examples of the grenzers being used extensively as skimrishers/light troops, so I am not sure what to think of Schels conclusions.
Some examples:
PP. 104-106 Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze: aus Originalquellen und Quellenwerken geschöpft, Volume 4 by Fr. Vaníček
§. 9. The war 1805
a) The border contingent.
There were 17 infantry Grenz regiments of three battalions, each with four companies, together 2762 men in the field
At the end of the war fourth and fifth battalions were set to defend its borders. Garrisons were used to form the battalions, composites of several regiments in many cases:
In Italy.
The Italian army commanded by Archduke Karl allotted Grenz in his army in the Order de Battle: 18th October
A) On the right wing: The Division Vukasovic: Brigadier Sommariva: three battalions of Lik, a battalion of Otto, three battalions of the second Banal Grenz regiments. In the Division Simbschen, Brigadier Frimont: three battalions of St. George Grenz.
B) In the center: Division Nordmann, Brigadier: two battalions Warasdin and a battalion of Gradiskaner Grenz regiments; Nordmanu Brigade, two battalions Gradiskaners.
C) On the left wing: The Division Rosenberg, Brigadier Radetzky: Sluiner three battalions, Lowenberg in the Division, Brigade Lowenberg: three battalions of the first Banal Regiment.
D) In the body of troops in South Tyrol: three battalions and two battalions Ogulin Otocaner Grenz. (don't have a clue what this means)
In the short campaign on Italian soil, there was an awkward battle at Verona on 18 and the victorious battle of Caldiero 30 October. At the battle at Verona, which Massena engaged the Division Vukasovic Forcing passage of the Adige:
Examples of Grenz companies used individually and in battalions as skirmishers:
At Aliste n Otocauer and St. George. A Banal company with a line battalion occupied the suburb of St. George and another Banal company to occupy Parona. A vanguard of General Camus attacked St. George, but was rejected by the Austrians. As general of the offensive at Sommariva, General Veronetta dispatched Colonel Keller with a battalion of the second Banal Regiment to establish communicate the established company at Parona. In vain, Field Marshal-Lieutenant Vukasovic went into the mountains with the Banal Otocaner to defend against the French skirmishers. After fierce resistance, he was forced to go back to the Monte Tondo.

On the 18 of November. The enemy division Duhesme was caught crossing the Adige, by the Tocane line battalion under the command of Ohristlieutenant Soreth in Quinzano, with three Grenz companies in support of the regiment Auffenberg. At the retreat was Lieutenant Colonel Soreth the rear guard of General Hillinger, while Field Marshal – Lieutenant Vnkasovic with a portion of the Banal regiment withdrew to Auffenberg la Albertini.
The Austrians of the brigade Hillinger, including the withdraw to La Albertini, where the Banal Grenz with Otoèanern were ready to fight with the field-marshal-lieutenant Vukasovic: The Grenz "led [He means acted as the rear guard] the retreat of the Monte Tondo. At 4 clock in the evening of that day was Major Mihailjevic was ordered to sacrifice his St. George Battalion attacking the French from the heights of la Albertini to establish a connection with the Tyrolean Corps. The attack took place during the biggest rain storm which appeared at 10 o‘clock at night on the flank on the hill, after which the French evacuated the position."
During Massena's advance on 29 October, after the battle of Caldiero, a battalion of the second Banal engaged "a column of French Voltigeurs" at Avesathale and maintained their position until noon, at which time the battalion received orders to retreat. At San Michele the vanguard of General Frimont, consisting of the St. George Warasdin battalions, fought the advancing enemy with great determination and then slowly pulled back into the position at Caldiero….
§. 10. The war 1809 pp.114-115
The Austrian army was organized by Archduke Karl and formed 11 Army Corps, including two that formed the reserve.
a) The border contingent.
Each of the 17 border infantry regiments made two field battalions in the strength of 2966 men, including 240 scharfschützen and 44 artillerymen and a reserve battalion of 1,437 men, the 13 regulated regiments also had a militia/Landwehr battalion of 675 men from that the Grenz insurrection. [Feldacten Østerrike Military journal 1822]
Here is where we have the Grenz Regiments in two battalions of 6 companies. So, it was reorganization after 1805. Also, there are now 20 Grenzscharfschützen per company, the numbers doubled since 1800. The
scharfschützen were armed with rifled carbines. The schützen were traditionally armed with short rifles [carbines] as were such units as the 95th Rifles. The Baker Rifle was often referred to a carbine. I haven't seen anything stating this specifically, only that the Grenzscharfschützen is translated as "sharpshooters" and ‘snipers.'
Of which were allotted: the Third Army Corps two battalions Peter Wardner; the Fourth Corps: two battalions Banat and two Wallach-Illyrian Banat; the Fifth Corps: two battalions Border and two battalions Gradiskaner; Sixth Corps: two battalions Warasdin cruisers and two St. George; Seventh Corps; two battalions Transylvanian, Second Corps; Székely Székely and eight squadrons of hussars, Eighth Corps and two battalions of the first two of the second Banalisten, the Ninth Corps;two battalions and two Ogulin Slniner. [In other words, the Grenz were evenly divided between the Corps.]
b) In Germany. A example of Grenzer Actions from Vaníček's volume 4
The border troops of the German army were the vanguards of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth army corps and the division of Jelacic Vorrlickung in the advance against Munich. [the Bravarians].
On the 16th of April, the Gradiskaner Grenz were in the Radetzky Brigade, which formed the vanguard of the fifth army corps. On the Isar at Landshut an honorable fight began against the Bavarians, who wanted to prevent the passage there. The Gradiskaners opened a brisk fire on the bridge. The sharfschützen from 8 Companies were stationed in the houses on the Austrian side. The afternoon passed with the General Radetzky adding two companies of sharfschützen to the Gradiskaners in the avant-garde…
The traditional place for light infantry was in the vangaurd or Advance Guard corps. We find Grenz with Jagers exclusively used in these forces from 1792 to 1815.
I can provide a lot more examples. I just had these in one place…

Please compare them to French light infantry or British Light infantry.

@pfmodel
I circulated John Cook's series of articles recently. I presume you have a copy, but email me at allanDOTmountfordAToutlookDOTcom if you do not.
Kind regards
Allan

>> for the true LI tasks.

and therein we see the 'old' paradigm of pretending, or inferring, they are not themselves 'true LI'!?
Seems a mindset difficult to impossible to change.

Exactly like I see recently, in rules not giving 'natives' any better classification than the poorest militia. In 'formal' terms, probably correct, but in emergent skirmish tactics, a superior body.
cheers d

Shrug. I thought I was just reporting facts. Take the Austrian Army of the South in June 1849, invading Hungary from Slavonia. The great majority of its infantry are Grenzer. With such a plenitude of these troops, why did the Austrians feel the need to give it a Jaeger battalion? And why go to the administrative inconvenience of splitting that battalion up between brigades otherwise comprised mostly or even entirely of Grenzer? Why should a Grenzer brigade need specialist LI? The Jaeger must have been better at some particular tasks. In rules terms, maybe you call the Jaeger Veteran LI and the Grenzer Raw LI. All I was saying is that, in general, there was surely some significant qualitative difference between the Grenzer and the Jaeger (in 1848-1849, anyway).

I don't think conflating the armies of the Napoleonic era with 1849 is valid. After all, that is further apart than WW1 from WW2…

In terms of weapons technology and tactics, 1918 and 1939 are vastly further apart than 1815 and 1849. The Austrian army had done nothing since 1815 apart from fighting Bosnian bandits and suppressing civil unrest. The only weapon development was the percussion cap, which was a marginal improvement rather than a step-change and was far from being in universal Austrian service anyway.

I therefore thought the Austrian army of 1849 was similar enough to its predecessor to be a relevant reference. I don't have an axe to grind one way or the other – only trying to help!

Chris

The concept of supplementing the Grenzer with Jaegers is interesting but not one that I have observed in the Napoleonic wars. Indeed in the initial stages of the 1809 Campaign in Bavaria the Jaegers were in separate Corps (I & II) to the Grenzers (III, IV and V). Whether there was some logic to this I do not know however it is interesting that I & II Corps were separate from Karl's main body and attacked north of the Danube from Bohemia.