Austria

I've googled this but haven't found much...how good was the Austrian army in the Napoleonic era? In the 1700's (ETW timeframe) they suffered from poor leadership on many occasions. I was wondering if they were any stronger during the Napoleonic era?

Leadership was still pretty poor during the Napoleonic wars too. Archduke Charles was about their only decent commander.

Originally Posted by emperorpenguin

Leadership was still pretty poor during the Napoleonic wars too. Archduke Charles was about their only decent commander.

Yep, Charlie was the only capable man in the Austrian army, but talking about units, the Austrian army was more advanced in the matter of power and strategies from the ETW period.

You could visit this site
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/
Here you can find many interesting information about Austrian Army, their infantry, cavalry, atrillery and commanders.

Shortly say Austrian army changed, as many others armies, at that period.
Was big and compraised many regiments, equiped with quite good weapons. Nevertheless they started with old organisation and tactic, modeled on Fredericks Great experiences. Their multinational regiments were big, but many nationality soldiers had not too much admiration to fought for Austrian Emperor. They also had poor generals leadership. Later Austrians changed few times their army organisation and intoduced new tactic based on Napoleonic Wars. Then Austrian army still was big and used modern tactic and organisation, but their gnerals still conducted defensive war, however in majority they were professionals. I think Austrian Army was in middle level on European theater of war.

As many said before, their poor leadership gave some problems, but Austrians also had few interesting commanders e.g. Archduke Charles, Feldmarshal Schwarzenberg, Chief of Staff Graf Radetzky.

Originally Posted by emperorpenguin

Leadership was still pretty poor during the Napoleonic wars too. Archduke Charles was about their only decent commander.

Archduke Charles was indeed the best Austrian commander but not the only one. At Marengo general Melas almost defeated Napoleon who was saved only by the reinforcements lead by Desaix and by the victorius charge of Kellerman.

Austrian cavalry also impressed Napoleon during his first Italian campaign. David Chandler points out that Napoleon reorganized the French cavalry units using Austrian horses.

However this thread is about Austria but I want to shortly look at Prussia again.

Originally Posted by Didz

The strength of the Prussian Army rose from 45,897 all ranks, to 271,650 by 10 August 1813, of which 37,000 were from the product of the Krumper system, 120,504 from the Landwehr, and the remaining 68,249 from various sources including conscription, volunteers and foriegn mercenaries.

Generally I could share your opinion about Krymper System, but numbers sometimes did not put all rights. Krumper System maybe gave only 37,000 but it is still more than 0.
And did not helps this to avoid restrictions of Tilsit treaty, were Prussia must reduced their army from 200,000 to 42,000? Another question is about officers, NCO's, good and not good soldiers in all these numbers. Not trained recruits, volunteers etc. could/had enthusiasm, but what about theirs abilities and real soldiers skills. Krumper System gave some kind of experiences and Prussians can put these to good account later.

Hmm, someone told somewere, that 800 experienced Polish soldiers it is more than 8,000 not experienced allied recruits. And sometime one grenadiers battalion could stop more than one poor experiernced infantry regiments.

Originally Posted by Didz

Originally Posted by emperorpenguin
I disagree with the Croats and Czechs being considered unwilling to fight. The Croats were known as "Kaisertreu" for their longstanding loyalty to the crown.

No point telling me, tell the Austrian's, they disbanded their regiments.

It is not so easy. Croats were "douthy fighters" and heavy drinkers and even mutined sometimes.
They were quite fine in skirmish order hill figthing, but had little passion to fighting for Austria or France.

When Austrians lost few campaigns in 1796-7, 1800, 1805, 1809 their army lost so many soldiers, and they must disbanded some troops units. And Austrian Empire lost some territories, were Croats lived e.g. Dalmatia (1805), part of Illyria Provinces (1809), therefore they must disbaned few regiments were Croates serviced too.

In other hand, Napoleon also uesd some Croats regiments and these Provisories Croate Regiments were disbanded in 1813 too.

Originally Posted by hindovhindov

Archduke Charles was indeed the best Austrian commander but not the only one. At Marengo general Melas almost defeated Napoleon who was saved only by the reinforcements lead by Desaix and by the victorius charge of Kellerman.

I do not think that general Melas was so skilled commander, at last he lost this battle even he had more men and guns there.

Originally Posted by exNowy

I do not think that general Melas was so skilled commander, at last he lost this battle even he had more men and guns there.

Maybe he was not a genius but neither incompetent. He was able to put Napoleon in a difficult position and he lost only because he considered the battle already won.

Originally Posted by hindov

Maybe he was not a genius but neither incompetent. He was able to put Napoleon in a difficult position and he lost only because he considered the battle already won.

I can not agree in few points. Melas was old professional general, but I think he lost this campaign before Marengo. It was, when Napoleon crossed Alps and had threatened Austrians communications lines in north Italy and Melas siged Genoa. Maybe Melas surprised French by attack at Marengo, where Bonaparte had not all his troops, but Austrians considered that they won too early.
They stopped attack and try reorganised their units, while battle was not over yet. Then they got French counter-attack, game was changed and soon Austrian paniced and fled. They lost heavily, however had big advantage with number of men, guns (four times more!), and already won first part of battle.

Deleted

Yep, already posted that link in the historic forum...... During 1805, Austria still fought like it did since the 1780's but after Napoleon smashed them to pieces in like 2 weeks, they changed their stratergy, and stated becomeing a European superpower alongside Russia. It was Prussia who was probably the weakest nation, their armies still fought like Fredrick the Great had told them fifty years before hand.

Deleted

Austria hasn't really been known for their military and didn't do well militarily during this time especially given their decent size, but rather known for diplomacy and culture especially in music. Austria now as you may know is a neutral country and after WWII they haven't every joined any military alliance (even though they have a strong military now) which comes to show that fact.

Originally Posted by Lord Mov

Austria hasn't really been known for their military and didn't do well militarily during this time especially given their decent size, but rather known for diplomacy and culture especially in music.

Hey, Austrian Army under Archduke Charles few times deafeted French. They as first Europeran Army defeated French even under Napoleon at Aspern-Esling 1809. They did it again, with some their allies help, under Schwarzenberg command at Arsis-sur-Aube in French campaign 1814. Maybe these victories were not brillant, but they did it, they won.

Originally Posted by Marshal Beale

It was Prussia who was probably the weakest nation, their armies still fought like Fredrick the Great had told them fifty years before hand.

Yes, if you mean Prussian Army in 1806-1807, but after reforms of 1807-1812 they introduced new tactic and organisation there. Their Krumper system was even copied to other European armies few years later. So many trained men allowed to triple Prussian army size in 1813. However Prussian population and resources were smaller than other European powers. This why they probably were still weakest beside/between the greats.

Deleted

Deleted

The Treaty of Pressburg signed after the disasterous defeats at Ulm and Austerlitz reduced this Empire still further by sacrificing Venice, The Tyrol, and the Dalmarion Coast (which had belonged to Hungary for centuries).

Venice only came under Habsburg rule a few years prior. All in all this was nothing compared to what the Prussians had to sign for peace a bit later.

He remained only Emperor Francis I of Austria, the new Holy Roman Emperor now being Napoleon.

Uh. No, not really. There was no Holy Roman Emperor after Francis. And no Empire.


// And that map is quite misleading too. The Spanish lands were separated from Austria proper for quite some time. They shared a name and were closely related to each other. But most European royal families are related in some way or the other.

Originally Posted by Didz

He remained only Emperor Francis I of Austria, the new Holy Roman Emperor now being Napoleon.


The remants of the Austrian Empire now consisted of four main ethnic and cultural groups. Germans, Hungarians, Poles and Croats.

.

No, there was no Holy Roman Empire or Emperor after that, Francis had dissolved it fearing Napoleon would take the title.

The Czechs were the third largest grouping after Germans and Magyars. I disagree with the Croats and Czechs being considered unwilling to fight. The Croats were known as "Kaisertreu" for their longstanding loyalty to the crown.

Originally Posted by Didz

The remants of the Austrian Empire now consisted of four main ethnic and cultural groups. Germans, Hungarians, Poles and Croats

Wait, don't you mean Austrians?