Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 103

Thread: Austrian Army Regimental Names

  1. #61

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Hi Dracula,
    You have an interesting screen name. Oh well to the point. I agree with you that it does seem illogical. As a former U.S. Marine Expert Marksman I can tell you for certain that with expert training you can become an excellent marksman (not an expert marksman) with fewer than 100 rounds if you have proper training on targeting and dry firing before using live ammunition. This is not typical training but time tested expert training that the US Marines are famous for; that type of training would not have existed in the Napoleonic era. Becoming a true expert will take much more. So there is no possibility that I can see where six rounds once a year could contribute to good marksmanship.

    On the other hand Didz suggests that perhaps this is not for marksmanship for line soldiers but rather simply familarizing the soldier with loading and recoil. It is clearly established that muskets where not accurate and line soldiers were not expected to aim and hit a specific target simply to fire and reload quickly and hope the ball hit something. If that's the case 6 rounds a year would be sufficient to accomplish that job. Skirmishers who were expected to hit specific targets would need far more than 6 rounds in training to become good marksman.

    The other thought I would consider is that the records available for Steph to access for his previous post may have been inaccurate, incomplete or mistranslated from the original documents. That can happen with documents today let alone going back two centuries. So you could be right if that's the case, it could be 6 boxes, 6 pouches etc. We can only know for certain if we have a time machine to go back and personally verify.
    Last edited by ordoprinceps; August 06, 2014 at 11:54 AM. Reason: spelling
    Ordoprinceps
    Semper Ferox

  2. #62

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Dracula View Post
    It is impossible. I had been at a course for safe dealing with arms recently and had to fire some not less than 400 bullets alltogether (for a few days only), of which 12 were with shotgun. And I am no near the army . Perhaps 6 rounds means 6 packs of bullets, each one with unknown content, let's say 6x 100 ? Cause I'll appear otherwise better trained than a few regiments together ?! And a "round" in english is more like a "salvo" ...
    The difference is that back then they used black powder which was made of sulphur, charcoal and potassium nitrate(saltpetre), where the latter was obtained from mined materials. It was very expensive compared to modern ammunition costs.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Zajuts149 View Post
    The difference is that back then they used black powder which was made of sulphur, charcoal and potassium nitrate(saltpetre), where the latter was obtained from mined materials. It was very expensive compared to modern ammunition costs.
    Zajuts149
    Excellent point about the expense.
    Ordoprinceps
    Semper Ferox

  4. #64
    Steph's Avatar Maréchal de France
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pont de l'Arn, France
    Posts
    9,174

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    You cannot use today's standard with automatic weapons and completly different doctrine, with 200 years ago, with slow loading muskets!
    To add to Zajust, it was not only epxensive, but acquiring the required materials put stress on ressources. With a danger of lacking it for real warfare.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Steph View Post
    You cannot use today's standard with automatic weapons and completly different doctrine, with 200 years ago, with slow loading muskets!
    To add to Zajust, it was not only expensive, but acquiring the required materials put stress on ressources. With a danger of lacking it for real warfare.
    Hi Steph, I don't mean to belabor the point but for clarification purposes only, US Marines are never permitted to fire full auto in training with the exception one of day and that does not count toward qualification as Marksman, Sharpshooter or Expert. The very basic principles of marksmanship have remained unchanged through the history of the Marine Corps since the introduction of rifles. So we qualify single shot, methodically. The basics of acquiring a site picture, breathing etc. have remained unchanged but the methods of training each individual trooper is vastly improved I believe. Modern Marines do a very different and separate combat training on moving targets using full auto setting but that is after they have qualified the old fashioned way at one of the three levels I mentioned above.

    My post was not intended to make an exact comparison across time but rather to say that as an Expert myself I am certain that I can teach almost anyone to be a good (not great) marksman with good pre-fire training using the basics and less than a 100 rounds of live ammo. That was my only point.
    Ordoprinceps
    Semper Ferox

  6. #66
    Steph's Avatar Maréchal de France
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pont de l'Arn, France
    Posts
    9,174

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    My remark was not directed to you actually. And auto is not really the important point, it's more about having cartridge, magazine, etc.

  7. #67
    Prince of Essling's Avatar Napoleonic Enthusiast
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    2,434

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by ordoprinceps View Post
    Hi P of E,
    You have provided excellent info as usual.
    I have a question about the Austro-Hungarian Army; I understand that because of the many changes of its long history (centuries) a simple answer may not be possible. So here goes… Some authors, such as Albert Seaton, argue that the Austro-Hungarian Army was Europe’s most formidable force after the fall of the Roman Empire and up to Napoleon. Seaton as an example says the Austro-Hungarian Army was the most formidable army that Napoleon faced.
    The NTW game doesn’t make the Austro-Hungarian army very formidable in my opinion. In fact I recall during one of “Napoleons battles” in the game the narrator who is doing Napoleons voice says with distain, “Austrians annoy me”. It gives the player of the CA vanilla NTW game the impression that they were a push over as we say in the states.
    As our resident site historian, do you think in reality (not the game) that the author Seaton was correct on this point?
    You have certainly set off an interesting discussion here! Well done.

    I am going to try and simplify things (and may well set off some more howls....). I will paraphrase Gunther Rothenberg a lot, drawing in particular on "Napoleon's Great Adversary Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army 1792-1814" and "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon".

    I think the answer to the first part is it depends on the era as the best army would change over time e.g. the Swedes of Gustavus Adolphus; the Prussians of Frederick the Great, etc.

    Turning to our era, in pure military terms neither the troops nor the generals ever equalled the French at their best. Staff work, administration and movement control lagged behind the French though by 1813 the gap was not so large. One drawback was also the cost of the horrendous cost of the army - over 45% of the national budget at the start of the revolutionary wars and the situation only became worse.

    The army was dogged by constant petty feuding amongst the higher echelons. Austrian commanders were not prepared for the new style of warfare. Although old or elderly generals have been underrated - many were competent or energetic - their training and outlook were out of date.

    Austrian strategy did not modernise to have the destruction of the enemy’s army at its core. It remained stuck in the 18th century tradition of strategic positions and communications.

    Austrian tactics overrated the value of controlled volleys and a cohesive line. The general failure to adopt open order fighting was a real handicap. Skirmishers effectiveness was dismissed; during the war of the 1st Coalition little effort was made to cover the white-coated lines with skirmishing screens. "Regular, trained, and solid infantry if it advances in closed ranks with rapid steps, supported by its guns, cannot be held up by scattered skirmishers...." so said the 1796 regulations!Closing with the enemy was the intention to save firing & skirmishing as they cost casualties and decided nothing! By 1798 the Austrians had learnt how to fight in open order supported by close order masses.

    The disaster of 1805 provided the opportunity for a general reform, but the results were quite mixed. The combat performance of the army was improved. Poor generals were dismissed and the Quartermaster General Staff was strengthened. Higher tactical formations were introduced, the military train status was improved and its officers were recognised as commissioned personnel. Cavalry was to be used in masses and use the 2 deep line for charges. Infantry tactical change was more conservative with the line still prescribed as the best formation as it permitted proper use of weapons i.e. long range fire, followed by the bayonet for close-in work. Infantry charges inline were prescribed which were to be covered by skirmishers. Charles recognised the usefulness of the column for moving troops, and also introduced the mass to allow infantry to move and fight off charging cavalry (he believed 3 deep squares were vulnerable). however these changes were still based on 18th century precepts. tactical changes and importantly the bravery of his troops gained Charles his victory at Aspern-Essling.

    One real problem was the army was not a national army but a dynastic instrument. rank and file came from the lower classes both by a system of selective conscription and voluntary enlistment. The hereditary lands, Austria, Bohemia, and Galicia were subject to conscription, while in Hungary and the Tyrol enlistments was voluntary. In practice many exemptions kept the system from working well - the people disliked military service and evaded it where ever possible. Voluntary enlistment also met with many difficulties and the authorities often had to use subterfuge and compulsion to meet their quotas. An important manpower source were the smaller states of the Holy Roman Empire, resulting in up to 1/3 of personnel in so-called German regiments being foreigners.
    Sign DLC petition for improved map for NTW
    Useful Websites |Napoleon: Masters of Europe |
    The Wardrobe of 1805 |Napoleon: Art of War|
    Frederick the Great: Art of War|
    Under the Patronage of Gunny
    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

  8. #68
    Dracula's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    So it needs research or check. Because 6 rounds per year ... is 1 bullet for 2 months ... I don't suppose they were marching in the other time.

    And no, if it was that expensive, they wouldn't have gone to use it at all. It must have been comparatively affordable. And it was 400-500 years after powder came out, so impossible again to be so rare and expensive.
    Last edited by Dracula; August 06, 2014 at 04:32 PM.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    The fact was that Austrian situation was unique in Europe.
    Show me another European Empire where ruling nation was in such minority as Germans were in Austrian Empire at that period.


    Austrian Empire incorporated many nations e.g.
    Germans 4,7 million
    Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks 3,5 million
    Hungarian 3 million
    Polish from 1,2 to 2,7 million in Old and New Galicia, the latter lost in 1809
    Ruthenians (Ukrainians) 1,7 million
    Romanians 1,4 million
    Italians 1,3 million on areas lost in 1805 and over 3 million on areas regained in 1814
    Croats 1 million
    Slovenes 0,7 million
    Serbs 0,6 million
    many others 0,8 million
    Total 21 million inhabitants before 1805 or 19 million after 1809


    Can you see that ruling nation Austrian Germans, which lived mainly in Austria proper and some other dispersed places, were in such minority in this empire?
    Which pretty much proves my point perfectly.


    The historical explanation for the failure of the Austro-Hungarian Army is indelibly linked to the obsession with the struggle for ethnic identity amongst the former subjects of the Habsburg Empire. Historians are always quick to exploit such issues as easy explanations that will be popular with their readers, and in doing so they dismiss facts that don't fit their hypothesis and fail to research other explanations. Petre spends pages and pages regurgitating this rubbish, despite the fact that in his books there are numerous examples that contradict his theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Then French and British cases are quite different. Even they recruited the same nations as Austrian there were quite different national attitude to ruling circles.
    I agree and I think that's what I said. e.g. the problem had much to do with Austrian racial dogma and stereotyping.

    The same men, from the same ethnic group were shown to perfectly able soldiers when trained and led effectively. Therefore by implication, the problems in the Austro-Hungarian Army had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the men. But were the result of failures in the Austrian officer corps caused by ethnic dogma and an obsession with rigid adherence to rules and regulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Essentially you are right, but I coud quote Napoleonistyka site "The Austrian light infantry was superb until 1790s.
    After the 1790s the quality of Austrian light infantry decreased"
    I suspect that this is an over simplification of the outcome Austrian light infantry experiments conducted during the 1790's. This was actually an attempt to improve the standard of light infantry support in the Austrian Army but failed miserably due to the shortcomings of the Austrian officers assigned to train the new units.

    What appears to have happened is that the Austrians tried to reorganize their light infantry to mimic the systems used by France and Britain. Up to that point they had relied upon ethnic units led by their own ethnic officers and organised largely as irregulars. This worked reasonably well and had been the model used by other armies in the early 18th Century. However, the increased size of armies and the trend towards specialist light infantry regiments caused the Austrian tactical theorists to decide to remodel their light infantry into more regulated light infantry battalions.

    Unfortunately, they found it impossible to overcome their racial dogma's when selecting the cadres for these new units. So instead of recruiting new battalions under Austrian officers and training them from scratch they did what they thought most logical and efficient and transferred men of suitable ethnicity from the existing irregular units into the new battalions. These men were used to a much less regulated and formal style of training and leadership, and rebelled against what they saw as the pointless obsession with detail expected by their new officers. At the same time many of the Austrian officers selected to lead these battalions were already convinced that the experiment would fail simply because of the ethnicity of the men they were being given to train. e.g. you can't teach a chimpanzee to stand to attention.

    Discipline in most of these battalion degenerated rapidly as the Austrian Officers attempted to create model soldiers out of unsuitable material by imposing more and more extreme punishments. Rebellions and desertion became commonplace and eventually the whole scheme was abandoned. To sum that up as 'The Austrian light infantry was superb until 1790s.' is a gross over-simplification, although I think you will find a much more detailed explanation in one of the articles on the Austrian Army on the same site. I'm pretty sure that's where the study of the Austrian light infantry experiment is linked,

    With the benefit of hindsight the fact that any of these light infantry battalions were trained to an effective level is surprising but some were, and I suspect the variation of outcome was directly linked to the personalities of the officers assigned to respective battalions. Some Austrian regiments were better led than others. Nevertheless, the experiment failed and was abandoned and the men were dispersed.

    As I understand it two whole battalions were handed over intact to Napoleon as part of a treaty arrangement, and under French leadership they proved to be extremely effective soldiers. In fact, Napoleon was so impressed that he expanded this corps into a whole legion.

    At the same time another large group were recruited by the British to act as garrison troops in the Adriatic and were reported to be extremely efficient soldiers when properly led.

    Even within the Austrian Army the performance of ethnic troops was excellent when their officers were good enough to lead them properly. I was reading only yesterday about the exploits of Infantry Regiment ‘Baron Splenyi’ Nr. 51, who were referred to as the 'Legion Infernale' by the French, and who beat back and defeated both Murat's dragoons (1er, 6e and 9e Dragons) and two battalions of grenadiers from the French Imperial Guard at the battle of Marengo. This despite being recruited in Transalvannia and thus being composed primarily of men from the local ethnic groups.

    So these facts, show that the blanket explanations used by historians are a gross over simplification of a much more complex problem. But they are popular because of the modern obsession with ethnicity especially given the recent history of this region. However, truth is in the detail and the ethnic argument doesn't hold water when exposed to the facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    We should remember that Austrian and Prussian or Russian armies did not want to use many thinking or independently fighting soldiers. Their can recruited numerous poor serfs many times and these were not well predestined to such warfare, especially when they came from other nations as like Polish recruited by force into Austrian, Prussia or Russian armies.
    All armies of the period did that, not least the British therefore it is unlikely to be a significant factor in performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Oh, You should reread Sun Tzu. Then you will know, how he trained these women and what happened with court concubines.
    And exactly we do not know were these concubines real soldiers or were not in the end.
    The point he was making was that anyone can be trained to be a soldier if their trainer knows what he's doing, and I have read Sun Tzu (in fact I have a copy on my bookshelf), which is how I know about it.
    Last edited by Didz; August 07, 2014 at 05:20 AM.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    Which pretty much proves my point perfectly.
    Absolutely not. This case clearly shows that most historians are correct. There were serious problems with very big ethnics diversity in Austrian Empire which inflicted many troubles in Austrian Army composition and performance. You minimalized these problems while exaggerated other points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    The historical explanation for the failure of the Austro-Hungarian Army is indelibly linked to the obsession with the struggle for ethnic identity amongst the former subjects of the Habsburg Empire. Historians are always quick to exploit such issues as easy explanations that will be popular with their readers, and in doing so they dismiss facts that don't fit their hypothesis and fail to research other explanations. Petre spends pages and pages regurgitating this rubbish, despite the fact that in his books there are numerous examples that contradict his theories.
    You suggest that most historians dismiss the facts that don't fit their hypothesis and fail to research other explanations while you do the same in your case. It is not fair when you cast your unbeliavable hypothesis and say that you are righ while the most historians write only easy explanatins or fantasies popular with their readers.

    I' m sorry, I believe for the most historians. I prefer their opinions than your hypothesis in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    The same men, from the same ethnic group were shown to perfectly able soldiers when trained and led effectively. Therefore by implication, the problems in the Austro-Hungarian Army had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the men. But were the result of failures in the Austrian officer corps caused by ethnic dogma and an obsession with rigid adherence to rules and regulations.
    You exaggerate training case and you minimalise nen motivations, disinclinations, reluctance, national aspirations, ethnics problems etc.

    Then why French young recruits trained only in few weeks or less defeated these well trained Prussian, Austrain, Russian and even British?
    Why these allies suffered with horrendous desertions? Why Polish, Italians, and other sodliers form Austrian Army went into French service?

    When French included many different nations in their Grande Armee, they met similiar pronblems, for instance during campaign in Russia 1812 when many foreigners unwillingly did their duties, quit their posts, deserted or surrendered to Russian, becasue they unwillingly went on this far away war. These cases French also experienced in Peninsula War when many Germans, Italians or Swiss contingents quit their posts. I doubt that all they were poorly trained, over regulated or ethnicaly obsessed etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    I suspect that this is an over simplification of the outcome Austrian light infantry experiments conducted during the 1790's. This was actually an attempt to improve the standard of light infantry support in the Austrian Army but failed miserably due to the shortcomings of the Austrian officers assigned to train the new units.
    No, that you evidently over simplicate this case. Austrian Army had long traditions with light infantry units. They performed quite well against Turks, Prussian and even French. Take a look at their Grenzers regiments or Tyroler Field Jager Regiment case. In Napoleon's opinion Grenzers were very well soldiers even in Austrian Army. That's why after Austrian defeat 1809 Emperor took six Grenzers, mainly Croats, regiments in French service.

    We also should remember that Austrian succesfuly increased their Tyroler Feld Jager battalions from 4 units in 1805 to 12 units in 1812.
    Then they tripled these light infantry units. There also were some volunteer light infantry.

    Then your statement that Austrian failured miserably in standard support of their light linfantry looks funny. Their light infantry performed quite well.
    However there were evidently ethnics problems too. In Grenzers regiments serviced many Croats, Serbs, Romanians and other while only few regiments recruited Germans. In other hand Jagers were primarily Germans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    What appears to have happened is that the Austrians tried to reorganize their light infantry to mimic the systems used by France and Britain. Up to that point they had relied upon ethnic units led by their own ethnic officers and organised largely as irregulars. This worked reasonably well and had been the model used by other armies in the early 18th Century. However, the increased size of armies and the trend towards specialist light infantry regiments caused the Austrian tactical theorists to decide to remodel their light infantry into more regulated light infantry battalions.
    Hmm, Grenzers and Tyroler Feld Jager Regiments were regular regiments. It looks that you did not notice that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    To sum that up as 'The Austrian light infantry was superb until 1790s.' is a gross over-simplification, although I think you will find a much more detailed explanation in one of the articles on the Austrian Army on the same site. I'm pretty sure that's where the study of the Austrian light infantry experiment is linked,
    Then read this site again, you can find that Austrian had more light infantry units than Prussian or British. They had long traditions and in many cases performed quite well during Napoleonic Wars. Austrian of course had a lot of troubles with their light infantry, because there were lot of troubles with ethnics composition in Austrian Empire. For instance they can not so easy recruit many Polish, Czechs and some other nations to light infantry duties, becasue Austrian officers were afraid that these soldiers could quit their posts and deserted to French.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    With the benefit of hindsight the fact that any of these light infantry battalions were trained to an effective level is surprising but some were, and I suspect the variation of outcome was directly linked to the personalities of the officers assigned to respective battalions. Some Austrian regiments were better led than others. Nevertheless, the experiment failed and was abandoned and the men were dispersed.
    How could you say that experiment with light infantry failed when Austrian still used their Grenzers and Jagers units. They even increased number of their Jagers units.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dzidz
    As I understand it two whole battalions were handed over intact to Napoleon as part of a treaty arrangement, and under French leadership they proved to be extremely effective soldiers. In fact, Napoleon was so impressed that he expanded this corps into a whole legion.
    Check this case again. Napoleon took more former Austrian light infantry regiments in his service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dizdz
    So these facts, show that the blanket explanations used by historians are a gross over simplification of a much more complex problem. But they are popular because of the modern obsession with ethnicity especially given the recent history of this region. However, truth is in the detail and the ethnic argument doesn't hold water when exposed to the facts.
    Oh, you still minimalize these ethnic problems and try accuse historians that they make easy explanations in this case.

    I think that historians are correct when they explain Austrian Army weakansses with their ethnic problems.
    Take a look, the same Polsih soldiers which unwillingly serviced in Austrian army can fought quite well in Polish Legions in French service.
    Napoleon took in his service many former Austrian soldiers e.g. Italians, Croats, Serbs, Polish etc and they imediately were fine soldiers in French service.

    Was it only training case? No, there were also different motivations, social and national atitudes to aristocratic Austrian German or Hungarian officers etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    The point he was making was that anyone can be trained to be a soldier if their trainer knows what he's doing, and I have read Sun Tzu
    The point is that we know nothing real about Sun Tzu and his real achievements.

    Then theoretical speach do not prove any facts that anyone can be a trained soldier.
    These concubines were well trained to react to commnads. They manouvered well at court palace, but did they fight any battle?
    Did they prove that they are realy trained soldiers. Maybe they only played in the China theatre or court games.

  11. #71

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Absolutely not. This case clearly shows that most historians are correct. There were serious problems with very big ethnics diversity in Austrian Empire which inflicted many troubles in Austrian Army composition and performance. You minimalized these problems while exaggerated other points.
    No, sorry all it proves to me is that all lot of people today are obsessed with the ethnic breakdown of the population of the Habsburg Empire, and are prepared to reverse engineer history to try and make it mean something. It's the same mind set that leads to a historian systematically changing the real names of Austrian regiments to try an suggest that they were ethnically pure. It's historical creationism and I'm not interested in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    You suggest that most historians dismiss the facts that don't fit their hypothesis and fail to research other explanations while you do the same in your case. It is not fair when you cast your unbeliavable hypothesis and say that you are righ while the most historians write only easy explanatins or fantasies popular with their readers.
    Well your entitled to remain blinkered to the real facts. But I think I’ve already done enough to show that the ethnic hypothesis does hold much water when compared to actual historical events.

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Then why French young recruits trained only in few weeks or less defeated these well trained Prussian, Austrain, Russian and even British?
    Why these allies suffered with horrendous desertions? Why Polish, Italians, and other sodliers form Austrian Army went into French service?
    I’ve already explained that, so I suggest you take the blinkers off and re-read my earlier posts.

    I think we broadly agree on the performance problems of the Austro-Hugarian Army so I’m not going to bore everyone going over them again. The only difference of opinion between us seems to be the cause of these problems. You seem determined to blame the troops, I prefer to blame the quality of their leadership. In my opinion the evidence supports the latter explanation, as the same men from the same ethnic group proved perfectly capable soldiers under different leaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    How could you say that experiment with light infantry failed when Austrian still used their Grenzers and Jagers units. They even increased number of their Jagers units.
    This clearly proves that you are not even bothering to read my posts. Either that or you don’t know as much about the Austro-Hungarian army as you think you do. I suggest you do a bit more research because to be honest I’m tired of arguing with you when you clearly aren't interested in putting any effort into process.

    Perhaps PofE will explain the Austrian experiment with regular light infantry battalions to you. I think it has actually been covered on this forum somewhere.

    P.S. Actually I'm going to throw you a bone, but only because it was really simple to do.

    Read the top post in this thread....(see extract below)

    Light Infantry Battalions 1798 – 1801

    It’s often mis-stated that Austria never had any specialized Light Infantry units prior to the formation of the Tyrolean Jager in 1801, and this is often used as the excuse for the poor performance of the Austrian Army against the French.

    However, its not that simple, Austria did have dedicated Light Infantry and rifle units much earlier and even standard Austrian Infantry Regiments were trained to deploy skirmishers. The real problem seems to have been that formal Austrian Officer training failed to prepared its cadets for the command and management of skirmishers and their effective use, training and leadership was therefore deficient.

    Light Infantry Battalions 1798
    No.1 Strozzi (Hungarian) raised in Galicia
    No.2 Carl Rohan (German) raised in Italy
    No.3 Am Ende (German) raised in Italy
    No.4 Bach (German) raised in Italy
    No.5 Paul Radivojevich (Hungarian) raised in Slavonia
    No.6 Trauttenberg (Hungarian) raised in Hungary
    No.7 Otto (then Schmelzer) (Hungarian) raised in Hungary
    No.8 Wurmser (Hungarian) raised in Hungary
    No.9 Greth (Hungarian) raised in Hungary
    No.10 Siegenfeld (Hungarian) raised in Croatia
    No.11 Franz Carneville (German) raised in Italy
    No.12 Rubenitz (Hungarian) raised in Moravia
    No.13 Munkacsy (Hungarian) raised in Hungary
    No.14 Louis Rohan (German) raised in Italy
    No.15 Mihalovic (Hungarian) raised in Slavonia

    These are the battalions I am referring to and formed the subject of the failed Austrian experiment with regular light infantry battalions. They were disbanded in 1801.
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    I think that historians are correct when they explain Austrian Army weakansses with their ethnic problems.
    Then please carry on believing it. You will be in good company following along with the rest of sheep. But I’m more interested in discovering the truth.
    Last edited by Didz; August 08, 2014 at 08:38 AM.

  12. #72
    Steph's Avatar Maréchal de France
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pont de l'Arn, France
    Posts
    9,174

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    I think the problem of multi ethnic Austria is indirected. The performances were not poor because one ethnicity or an other made poor soldier, but because
    1) It created communication issue between German speaking officers and non-German speaking troops
    2) Hypothesis (my own idea): The perception of some ethinicity from the officers / regulation makers made them "stuck" in some mindset, like Hungarian can be only good hussars, German can't fight as hussars. So may be an inhability to exploit some talents?
    3) Some suspition from high command that some troops were less reliable (not ncessarily because they are coward, or undisciplined, but maybe because as minority they made not be extra willing to fight), and so necessity to keep a closer eye on them, and so fight with less flexibility.

  13. #73
    Dracula's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    One does not have to think necessarily of a failure. The multinational component itself is not harmfull or disadvantageous. Unless there was some kind of sabotage from certain regionally originating soldiers on the imperial army. Because they were doing quite good for centuries before.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Steph View Post
    I think the problem of multi ethnic Austria is indirected. The performances were not poor because one ethnicity or an other made poor soldier, but because
    1) It created communication issue between German speaking officers and non-German speaking troops

    That is unlikely to be true, simply because it was, and is, a common situation and has never been an issue either in the past or today. One can look at numerous examples, some of which have already been mentioned. e.g. The French Foreign Legion. The British of this period had the Kings German Legion, and then there are the Ghurkas, the Kings African Rifles, the Irish Brigade, the entire British Indian Army. The list of effective foreign forces consisting of soldiers that didn't, or don't speak the native tongue of their officers is endless.

    The question must therefore be 'Why would it have been a problem for the Austro-Hungarian officer corps?'

    Furthermore, from my own experience the language spoken by ones officers and NCO's is largely irrelevant to the common soldier. Most drill commands in whatever language are completely unintelligible and usually give by the bugle or drum, as a soldier you merely learn during training that certain load noises when screamed at you at certain times require you to do certain things. Language would only become an issue if your officers and NCO's felt the need to discuss and debate their orders with you before you complied, which is not normal behaviour.

    Even in training the use of language is minimal. The only important phrases to learn are 'Attention to detail' (which means pay attention I am going to show you how to do something) followed by 'Do it'. Most foreign recruits pick up on those two phrases pretty quickly particularly when non-compliance involves punishment.

    2) Hypothesis (my own idea): The perception of some ethnicity from the officers / regulation makers made them "stuck" in some mindset, like Hungarian can be only good hussars, German can't fight as hussars. So may be an inhability to exploit some talents?

    That's my conclusion also, which is what I meant by Austrian ethnic dogma in my earlier posting. I also think that a lot of this attitude comes across in the Austrian historical records, which is why it's being picked up and absorbed so easily by historians. As I said earlier Petre waffles on for ages about it, and most other historians have followed his lead. I personally believe that a lot of the problems in the Austro-Hungarian Army were the consequence of a self-fulfilling prophesy brought about by the attitudes of the officers themselves. I think a significant number honestly believed that only men of German blood could make good soldiers, and that therefore men from other ethnic races needed to be marginalised into specialist roles that were in keeping with their limited potential.

    Hence after the failed light infantry experiment the natural response was to recruit more ethnic German jagers from the Tyrol, and no doubt mentally the formal light infantry role was yet another one to be struck off the list of things suitable for the Hungarian ethnic groups to perform.

    3) Some suspicion from high command that some troops were less reliable (not necessarily because they are coward, or undisciplined, but maybe because as minority they made not be extra willing to fight), and so necessity to keep a closer eye on them, and so fight with less flexibility.

    Possibly, though again one does not see this as a major issue anywhere else. Generally speaking we are not talking about a period where men fought for their country. The concept of a national army had only just been invented by Napoleon and most Armies, even his, were multi-national. The reliability of units in battle was much more dependant upon their internal unit cohesion and moral fortitude. They fought because they were told to fight, and they stayed and carried on fighting because everyone around them, all their friends and mess-mates, were fighting.

    Most regiments of this period were multi-ethnic, in fact it is unusual to find one that isn't. The closest in the British Army were the Scottish Highland Regiments some of whom were over 90% Scottish, but that was unusual. Most English Regiments had a very high proportions of Irish recruits, who were anything but pro-British in opinion but were considered to be some of the best fighters in those units. Even in the French army one finds significant numbers of German, Dutch and Italian soldiers who really had no motivation to fight for the glory of France other than the fact that they were there and part of that regiment.

    I firmly believe that the difference was in the leadership and the training, poor leadership and training results in poor performance, and I think that some Austrian officers used the ethnicity of their men as an excuse for their own shortcomings. The same way as they used the regulations as a crutch which in leaning on gave them an excuse for their failures. e.g. If you do everything by the book, and you fail, then it's not your fault. It's a common enough attitude even today, but in the Austrian Army it seems to have been allowed to reach epidemic proportions, and may even have been made worse by the extensive training and guidance given to Austrian officers.

    Imagine what would happen today if every school, college and university began teaching young people something completely bizarre or illogical. e.g. Women are incapable of being taught to drive, or coloured people can't count above one hundred. How many decades would it take before those attitudes, assuming they were left unchallenged, became accepted dogma.

    Thats pretty much the scenario we are looking at in 18th Century Austria, the message seems to be follow the rules and employ ethnic people in the roles to which they are suited. And it was a mind set that made the Austrian Army rigid and inflexible, because that was how the minds of their officers were programmed to think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dracula View Post
    One does not have to think necessarily of a failure. The multinational component itself is not harmful or disadvantageous. Unless there was some kind of sabotage from certain regionally originating soldiers on the imperial army. Because they were doing quite good for centuries before.
    I agree, and it is a sad fact that a lot current historical dogma arises not from careful analysis of the facts, but from trying to shape the past to support current attitudes and obsessions.

    Thus we get bizarre revisionist history 'like Cleopatra was black', and we get some issues like ethnicity in the Habsburg Empire given new and inappropriate promotion because of their current relevance to ethnic division. We even get the renaming of Austrian Regiments as a sop to those ethnic groups that weren't even mentioned in history but are now demanding recognition.

    It's not new of course, the Nazi's completed revised the history of Prussia to support their crusade for power. However, ideally history should be about facts and discovering the truth not regurgitating political dogma.
    Last edited by Didz; August 09, 2014 at 06:37 AM.

  15. #75

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    No, sorry all it proves to me is that all lot of people today are obsessed with the ethnic breakdown of the population of the Habsburg Empire, and are prepared to reverse engineer history to try and make it mean something. It's the same mind set that leads to a historian systematically changing the real names of Austrian regiments to try an suggest that they were ethnically pure. It's historical creationism and I'm not interested in it.
    No, it is not today obessions and it is not historical creationism. Ethnic problems were real historical facts with logical consequences in Austrian Empire. These cases also weakened Austrian army.

    It looks that you do not undesdant these problems and you do not know history of Central Europe. Read about Hungarian, Polish, Bohemian, Croats, Serbs etc. uprisings, rebellions, revolts etc. which realy happend in Austrian Empire. Do you believe that such big variety of quite different nations which spoke quite different languages, with different religions or cultures and their own national aspirations could cooperate well in army under general command of Germans or Hungarians? Do not forget that many nations saw Germans or Hungarians as their oppresors or felt that they lived under Austrian occupation at that time.

    Maybe that was not very severe occupation at that period, but they felt that they had not their own independent states.

    Few examples:
    1. Austrian German severely suppressed Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks which supported protestant faction in thirty years war.
    These had long term national consequenses in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Slovakia etc.
    2. Austrian German suppresed few Hungarian and Transylvanian uprisings in 17, 18 and 19 centuries.
    3. Romanian and Ruthenian (Ukrainian) serfs lived under German or Hungarian aristocrats and nobles domination, there were some mutinous even in late 18 century too.
    4. Croats, Slovenes and Serbs also sought for their national autonomy, there were many national tentions in several constituent lands in Austrian Empire.
    5. Austria partitioned Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772 and 1795. Then many Polish were not happy with that case.
    6. Austria occupied some Italian territories, they even partitioned old Venetian Republic in 1797.
    7. Germans also had their own ambitions, sometimes different than had their Habsburg rulers.
    8. Some nations divided in various constituent lands felt that they had not their own states.
    9. Catholics, Protestant, Orthodox Christianity and other religions also inflicted some troubles.
    10. Jews, Gipsies or Muslims were not so interested in Austrian army service.

    These ethnic, cultural, social and religious mixture together with hard historical and political affairs inficted many troubles which weakened Austrian Empire.

    You try minimalize these historical facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    Well your entitled to remain blinkered to the real facts. But I think I’ve already done enough to show that the ethnic hypothesis does hold much water when compared to actual historical events.
    You have not done any real explanations to these facts. You only cast your own point of view, which has noting to do with real facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    I’ve already explained that, so I suggest you take the blinkers off and re-read my earlier posts.
    I read your earlier posts, even tried discuss these matters earlier with you. However I see that you still do not understand the matter. I'm sorry it looks that you do not know real historical facts in this case while you still try cast here your invalid hypothesis.
    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    You seem determined to blame the troops, I prefer to blame the quality of their leadership. In my opinion the evidence supports the latter explanation, as the same men from the same ethnic group proved perfectly capable soldiers under different leaders.
    I do not blame only the troops, I blame quality of the leadership too. However I as well as the most historians find Austrian army weakansses in ethnic, social and historical problems.

    You suggest that it is easy explanation and you try explain Austrian army weakansses in poor leadership and over regulations.
    These were important points, but we can not forget that Austrian poor leadership and over regulations also came from, as you said, Austrian racial dogma. I think that these dogma included ethnic problems too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    ]This clearly proves that you are not even bothering to read my posts. Either that or you don’t know as much about the Austro-Hungarian army as you think you do. I suggest you do a bit more research because to be honest I’m tired of arguing with you when you clearly aren't interested in putting any effort into process.
    I read your posts, therefore I can see that you still do not understand real problems in Austrian Empire. You also do not know what I know about Austro-Hungarian Army, then do not suggest do a bit more research when you do not know this matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    P.S. Actually I'm going to throw you a bone, but only because it was really simple to do.

    Read the top post in this thread....(see extract below)

    Light Infantry Battalions 1798 – 1801

    It’s often mis-stated that Austria never had any specialized Light Infantry units prior to the formation of the Tyrolean Jager in 1801, and this is often used as the excuse for the poor performance of the Austrian Army against the French.


    Do not be funny. You mentioned false statments.

    Austrian used light infantry long before and after years 1798-1801.
    I already gave you some examples. They created 17 or 18 Grenzers regiments, each 2-3 battalions which can do light infantry duties.
    Austrian formed several Feld Jagers battalions which were strictly light infantry. They used some volunteers or foreigners troops which can do light duties too.

    Austrian created these mentioned in your post 15 light infantry battalions. As you can see, they were formed mainly in non German lands.
    Austrian disbanded these battalions and this case also can prove that Austrian had real ethnics problems. Read something about their history please.

    You also could read something about Pandour or Hayduks infantrymen. They serviced for Austrian long, long before Napoleonic Wars.
    Austrian had long and fine traditions with light infantry, but they also had many troubles, especially with non German light infantry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    However, its not that simple, Austria did have dedicated Light Infantry and rifle units much earlier and even standard Austrian Infantry Regiments were trained to deploy skirmishers. The real problem seems to have been that formal Austrian Officer training failed to prepared its cadets for the command and management of skirmishers and their effective use, training and leadership was therefore deficient.
    As you can see Austrian did have dedicated light infantry and even their regular line infantry regiments were trained to deploy skirmishers. Why Austrian Officers often kept these soldiers in close order? Poor command, lack of cadetes, poor training or pure nonsens?

    The answer to these questions is that Austrian were seriously afraid that their multinational soldiers sometimes could not do their light infantry duties well.
    Austrian commanders knew these national tensions in their Empire. Therefore there were so many constituent lands and various national recruitment areas.
    These somehow helped minimalize these problems, but these problems existed.

    Nevertheless the same Croats soldiers can fought quite well for Austrian as well as for French. They can do their light duties for both sides.
    Napoleon apreciated Grenzers therefore he took six Grenzer regiments in his service. Then Austrian racial dogma and over regulations did not spoil Grenzers skills.
    However ethnic problems in Austrian army evidently can weaken this army. The most historians know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    Then please carry on believing it. You will be in good company following along with the rest of sheep. But I’m more interested in discovering the truth.
    Oh, do not be funny again.
    Good historian which know the matter even in a company with me and rest of sheep can win with incompetent group of lions and your invalid hypothesis.
    This is the truth.
    Last edited by exNowy; August 09, 2014 at 10:33 AM.

  16. #76

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Ethnic problems were real historical facts with logical consequences in Austrian Empire. These cases also weakened Austrian army.
    Such issues were common right across Europe, if not the entire world. Look at the issues that Britain was having in Ireland, and the .45 rebellion in Scotland. Austria did not have the monopoly on internal ethnic and cultural diversity in the 18th Century.

    Therefore, I don't accept that this was the root cause of the problems in the Austrian Army. If other countries of the period could field effective armies including regiments of mixed ethnicity then logic dictates that the Habsburg Empire should have been equally capable of doing so, and more importantly they did in some instances. Therefore, the issue has to be more complicated and also more specific. If one regiment is efficient and another regiment isn't then the issue must lie within the command and control of the weaker regiment it can't be an army wide problem.

    I'm afraid the huge generalities that you are quoting like 'Jews, Gipsies or Muslims were not so interested in Austrian army service.' are just that, huge generalities and have no real value in understanding the problem at all. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that every soldier in every other army was a willing recruit. Most of the French Army was conscripted for example. If anything this list of excuses reflects the real problem which was the 'Austrian ethnic dogma.' and attitude towards certain ethnic groups. I believe it was this attitude that was the root caused the problem and I suspect that it is the manifestation of this belief in Austrian official records and correspondence that is being latched onto by historians looking for an easy explanation to the failures in the Austrian Army.

    I'm sure that one can find plenty of similar historical records denigrating the qualities of the Irish and Scottish if one looks hard enough, but the difference was that the British Army never let ethnicity dominate their attitude when it came to training soldiers. If they had then I'm sure historians would have instantly latched onto the correspondence they found moaning about the Irish and Scots and claimed that ethnic and religious division was the cause of the problems in the British Army too.

    I'm not going to argue with you about the Austrian Light infantry, because you are so far off the page it's impossible to begin pulling you back. You seem to be quoting information which is irrelevant to point I was making as though it somehow proves something and I can't make sense of it.

    However, you are absolutely right in saying that the Austrians blamed the ethnicity of the men for the failure of their 1798-1801 light infantry experiment. That was the reason given by them for disbanding the battalions. But that was just the excuse (the official excuse) for the failure of the experiment. Some of those same men went on to serve effectively in the French and British armies, proving that it wasn't them that were at fault but the quality of their Austrian leadership. The only issue which may have arisen in terms of the quality of the men was the decision by the Austrian command to form these battalions using cadres from existing irregular units. I suspect that this was a bad decision and as I said earlier they may have got better results if they had used new recruits.

    The fact is that irregular units tend to attract men with certain personal interests and character shortcomings. So, they were hardly likely to be good material to use as the foundation for a regular disciplined battalion. An experienced and effective officer corps might have been able to overcome those issues and turn them into good soldiers, but the evidence suggests that the Austrian officers couldn't cope with the challenge and instead many of these men simply ran riot intimidating their officers and terrorising the local population.

    In practice they probably weren't much worse than some of the Irish recruits the British Army had to deal with, but as I said the British Army were adept at training multi-ethnic soldiers and didn't use ethnicity as an excuse for failure. One of the specific problems mentioned in British Army correspondence as regards Irish recruits is that the army didn't segregate the catholic's and protestant's and consequently in the early days after volunteering there would be constant fighting between the two factions in which occasionally a recruit would be killed. Now my guess is that the Austrian's would probably have raised different regiments for catholic's and protestants to avoid the problem. But the British simply banged their heads together, hung a few, and got them to behave sensibly.

    However, I'm sure you're not really interested so I'll leave it at that.
    Last edited by Didz; August 10, 2014 at 06:26 AM.

  17. #77

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    Such issues were common right across Europe, if not the entire world. Look at the issues that Britain was having in Ireland, and the .45 rebellion in Scotland. Austria did not have the monopoly on internal ethnic and cultural diversity in the 18th Century.
    It looks that you can not understand that this was not the monopoly on simple internal ethnics and cultural diversity case, but that was a case in scale of existing ethnic problems. Look how many minorities, which did not spoke English, included United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at thet period?
    Compare these relatively small British diversities with these large diversities which were in Austrian Empire. Look how many minorities did not spike German in Austrian Empire. Englishmen and English language represented visible majority in Great Britain while Germans formed c.a. 22 %. Then Germans as main rulling nation were in fact minority. Worse that there were bigger diversity, biger differences and bigger national disinclinations in Austrian Empire than it was in other cases in Europe.

    I gave you many examples in that matter and you still can not understand real arguments.

    Then I cast again these arguments which can explatin Austrian Empire weakansses.

    1. Very big national diversity. There lived lot of nations. Ruling Austrian German formed only 22% of entire population.
    2. Very big variation of languages. These were quite different for many nations e.g. German, Hungarian, Romanian or Italian, many Slavic and other.
    3. Big vaiety of religions, cultures and big social diversity. German and Hungarian aristocrats and nobles oppressed or occupied many neighbouging nations.
    4. Hard historical, political and social affairs. Many nations fought each others in the past. Germans and Hungarians tried hold their absolute domination.
    5. Visible diversity in national staus e.g. predominantly ruling German or Hungarian while large majority subjects from other nations.
    6. Many nations in Austrian Empire sought for their independence or autonomy.

    These are huge generalities of course. Nevertheless you should see main problems with ethnic big diversity before you get into detailed questions of leadership or regulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    Therefore, I don't accept that this was the root cause of the problems in the Austrian Army. If other countries of the period could field effective armies including regiments of mixed ethnicity then logic dictates that the Habsburg Empire should have been equally capable of doing so, and more importantly they did in some instances. Therefore, the issue has to be more complicated and also more specific. If one regiment is efficient and another regiment isn't then the issue must lie within the command and control of the weaker regiment it can't be an army wide problem.
    These are false statements.
    Other countries at that time never fileded effective armies with so big diversity of nations as Austrian got in their Empire.

    British army recruited mainly English speaking subjects. They repersented 90% or more British army soldiers.
    How many foreigners were in British army 10 % or less ? Many of them, as like Germans, also spoke somehow in more similiar language than it was in Austrian Army. This is quite different case than many so different Slavic, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian or German nations in Austrian Empire.

    French formed some foreign regiments, but initially non French formed less than 10% of entire French army.
    When French included in their army more nations e.g. Germans, Italians or Dutch, then French army met similar weakansses as Austrian in their empire.
    Lot of deserters, refuges and ethnic problems French multinational Army tested in Russian campaign 1812 and Peninsula War 1808-1814. Even Danube campaign 1809, where Napoleon used many foreigners, proved that French army lost their perviously high quality. That was not only new French recruit case. There still were some French veterans and many allied German or Italian veterans, but French army average quality was visible lower than it was in the same theater of war in 1805.

    Russian army also included big diversity of nations, but Russian nation and Orthodox religion still formed dominant majority.
    Nevetheless even this severely drilled army also was weakened with some ethic problems. Therefore Russia allow form some irregular units with Bashkir, Tatar and other minorities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    However, you are absolutely right in saying that the Austrians blamed the ethnicity of the men for the failure of their 1798-1801 light infantry experiment. That was the reason given by them for disbanding the battalions. But that was just the excuse (the official excuse) for the failure of the experiment.
    As you see I am right. What is more I can say that was not Austiran simple official excuse case. That was real historical fact.
    They disbanded these light battalions whcih were in majority formed with non Germans. However they soon formed German Tyroler Feld Jager 4 battalions and later more light infantry battalions. Then there was not a simple leadership, over regulations or training case. This was somehow etnic problems case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    Some of those same men went on to serve effectively in the French and British armies, proving that it wasn't them that were at fault but the quality of their Austrian leadership. The only issue which may have arisen in terms of the quality of the men was the decision by the Austrian command to form these battalions using cadres from existing irregular units. I suspect that this was a bad decision and as I said earlier they may have got better results if they had used new recruits.
    You should accept that this was not a simple quality Austrian leaqdership failure. Their leadership met with many ethnic problems which they can not solved so easy. That was not training case, over regulations etc, but that were big diversity and variable national attitude towards Austrians or other nations. That's why the same men could fought better or worse, or willingly, or unwillingly service in different armies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz
    The fact is that irregular units tend to attract men with certain personal interests and character shortcomings. So, they were hardly likely to be good material to use as the foundation for a regular disciplined battalion. An experienced and effective officer corps might have been able to overcome those issues and turn them into good soldiers, but the evidence suggests that the Austrian officers couldn't cope with the challenge and instead many of these men simply ran riot intimidating their officers and terrorising the local population.
    You cast strange supositions. In such cirumstanses as Austrian Empire had it was difficult base only on disicpline, good training and effective officer corps.
    There were more troubles with ethnic differences etc. Austrian officers did what they can, but the matter was much more complicated than it was for instnace in British army.

    Bear in mind that even pragmatic British can not solved these racial problems in their multinational Great Empire. Those was dissolved in the end. [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by exNowy; August 11, 2014 at 06:02 AM.

  18. #78

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    It looks that you can not understand that this was not the monopoly on simple internal ethnics and cultural diversity case, but that was a case in scale of existing ethnic problems. Look how many minorities, which did not spoke English, included United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the period?
    I understand what you are saying, I just don’t accept that it’s an accurate assessment of the issue.

    A common language is certainly not a pre-requisite for effective military organisations, and I think we’ve been round that loop enough times already without having to go round again.
    You have been given plenty of example right up to modern times of armies that have achieved outstanding performance using troops that don’t speak a common language. You clearly aren’t prepared to accept this logic, despite the evidence so I’m flogging a dead horse trying to explain it again.
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Compare these relatively small British diversities with these large diversities which were in Austrian Empire. Look how many minorities did not spike German in Austrian Empire. Englishmen and English language represented visible majority in Great Britain while Germans formed c.a. 22 %. Then Germans as main ruling nation were in fact minority. Worse that there were bigger diversity, bigger differences and bigger national disinclinations in Austrian Empire than it was in other cases in Europe.
    You accuse me of nit understanding the ethnic diversity of the Austrian Empire and then do exactly that yourself in misrepresenting the ethnic diversity of the British Empire.
    The Irish of this period did not usually speak English, and nor did the Scots or the Welsh.

    The Irish also made up almost 100% of those regiments designated to recruit in Ireland, as did the Scots and Welsh of the regiments based in their countries. Even English regiments also contained large numbers of recruits from Ireland. In 1809 34% of the 57th Foot (West Middlesex Regiment) were Irish.

    And that’s without considering those regiments recruited specifically from foreign nationals such as French, German, Portuguese, Dutch and African, the British even recruited Spaniards into their regiments during the Peninsular Campaign.
    I find it ironic that you are arguing that the British Army had some sort of ethnic Anglo-Saxon conformity in it’s organisation, when traditionally we are constantly being accused of using foreigners to fight our battles.

    Austria was not unique, they only thought they werte which comes back to my point about the Austrian Ethnic Dogma which they used so successfully to explain their failures.
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    I gave you many examples in that matter and you still can not understand real arguments.

    Then I cast again these arguments which can explain Austrian Empire weaknesses.
    And again I will repeat that these issues were not unique to the Austrian Empire. They are merely the excuses made by the Austrian Army for the failure of their officer corps.

    Whether they actually believed these excuses is impossible to tell, but the fact that some regiments seemed able to overcome them and produce effective soldiers from the same men that other regiments claimed were incapable of being trained suggests that these are only the official excuses that historians have latched onto rather than the actual situation on the ground at the time.

    It would appear that the officers of some regiments were more skilled than others.
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    Other countries at that time never fileded effective armies with so big diversity of nations as Austrian got in their Empire.
    How about the British Army of the Peninsula (Irish, Scots, Welsh, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish)?

    Or the British Indian Army: Punjabi Sikh 19.2 %; Punjabi Muslim 11.1 %; Pathan Muslim 6.2 %; Gurkhas, Garhwalis and Kumaounis 15.0 % (of which 13.1 % were Gurkha’s); Hindu Rajput 6.4 %; Hariana (Hindustani) Muslim 4.1 %; Hindu Brahman 1.8 %; Hindu Marathas 4.9 %; Madrasi Muslim 3.5 %; and Tamil Hindus 2.5%

    How does that equate to your statement below:
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    British army recruited mainly English speaking subjects. They represented 90% or more British army soldiers.
    And where did you come up with such a ridiculous fact anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    French formed some foreign regiments, but initially non French formed less than 10% of entire French army.
    Yeah! Right like the British Army also contained over 90% of English speaking soldiers. I get the impression you like the 90% rule.

    What about:
    Foreigners who enlisted in French regiments when they were stationed in foreign territories:

    Or these examples:
    Dutch Guard Red Lancers;
    Dutch Guard Grenadiers;
    Swiss Regiments;
    Croatian regiments
    Polish Vistula Legion
    Hannoverian Legion
    Portuguese Legion
    Irish Legion
    Westphalian Corps in 1812
    Bavarian Corps in 1812
    Saxon Corps
    8th Legere (recruited heavily from Croats.)
    11th Legere (Re-raised in 1811 from Italians and Swiss)
    Tirailleurs Corses,
    Tirailleurs du Po,
    Tirailleurs de la Legion de Midi,
    Regiment Valaison)
    32nd Legere (raised in 1808 from Italians)
    33rd Legere (Re-raised in 1810 from Dutch troops.)
    35th Legere (Raised in 1812 from 1st Regiment de la Mediterrene)
    36th Legere (Raised in 1812 from Regiment de Belle-Ile)
    47th Line (Contained a large percentage of Irish volunteers)
    113th Line (Formed with men from Tuscany.)
    123rd, 124th, 125th Line (formed in Sept 1810 from Dutch)
    126th Line (Formed from Dutch)
    127th Line (Formed in 1811 from Garde de Hambourg and Garde de Lubeck (Germans))
    128th Line (Formed in 1811 from Garde de Breme (Germans)
    129th Line (formed in 1811 from Reg. d'Oldenbourg (Germans),
    Garde de Westphaliens (Germans)
    133rd Line –(formed the 2nd Meditarranean Regiment (Italians).
    Wirtembergian troops
    Velites of Turin (Italian)
    Velites of Florence(Italian)
    1st Lancers of the Guard (Poles)
    The Vistula Legion (Poles)
    The Saxon Grenadier Battalion (German)
    The Westphalian Guard Fusilier Battalion. (German)
    The Berg lancers (German)

    Quote Originally Posted by exNowy View Post
    They disbanded these light battalions whcih were in majority formed with non Germans. However they soon formed German Tyroler Feld Jager 4 battalions and later more light infantry battalions. Then there was not a simple leadership, over regulations or training case. This was somehow etnic problems case.
    That’s exactly right. They disbanded the battalions formed from ethnic troops because they were incapable of training them properly, and they replaced them with more Tyrolean Battalions raised from ethnic Germans.

    My point was that some of the battalions they disbanded subsequently served with distinction in the French and British Army. Therefore, proving that the fault was not in the men but their officers.

    We have a saying in England that ‘A bad workman always blames his tools’, and that’s exactly what is happening here.

  19. #79

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Steph View Post
    My remark was not directed to you actually. And auto is not really the important point, it's more about having cartridge, magazine, etc.
    Thanks Steph, I understand and agree. It is much different. However the basic principals for acquiring a site picture, eye relief, breathing etc. would be the same for a rifleman although pointless for a musketman.
    Ordoprinceps
    Semper Ferox

  20. #80

    Default Re: Austrian Army Regimental Names

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince of Essling View Post
    You have certainly set off an interesting discussion here! Well done.

    I am going to try and simplify things (and may well set off some more howls....). I will paraphrase Gunther Rothenberg a lot, drawing in particular on "Napoleon's Great Adversary Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army 1792-1814" and "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon".

    I think the answer to the first part is it depends on the era as the best army would change over time e.g. the Swedes of Gustavus Adolphus; the Prussians of Frederick the Great, etc.

    Turning to our era, in pure military terms neither the troops nor the generals ever equalled the French at their best. Staff work, administration and movement control lagged behind the French though by 1813 the gap was not so large. One drawback was also the cost of the horrendous cost of the army - over 45% of the national budget at the start of the revolutionary wars and the situation only became worse.

    The army was dogged by constant petty feuding amongst the higher echelons. Austrian commanders were not prepared for the new style of warfare. Although old or elderly generals have been underrated - many were competent or energetic - their training and outlook were out of date.

    Austrian strategy did not modernise to have the destruction of the enemy’s army at its core. It remained stuck in the 18th century tradition of strategic positions and communications.

    Austrian tactics overrated the value of controlled volleys and a cohesive line. The general failure to adopt open order fighting was a real handicap. Skirmishers effectiveness was dismissed; during the war of the 1st Coalition little effort was made to cover the white-coated lines with skirmishing screens. "Regular, trained, and solid infantry if it advances in closed ranks with rapid steps, supported by its guns, cannot be held up by scattered skirmishers...." so said the 1796 regulations!Closing with the enemy was the intention to save firing & skirmishing as they cost casualties and decided nothing! By 1798 the Austrians had learnt how to fight in open order supported by close order masses.

    The disaster of 1805 provided the opportunity for a general reform, but the results were quite mixed. The combat performance of the army was improved. Poor generals were dismissed and the Quartermaster General Staff was strengthened. Higher tactical formations were introduced, the military train status was improved and its officers were recognised as commissioned personnel. Cavalry was to be used in masses and use the 2 deep line for charges. Infantry tactical change was more conservative with the line still prescribed as the best formation as it permitted proper use of weapons i.e. long range fire, followed by the bayonet for close-in work. Infantry charges inline were prescribed which were to be covered by skirmishers. Charles recognised the usefulness of the column for moving troops, and also introduced the mass to allow infantry to move and fight off charging cavalry (he believed 3 deep squares were vulnerable). however these changes were still based on 18th century precepts. tactical changes and importantly the bravery of his troops gained Charles his victory at Aspern-Essling.

    One real problem was the army was not a national army but a dynastic instrument. rank and file came from the lower classes both by a system of selective conscription and voluntary enlistment. The hereditary lands, Austria, Bohemia, and Galicia were subject to conscription, while in Hungary and the Tyrol enlistments was voluntary. In practice many exemptions kept the system from working well - the people disliked military service and evaded it where ever possible. Voluntary enlistment also met with many difficulties and the authorities often had to use subterfuge and compulsion to meet their quotas. An important manpower source were the smaller states of the Holy Roman Empire, resulting in up to 1/3 of personnel in so-called German regiments being foreigners.
    Wonderful input P of E

    You have contributed some information not previously addressed. As is the case with most historical issues there are a few things that are black and white and a scholarly examination requires objectivity not reactionary statements.

    You've made many excellent and valid points. We should not dismiss the general simply by age but rather by merit or the lack of it.

    There is much to be said about a volunteer force as opposed to conscription's. This too is a discussion that has many pros and cons.

    Personally I think this discussion thread is excellent! And as a Napoleonic enthusiast I am both fascinated and grateful for the input of individuals on this thread.
    Ordoprinceps
    Semper Ferox

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •