How many soldiers at Austerlitz?

I usually hear that at Austerlitz Napoleon had 72,000-73,000 men and that the Coalition has 85-86,000. However I have been reading several books that state that the Coalition had 100,000 men in the battle. War and Peace in one part says that the coalition has a few more than 90,000, almost 100,000 fighting at the battle, so what is it then? 86,000 or closer t0 100,000?

Originally Posted by money

I usually hear that at Austerlitz Napoleon had 72,000-73,000 men and that the Coalition has 85-86,000. However I have been reading several books that state that the Coalition had 100,000 men in the battle. War and Peace in one part says that the coalition has a few more than 90,000, almost 100,000 fighting at the battle, so what is it then? 86,000 or closer t0 100,000?

A very interesting question. Let me be the first to stir this pot!

According to Bowden "The Glory Years 1805-07 Napoleon at Austerlitz" the allies had about 73,000 (the parade states for 27 November show 72,789 so by the battle the number would most likely have been less; whereas the French had about 72,000 men (parade states from 29 November to 1 December show 74,595 - but need to allow for fall outs from Davout's troops etc).

Duffy "Austerlitz 1805" says nominally Napoleon had 73 to 75,000 but may have had as few as 60,000 due to men being in no state to fight or fallen by the wayside or even had deserted. He suggests the allies 80 to 87,000 before losses........

Castle "Austerlitz Napoleon & the Eagles of Europe" has the allies at 76,410 & the French at 74,599.

Chandler "The Campaigns of Napoleon" has allies 85,400 & the French 73,200.

Digby Smith "Napoleonic Wars databook" has allies 86,000 & French 65,000.

Hourtelle "Austerlitz: The Empire at its Zenith" has the allies at over 100,000 & the French at ???

And I am sure other books will give more different figures!

My gut instinct says both French& Allies circa 70,000 - though figures may have varied by a few thousand...

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

My gut instinct says both French& Allies circa 70,000 - though figures may have varied by a few thousand...

Hmm, this time you gut instinct could be wrong.

Many historians wrote that at Austerlitz allies had more soldiers than French.
Russian and Austrian had there c.a. 86,000 men while Napoleon gathered c.a 73,000 men.

Allies were convinced that they outnumbered French therefore they decided attack, however Kutuzov was unwilling to advance. He suggested that they should waited for reinforcements which were on the way e.g. Essen and Bennigsen Russian forces. They aslo could waited for strong Austrian army under Archduke Charles.

Napoleon smartly played a trick on allies and suggested that French were weak at that moment.
He even withdrew French forces from Pratzen hights, because he was afraid that allies could avoid this battle and they could waited for reinforcements. He knew that he has less men, but he belived that better quality in on French side while time could played for allies.

Allies decided attack, because they thought that they were strong enough and even got more soldiers than French. These already were exhaused and Napoleon could withdraw. Allies wanted defeat him.

That was their mistake.

Originally Posted by exNowy

Hmm, this time you gut instinct could be wrong.

Many historians wrote that at Austerlitz allies had more soldiers than French.
Russian and Austrian had there c.a. 86,000 men while Napoleon gathered c.a 73,000 men.

Allies were convinced that they outnumbered French therefore they decided attack, however Kutuzov was unwilling to advance. He suggested that they should waited for reinforcements which were on the way e.g. Essen and Bennigsen Russian forces. They aslo could waited for strong Austrian army under Archduke Charles.

Napoleon smartly played a trick on allies and suggested that French were weak at that moment.
He even withdrew French forces from Pratzen hights, because he was afraid that allies could avoid this battle and they could waited for reinforcements. He knew that he has less men, but he belived that better quality in on French side while time could played for allies.

Allies decided attack, because they thought that they were strong enough and even got more soldiers than French. These already were exhaused and Napoleon could withdraw. Allies wanted defeat him.

That was their mistake.

Excellent - as I said I would stir this up and this should do it even more

Indeed you and many others (me included until I read Bowden) are going with the accepted orthodoxy of over 200 years but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct. Bowden's work makes a very good case for the Allies' strength having been over-estimated. He went back to first base by looking at unit returns from the French, Austrian & Russian army archives & individual regimental histories to validate the number of troops actually present and underarms at Austerlitz. As Bowden is a Francophile I had expected him to have painted the picture so that Napoleon's victory was an even greater feat than it actually was. The lesser Allied numbers help explain to some degree the incredible overwhelming victory of the Emperor - they had no real chance against the superbly trained Grande Armee.

Duffy in his book states that the oft repeated numbers of allied troops supposedly present at Austerlitz represents "an over-optomistic nominal establishment" of those forces.

Bowden lists

95 Russian battalions = 38,656 men
82 Russian squadroons = 8,798 men
42.5 cossack squadrons = 2,340 men
Russian pioneers = 370 men

Total Russians (excluding artillery) 50,164 men

21 Austrian battalions = 11,194 men
42.75 Austrian squadrons = 3,001 men
Pioneers & jagers = 630 men
Austrian total (excluding artillery) = 14,825 men

Artillery + train personnel = 7,800 men
Total Allies = 72,289 men

Kutuzov's Russian Army of 54 battalions, 40 squadrons & 14 batteries had 46,405 men on 25 August. By 25 November this had declined to 21,972 men (a loss of 53% due to casualties & strategic consumption!) These figures exclude cossacks, staff & equipage.
Before Kutuzov's troops set off for the front they were about 84% of their full nominal establishment as there were 42,434 men present against an establishment of 50,378 men (figures as at 22 August) - these figures exclude artillery, specialist troopsn & cossacks.

Originally Posted by money

By the way David Chandler in his 1995 work "The Campaigns of Napoleon" says the allies had exactly 90,000 men fighting at Austerlitz.

I took the figures from page 1118 of Appendix I Summary of Selected Battles.

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

Excellent - as I said I would stir this up and this should do it even more

Yes, you realy stir this pot.

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

Indeed you and many others (me included until I read Bowden) are going with the accepted orthodoxy of over 200 years but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct. Bowden's work makes a very good case for the Allies' strength having been over-estimated. He went back to first base by looking at unit returns from the French, Austrian & Russian army archives & individual regimental histories to validate the number of troops actually present and underarms at Austerlitz. As Bowden is a Francophile I had expected him to have painted the picture so that Napoleon's victory was an even greater feat than it actually was. The lesser Allied numbers help explain to some degree the incredible overwhelming victory of the Emperor - they had no real chance against the superbly trained Grande Armee.

I do not believe in Bowden's figures. It was his estimations and these also could include mistakes.

Therefore I am always sceptical to every numbers which are put without truly historical reports.
Problem is that even historical reporst many times did not show real truth.

That is way I cast only these c.a. numbers which were showed by many historians as basing information.

You could check some more Digby Smith books. It looks that he could be closer to this real numbers.

If Allies had lesser men they would be waited for reinforcements. Russian forces were on the way and Archduke Charles also had big army in Hungary. Then they simply could and should waited. But they attacked it could mean that they belived that they had somehow advantage.

After so many battles lost, they knew very well French good quality valour.
Therefore Allies could not reliant on their quality, however they had almost two times more Guard soldiers.
Then their advantage must be in their numbers I believe. That's why they decided attack.

But at Austerlitz even 13,000 men more were not enough. Napoleon's superb strategy destroyed Allies which clearly went into his trap. They poorly manoeuvred while they sent few columns on French right flank, it led to some troubles. French attacked on left flank and in the center and Allies tried closed big gap there. This way they must used their reserves. But Russian Guard and Austrian cavalry can not stop French.

Then Allies started to retreat and it led to chaos and even panic. Some soldiers run away. Tzar did it himself only with few his companions.

Problem was that Allies left flank forces were in narrow place now. They must retreat crossing softly frozen lake and boggy terrain. French artillery easy can bombarded crowded Russian. Therefore there were so many casualties and losses.

These facts and not the only numbers, could explain overwhelming victory of the Emperor at Austerlitz.

Originally Posted by exNowy

Yes, you realy stir this pot.

I do not believe in Bowden's figures. It was his estimations and these also could include mistakes.

Therefore I am always sceptical to every numbers which are put without truly historical reports.
Problem is that even historical reporst many times did not show real truth.

That is way I cast only these c.a. numbers which were showed by many historians as basing information.

You could check some more Digby Smith books. It looks that he could be closer to this real numbers.

If Allies had lesser men they would be waited for reinforcements. Russian forces were on the way and Archduke Charles also had big army in Hungary. Then they simply could and should waited. But they attacked it could mean that they belived that they had somehow advantage.

After so many battles lost, they knew very well French good quality valour.
Therefore Allies could not reliant on their quality, however they had almost two times more Guard soldiers.
Then their advantage must be in their numbers I believe. That's why they decided attack.

But at Austerlitz even 13,000 men more were not enough. Napoleon's superb strategy destroyed Allies which clearly went into his trap. They poorly manoeuvred while they sent few columns on French right flank, it led to some troubles. French attacked on left flank and in the center and Allies tried closed big gap there. This way they must used their reserves. But Russian Guard and Austrian cavalry can not stop French.

Then Allies started to retreat and it led to chaos and even panic. Some soldiers run away. Tzar did it himself only with few his companions.

Problem was that Allies left flank forces were in narrow place now. They must retreat crossing softly frozen lake and boggy terrain. French artillery easy can bombarded crowded Russian. Therefore there were so many casualties and losses.

These facts and not the only numbers, could explain overwhelming victory of the Emperor at Austerlitz.

I will at somestage take a close look at Bowden using historic texts that I am able to access.

He should not be simply ignored, as the danger is that the original numbers may be nothing more than a myth - that is if something is repeated often enough it is accepted as a fact for example the world is flat...... It would be very helpful if we could trackdown when the "magic" orthodox numbers were first used, by whom, and what "facts" underpinned them..........

@money - no idea why Chandler used 2 different figures.....it just adds to the interesting mix.

So I was watching one of the Austerlitz documentaries and then I compared to several older history books. What I found is that all these sources agree that the French had at most 73,000 men. They also stated that the combined Russian and Austrian army had about 100,000 men and that Kutuzov wanted to wait for reinforcements in order to get around 150,000.
By the way David Chandler in his 1995 work "The Campaigns of Napoleon" says the allies had exactly 90,000 men fighting at Austerlitz.

Chandler in the same book changes the numbers of the allies? What, why did he do that?

Leo Tolstoy started writing War and Peace in 1862, although he may have done his research in 1860. In War and Peace he states that the Allies had almost 100,000 men with the figure being closer to 90,000. So you asked for when this first came out, the numbers where Napoleon is outnumbered by more than 10,000 must have come out before 1860. It is interesting that Tolstoy is Russian yet he does not give the biased figures that many Russians gave, some Russians at the time claimed that Napoleon outnumbered the allies at Austerlitz (and Friedland for that matter as well as Borodino) this could be due to the fact that the Russian army considered itself undefeated even by 1812 and perhaps being severly outnumbered could be the excuse they needed for losing.