Austria or Prussia?

[Stratego]

In the Napoleonic Wars, which had the best army - not leaders? The Austrians or the Prussians?
Was the Prussians cavalry better than the Austrian?
Was the Austrian artillery better than the Prussian?
Did this change after the reforms of 1809?



Kind regards,
Stratego

[Wellington95]

Time to break out Christopher McNab's Armies of the Napoleonic Wars!

I'll get back to you.

[Baztanz]

First of all I am very much a amateur Historian, so you big guns be gentle with me or I will cry.

Tio me the Austrian Army has to be the better of the two, both in its Cavalry and Artilleryfurthermore I believe this difference was quite substantial by 1813.

Where the Prussian advantage lay was in its command and control area. Prussians post 1806 were forced to become innovators and to adapt to an entirely new set of circumstances; a situation that enabled the young up and comers to shine through.

I will now go cringe in fear.

[History fan]

Prussia had fought at the start of the Rev wars but after that until 1806 had not. It was not until after Jena/Auderstatdt that the Prussians reformed but only then quietly as they were under military occupation.
Austria had been pretty much continous all the way through. The Austrian armies did not start reforming until after Austerlitz

[Massena]

Austrian cavalry and artillery was superior to that of Prussia throughout the entire period.

The Prussian cavalry lost the reputation it had gained during the Seven Years' War under such commanders as Seydlitz and Zieten at Jena and Auerstadt. The Imperial Austrian cavalry, though it had little tradition of acting in mass, was excellently trained and usually, at least on the battlefield, competently led. It performed excellently in 1809.

Artillery-wise, the Prussians had the worst artillery arm of the five main belligerents during the period, and the Bavarian and Wurttemberger artillery was much superior to it also.

Frederick had treated his savant arms (artillery and engineers) as red-headed step-children and the artillery especially never caught up, though it was state of the art in the 1740s and was the model the Austrians used to improve their artillery in the 1750s.

The first Prussian artillery school wasn't opened until 1791 and there was no unified Prussian artillery system until 1816, after the wars were concluded. They had invented the screw quoin, later adopted by both the Austrians and the Russians, in the 1740s but initiative and technological development were basically squashed by Frederick. They outnumbered the French in guns at both Jena and Auerstadt, but were outfought by the French artillery, both horse and foot.

The Austrian artillery was excellent in both material and personnel. They had no actual horse artillery, their cavalry batteries being a mobile artillery arm, but usually there was no special training or organization for them as with the artillery arms of the other four major powers. Further, instead of the cavalry batteries supported the mounted arm, it was the other way round, which was awkward. The Austrian artillery was superior to both the Prussian and Russian artillery arms, and under such commanders as Josef Smola performed excellently throughout the wars. Like the British, Russians, and Prussians, they had no written doctrine that dealt with issues above the company/batttery, and it appears that their battery commanders were somewhat older than would be expected, but they always performed well in the field.

The Austrian problems were at the command, staff, and organizational level. Austrian staff officers were excellent (and had been especially prized by Suvorov in 1799-1800), but the staffs themselves in organization and functioning were surpassed by the French model, which was somewhat adopted by the Prussians on Scharnhorst's urging. For the Prussians, their general staff was in an embryonic form by 1815.

The Prussians, urged by younger officers such as Scharnhorst, had begun reforms in the army prior to 1806. Some infantry battalions had been trained 'in the French manner' (such as the one Clausewitz was in at Auerstadt), but it took the disaster and shock of 1806 to stimulate large-scale change (as the disasters of the Seven Years' War had done to the Frech army). The Prussians never had, however, either a cavalry or artillery reserve at army level and until 1815 the Prussian army never served together independently. Blucher's Army of Silesia of 1813-1814 was made up of both Russians and Prussians.

Sincerely,
M

[DaveHollinsMBA]

"but the staffs themselves in organization and functioning were surpassed by the French model, which was somewhat adopted by the Prussians on Scharnhorst's urging."

Strange really, because if you read Peter Hofschroer's Osprey on the Prussian staff pp.9-12 - and let us not forget that unlike Kevin and Elting etc. Peter can read German and has studied the Prussian works - he notes that Scharnhorst said it would be an error to copy the French staff and the system he describes is actually remarkably similar to that of Austria. It was of course, Austria's staff which directed the Allied victory at Leipzig, the biggest battle in history prior to WW1.

After the hiding Kevin's mythology received on TMP, http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=227831 I am surprised that he continues to repeat these nonsensical third hand claims. Nobody copied the French system - well, except N3, who was duly annihilated at Sedan in 1870.

[AntiWarmanCake8]

Austrians were better. They had their flaws but they was better then the Prussians, at least from a artillery/cavalry standpoint.

[General Brock]

and let us not forget that unlike Kevin and Elting etc.

Still jealous EH Dave...

[VieuxChat]

well, except N3, who was duly annihilated at Sedan in 1870.

The same that did so great in Italy against Austria (1859), and better than the British during the crimean war (1853-56)

[DaveHollinsMBA]

Originally Posted by General Brock

Still jealous EH Dave...

How could anyone be jealous of being found out fabricating a bibliography, making up key material and copying third hand claims as though they were fact? As for Elting, well, you cannot be jealous of outdated material with a lack of research, albeit that research was quite difficult in those days. Introducing or seeking to perpetuate mythology is about as pointless as spiteful posts attempting to obtain a reaction.

[DaveHollinsMBA]

Originally Posted by VieuxChat

The same that did so great in Italy against Austria (1859), and better than the British during the crimean war (1853-56)

I suspect you will find that neither was down to the staff system, but rather more to Austria's impoverishment and difficulty maintaining a standing army in the 19th century. The UK did not have a modern staff until early in the 20th century and in the Nap period, using the old entourage system also used by Napoleon.

Couple of relevant quotes from the Napolun.com site: "US Army military staff service has its origins in the Prussian army. In the the US Staff College Publication 1 is clearly stated that "The modern general staff was developed in Prussia during the XIXth century." (So that buries the 1917 French staff model)

The supreme command was naturally the responsibility of the army's commanding general, with the role of his chief-of-staff [of the army] being to turn the commanding general's intentions into practical plans. "The Prussian General Staff operated under a chief-of-staff system. In this instance Lieutenant-General von Gneisenau filled the post officially known as Quartermaster-General. He was the second-in-command to Blücher, as well as being responsible for co-ordinating all staff functions. He was also the officer representing the Minister of War with the army, and had juridiction (under the commander who took overall credit or blame for the army's activities) over both operational and administrative matters. In the field Gneisenau wielded his authority in the name of the commander-in-chief in virtually all military spheres - movement, tactics, deployment, intelligence and logistics (food, clothing, ammunition and accommodation). Blücher made the major decisions after consultation with Gneisenau and others, such as Major-General von Grolmann who headed the staff at the headquarters."
(Adkin - "The Waterloo Companion" p 111)

As I said above, it is important to read the original material, rather than Elting's flight of fantasy.

[General Brock]

Introducing or seeking to perpetuate mythology is about as pointless as spiteful posts attempting to obtain a reaction.
Reply With Quote

Isn't this what U do regularly Dave like the postings on Amazon.com of recent...

[Post Captain]

Spiteful posts...someone is expert in that..methinks. Now to wait for the 'you must study the archives and have knowledge of German language, before you can study history'... bullcrap..Us empty vessels get bored with mediocrity quite easily...excuse the yawn..you master hollins must be used to it, if you gave lectures.

[Massena]

'Introducing or seeking to perpetuate mythology is about as pointless as spiteful posts attempting to obtain a reaction.'

So why don't you explain to us why you always do this? It is getting just a little old and quite dry...

Sincerely,
M

[DaveHollinsMBA]

Originally Posted by General Brock

Isn't this what U do regularly Dave like the postings on Amazon.com of recent...

Haven't reviewed on Amazon for a while. I was on the receiving end of a rather deranged campaign from Kevin and his swivel-eyed chums. I didn't review Kevin's book on artilelry until his hatchet job
on the rival and properly researched book by Dawson, Dawson & Summefield in which KK "forgot" to mention his rival product. When I pointed out the fabricated bibliography, made up material and bizarre rants about staff, he went off whining to Amazon!

Anyway, this is rather moving away from the original point and that rather curious contradiction between PH's description of the Prussian staff and Kevin's unsubstantiated claims, based on who knows what. So,. Kevin, exactly where did you get your version of the French and Prussian staff from - as you don't read either language!