leagueofancients.org.au

[Richard Gordon]

In scope for version 2 is to update the army lists, primarily to reflect the revised points, but also to make revisions where appropriate. If anyone would like to send through recommendations for revisions, either on specific lists or general principles, please feel free to post them here for discussion, or send me a pm.

The more contributions we get, the better we can make the lists, so please contribute. I know of several players who didn't hold back in their criticism of certain lists when they first came out, so please don't hold back now!

[Mick.G]

I would like clarification. I am a little confused when a list allows say, three divisions and also allows a division from an allied list; does this mean you can have only three divisions but can have four if you add an allied division?

Some clarification in the new version would be nice.

[David Inglis]

It means you can have a fourth when including an allowed division from another list.

[Neil]

I will say something, thinking from the point of view of the later Austrian lists I know best.

Looking at the 1809 Danube order of battle shows that almost every single brigade in the field was issued with a full battery of divisional guns, so I think every Austrian unit should have access to an artillery attachment. Having said that, light infantry brigades would have a full battery but these would only be 3lb guns so I think Light Infantry unit should only be allowed one attachment for every 2 units.

[edit - reviewing my research, it should be 1 artillery attachment per 2 line infantry as well, because the guns would be assigned to a brigade of two or more units]

Also the restrictions on Tyrolean Jaegers don't make sense. By reputation they were not proper line infantry units, their drill apparently focussed more on fast formation changes and marksmanship than skirmishing. Currently they are represented as Light Infantry, Average Drilled, optional rifles, cannot form skirmish. This makes them essentially an overpriced line infantry unit, and a poor option. They would be better represented as Line Infantry, reformed, average veteran, optional rifles, as this would more historically reflect their level and type of training, and would make this unit actually useful to take rather than a historical curiosity.

There doesn't appear to have been any light infantry or skirmishers used outside of the advance guard divisions so I think that skirmisher attachments should only be allowed in those divisions.

Of all Austrian divisions, only advance guard divisions fielded no corps artillery batteries, so every Austrian division except for advance guards should have the option to take artillery units. The current maximum is set at 5 stands which seems fair, only fits into cavalry-free lists, and matches the historical orders well.
_________________
_________________
Check out my Napoleonic Austrian modelling blog : colonelinhaber.wordpress.com

[BPT]

[BPT]

Hi Neil
Thanks for your thoughts on 1809 Austrians.

You are correct with your edit. Standard Austrian Line Divisions in 1809 had 2 brigades, each of 2 regiments. A 'brigade battery' of 8x6lbers was attached to each brigade, plus an additional 'position' battery of 6x6lbers attached to each division.

Corps Reserve Artillery has generally 2 or 3 12lber batteries plus a Horse battery (18-24 guns).


So, my current thoughts for a 'standard' 1809 Austrian Division would be 4 large Infantry units (regiments) and 2 artillery attachments (the brigade batteries).

The various divisional Position batteries I anticipate cobbling together into artillery units. The Corps will be allowed a heavy artillery unit (the Corps Reserve 12lbers) and a medium artillery unit (the Corps Reserve horse battery plus collected 6lber Position batteries).

Interesting comments on the Jaegers. Not convinced that they should be re-classified as line infantry though - have you read any literature on their role as line infantry with good marksmanship that you could direct me to?

I understand the reason they cannot skirmish in v1 lists is because Jaegers were fielded in individual battalions - to small a formation to warrant a unit at FoGN scale. But for 'colour' Mike wanted to allow players to field their Jaeger units, so decided to allow a FoGN Jaeger unit, which he rationalised as consisting of a Jaeger battalion plus a supporting line battalion. Because the line infantry component cannot skirmish, neither can the FoGN Jaeger unit.

However. There will be no skirmish formation in v2, so it largely becomes a mute point I guess. I agree with you that 1809 Jaeger should be veterans however.

- and good point about the absence of LI outside of Advance Guards. Will remember this when we come to v2 lists.

Cheers
Brett

[Andrew M]

Hi,
I have Austrians in the Netherlands and Rhine 1792-95.
The list defines Grenadiers as Average Veteran.
My question is, shouldn't they be Superior, rather than average?

My understanding is that Grenadiers were selected for their size and enthusiasm for close combat, so would Superior better reflect this?

(I notice Army of Lower Rhine 1796-97 has Grenadiers as Sup Vet, so perhaps there is a reason; are my grenadiers more the delicate, refined type?)

Andrew M

[BPT]

My knowledge of revolutionary Austrians is pretty sparse I'm afraid ...
Not sure I can be of much assistance in analyzing the merits of 1792 Austrian Grenadiers...

But will see what I might have in my bookshelf.

[Andrew M]

Thanks Brett,
I'm curious as to what you might find. I found nothing Haythornwaite's Napoleonic Source. But searching the net I found this site http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Austrian_infantry.htm#_grenadiers which does list sources. The information suggests the Grenadiers should be classified as Superior Veteran (unless there's other information that sheds light on these particular Grenadiers). It gives the following description ;


The first Austrian grenadiers came into being in 1700, at the height of the European vogue for grenade-throwing heavyweight infantry. ... they were marked out by their stature, their swarthy complexions, their bristling moustaches, their arrogant demeanour, their grenadier marches [characterised by alternate passages on the rim and the skin of the drum], and their grenadier caps ..." (Duffy - "Instrument of War" Vol I p 234)

The grenadiers were distinguished by stature and large mustache.
During the Napoleonic wars the requirements for candidates on
Austrian grenadiers were:
- valor
- marksmanship
- at least one campaign
- at least 5 years' service
The grenadiers were taller than the rest of infantry (by the way, the minimum height for Austrian infantryman was 165 cm, and Archduke Charles was only 153 cm tall). Soldiers of the 3rd rank had the greatest chance to become grenadiers - they were used as skirmishers and therefore frequently mastered their schooting skills and hardened their morale. They were also the most physically fit.

[Richard Gordon]

I think the fact that there are two references in your text to their large moustaches should be sufficient in itself to make them superior.

[Mick.G]

Great, now I have to repaint my Austrian Grenadiers - I had painted them with small moustaches!

[Richard Gordon]

Mick, those mo's need to be REALLY big to qualify as superior so don't hold back. I suggest a size 4 brush minimum...

[Neil]

[Richard Gordon]

No not proposing long range dice for attachments

[Mick.G]

In v1 it is possible to take up to 3 large units of artillery in the Austrian Reserve Corps 1813. How will lists like this one be handled?