HMGS COLD WARS Just got back from HMGS Cold Wars in Lancaster, P.A. and as usual there were many things to report on, so I'll try and summarize my impressions. Attendance appeared to be about normal despite some bad weather in the northeast that may have delayed the arrival of some gainers. They moved the flea market area, again, but I think they got it right this time, putting it in a well lit room, although they could have done a better job advertising its location since I met several people who had no idea where it was. The dealer area was crowded and most of the usual vendors were in attendance. There was a big crowd around the Old Glory tables, looking at several new items. The remainder of the 15mm Napoleonic Russian line was on display. In last month's column I voiced some reservations about quality of the Russian line infantry. I have no such reservations about the rest of the Russians. The Russian grenadiers, cavalry and artillery are up to the previous Old Glory standard. The Cossacks were particularly impressive. In addition to the Russians I picked up the Austrian Tyrolian guerillas, which completes their Austrian series, Very nice indeed. I also saw Old Glory's Austrian package of Austrian commanders. This pack includes 20 command figures, each one different, including a Archduke Charles figure carrying a standard, based on an incident during the battle of Aspern Essling in which Charles rallied a wavering regiment by grabbing its regimental flag. I understand that Old Glory will be releasing a similar series for the French, which will feature several sets of figures. The total line will offer every French marshal and each set will include a different Napoleon figure. The Old Glory catalog also featured the announcement of the 15mm Napoleonic Bavarians, Saxons, Wurtembergers and Poles, to be available sometime in the near future. Other popular items from Old Glory included their 15mm Seven Years War Prussians and 25mm French and Indian figures. Old Glory indicated that their next foray in the 25mm line will be the American Revolution. I think they will do very well with that line. There are some wars that lend themselves to 25mm figures and I think the American Revolution is one of those. There was alot of discussion of the New York lead ban and its implications on the future. There seemed to be some agreement that most figure manufacturers will be phasing out of lead towards pewter but the impact on prices is still uncertain. It wouldn't have been an HMGS convention unless there was some controversy. Scattered around the convention were a series of posters questioning the wisdom of the HMGS decision to spend about $5,000 to temporaily air condition the dealer area for Historicon and pass the cost along to attendees. There has been pointed criticism over the past few years about the influence of the dealers on various decisions, including the move from Harrisburg to Lancaster. This move was defended by HMGS by citing the expanded room for dealers and gaming. I would have thought somebody would have checked out the air conditioning situation before they decided to move to Lancaster. Some critics of the HMGS decision to provide air conditioning have suggested that the Lancaster Host Resort should shoulder the cost or lose the convention. I sense the beginning of a very messy argument. I also heard grumbling about the new painting competition to be unveiled at Historicon which will feature a two tiered structure. Previous painting winners would compete with each other in a masters level, which the rest of us would compete in a novice class. I think most people agree with this structure. The controversy surrounds the $200 prize to be offered in the masters class. Several people, including some previous painting competition winners, voiced concern about the monetary prize, arguing that the plaques are appropriate prizes. ASPERN-ESSLING I ran an 1809 scenario twice on Saturday. The game was based on the first day of Aspern-Essling. Two divisions of French infantry occupied held the villages that anchored the flanks, while a cavalry division made up of a brigade of curaissiers and chassuers held the center. The Austrians outnumbered the French in both cavarly and infantry, but the French held strong positions in the villages. During both scenarios there were furious cavalry battles in the center, pitting the French cuirassiers and chassuers against Austrian cuirassiers, dragoons, chevalegers and hussars. As the cavalry battle ebbed and flowed in the center the Austrians tried to figure out how to capture the villages. The Austrian attempts to capture the villages in both games featured different strategies that unfortunately produced similar results. Combat in built up areas is a unique feature of Napoleonic warfare that provides several interesting lessons. It was a difficult, time consuming process that could expend significant resources. In the morning game the Austrians moved tentatively to capture both villages. They surrounded both Aspern and Essling on three sides but then their attacks took different paths. At Essling on the French right flank the Austrian violated the first rule of village fighting, always launch coordinated attacks. The Austrian commanders around Essling never tried to attack with more than one regiment at time, allowing the French to concentrate their limited resources aginst one attack. The Austrians kept throwing regiments against the village, only to have them repulsed. On the other flank, against Aspern, the Austrian violated the second rule, which is that you can't drive out the enemy with artillery or musket fire. Even though they arrayed three batteries against one French battery the Austrian artillery fire did little to weaken the French defenders. They did manage to wreck the French battery, but they exhausted themselves in the process. On several occasions the Austrian infantry drew themselved up before the village and tried to shoot it out with the French. In one firefight the French regiment in the village took 40 casualties while inflicting over 350 on the Austrian Grenz regiment facing them. It didn't take long before the Austrians were forced to fall back and they never did manage to launch more than one assault on Aspern. At the end of the game the Austrian cavalry had been thoroughly defeated, while the infantry finally captured a section of Essling on the last turn. The only bright spot for the Austrians acutally resulted from a French mistake. A French chassuer regiment charged a fresh Austrian regiment, which formed square and destroyed the 428 man French regiment. The French remained in firm control of Aspern. The Austrian's lost 4,330 infantry, 1,084 cavalry, 77 artillerymen, 1 gun, 6 standards and 1,249 prisioners. The French lost 1,708 infantry, 691 cavalry, 155 artillerymen, 6 guns, 2 standards and 42 prisioners. In the second game the Austrians tried something different, based in part on observing the earlier Austrian debacle. The Austrians decided to concentrate their attacks on only one village, directing their infantry facing the other village to try and cut off the village from the French bridgehead, perhaps forcing them to come out of the village and fight them in the open field. The key to this strategy was that the Austrian cavalry would sweep the French cavalry from the field, otherwise the Austrian infantry thrust at the bridgehead would be stalled. Given the Austrian cavalry failure during the first game I'm not sure why the Austrians believed they'd fare any better during this game. They decided to assualt Aspern and bypass Essling. The Austrian cavalry did gain ground in the center, despite the routing of f the field of several regiments. The cavalry action in the center delayed the Austrian advance against the bridgehead and forced them to pass by Essling, exposing them to galling artillery and musket fire. The French cavalry struggled more in this scenario but still drove the Austrians back and then began to threaten the infantry. Although the Austrians did overrun several French artillery batteries they were attacked by the French cavalry, which routed at least one Austrian regiment. The French infantry in Essling also sallied out of the village and attacked the Austrians. The main Austrain attack against Aspern was better coordinated than the earlier effort but despite their intent to launch similtaneous attacks, command and control problems delayed portions of the assault, resulting in a peicemeal approach. The French did manage to beat of f several Austrian attacks before they were diven from a portion of Aspern. The Austrians were too exhausted from their earlier efforts to exploit this success and night fell with the Austrians holding on tenuously in a portion of Aspern. French losses included 2,286 infantry, 854 cavalry, 333 artillerymen, 13 guns, 2 standards and 201 prisioners. The Austrian's lost 8,544 infantry, 1,119 cavalry, 73 artillerymen, 3 guns, 7 standards and 1,658 prisioners. Several French generals suffered a variety of wounds but despite participating in several counter-attacks Marshal Lannes survived the action. LUTZEN AND BAUTZEN, NAPOLEON'S 1813 SPRING CAMPAIGN George Nafziger has just published Lutzen and Bautzen, Napoleon's 1813 Spring Campaign, Emperors Press. This book focuses on the period following Napoleon's disasterous 1812 Russian campaign, when the French Emperor was faced with the monumental task of rebuildihg his army and keeping his increasingly disgruntled allies in line while defending Europe from the Russian advance. As with Nafzigers previous book on the 1812 Russian campaign this book provides a wealth of detailed information about the various armies and the progress of the campaign. The book follows the rebuilding of the French army during the early months of 1813 and describes how the Russians and their allies took advantage of a disjointed and dispirited French command structure to push the French out of the Duchy of Warsaw and back towards France with relative ease. This period of the 1813 campaign has usually been glossed over, but Nafziger describes how Murat abandoned his command to return to Italy and how Eugene, who took over command on Murat's departure, was completely stampeded and outmanuvered Russian cossack raids. A question that Nafziger does not answer is just why Napoleon put either Murat or Eugene in command when he had much more competent marshals available. The book includes detailed descriptions of the movements and organizations of the armies, as well as summaries of the political manuevering that resulted in the defection of the Prussians and the Austrian withdrawal from active campaigning. While the actual battles of Bauzten and Lutzen are described in great detail the book also includes information about smaller skirmishes and battles that are usually overlooked. Many of these smaller actions would make interesting scenarios for tabletop battles. My only criticism of the book is that Nafziger appears to have adopted the approach that if some detail is good then more detail must be even better. There are points at which the narrative is overwhelmed by the detailed information about troop movements and organization or reorganization. Contributing to this confusion is a general lack of good mapping. This was a shortcoming in Nafzigers 1812 book and unfortunately it is repeated in Bauzten/Lutzen. While there are quite a few maps they come from various sources, in different scales, in varying quality, some with legends, some without. It is sometimes difficult to follow the intricate movements of various forces without the reference to a good series of maps. Don't get me wrong... I like detailed information, but if it's not organized well it can be confusing. Nafziger deals with three issues that I have been interested in related to the 1813 campaign. Napoleon has been criticized for leaving a large number of veteran troops in various fortresses behind as his main forces retreated. Nafziger explores the impact of these fortresses on the campaign and concludes that the strategy should be termed a success if these fortresses tied down more enemy resources than they required. Against this standard he claims that Napoleon was justified in maintaining the fortresses. Bautzen/Lutzen includes an extensive section describing Marechal Davout's campaign to recapture Hamburg. Nafziger adequately explains why Napoleon was so concerned about recapturing and holding Hamburg. The fact that he dispatched Davout to oversee the operation reflected his anxiety about the loss of Hamburg. Despite Napoleon's desire to regain Hamburg I am still not convinced that Davout's presence was required for administering the city. His military skills would have been better utilized on the battlefields of Bauzten and Luzten. Napoleon's decision to leave Davout in Hamburg may have doomed his 1813 campaign. Napoleon's decision to accept the 1813 armistace remains a controversal issue and Nafziger concludes that while there were some good reasons, principally the lack of adequate cavalry, for entering into the agreement, Napoleon could have continued the campaign. It is possible that one more French victory may well have driven the Russians back into Poland, and concluded a peace that maintained the bulk of the French empire. Bauzten/Luzten is a valuable contribution to Napoleonic history and should be required reading for all Napoleonic wargamers. Back to MWAN #63 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1993 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com