One of the least appreciated armies of the Napoleonic Wars is the Austrian of 1809-1815. Perhaps due to the only average performance of the Austrians between 1815 - 1918 and their difficulties with the Italians, French, and Prussians it is easy to say that this is a mediocre army. Also, because the Austrians were usually defeated prior to 1809, it is possible to underrate the Austrians.

I contend that Austria was formidable between 1809 and 1815. As the 1809 campaign opened, they initially threatened Eugene in Italy and were predominately forced back by over extending their supply lines, much to the surprise of France. At Ashern Isling, the Austrians, using their new Corps system under Archduke Charles, administered the first major defeat to Bonaparte. They used combined arms and they massed their guns. Charles led from the front.

At Wagram the updated Austrians, who were outnumbered, fought a battle of attrition. When defeated because of the Corps system they had cleverly copied from the French, they were able to retreat in good order. The era of decisive battle was over forever. When a minion said to Napoleon they were only fighting Austrians, he amazingly replied, "You, sir, were not at the battle of Wagram, it is clear!"

As is obvious by their performance in the WWII Wermacht, the Austrian fighting man is excellent. This is borne out by their performance at Marengo. Why did they improve so much in 1809? Primarily because they adopted the corps system, which Bonaparte perhaps adopted from the writings of Bourcet. The corps system enabled armies to perform the strategy of the central position and the derrieres maneuver making decisive battle almost impossible until the advent of airplanes and tanks. Less importantly, the Austrians also massed their guns and became slightly less dependent on their supply train. They did not go much to conscription, which by reviewing the WWI Russian situation may have been wise and prevented rebellions.

After 1809 until the end of the Napoleonic wars, the Austrians fought well and they were perhaps checked strategically by their emperor as he was wary of his Russian and Prussian allies gaining ascendance in Europe.

Besides the above, are there good reasons to have an Austrian Napoleonic army? First of all, even I can paint them. If you use a black undercoat technique your shako and boots are already done. Any misses with the brush are compensated for by the black at the creases.

I think the grenadiers look splendid. There is no Guard, but the grenadiers were used as a guard and can look quite magnificent in reserve on the table. The light troops look good and show some variety. We all know the Austrian horse was well mounted and determined. I like the fact that the regiments are named after their commanders in the old 18th century style, too.

You can role play your Austrians as swaggering around, beating peasants and marching slowly and deliberately. Old Glory, Essex, and Minifigs have extensive Austrian lines as do AB and other manufacturers I don't yet own.

We all know that when you start collecting Napoleonics, you could never finish, not just because the figures are beautiful, but because each time you add a regiment of anything especially French - you have to add a regiment of at least four and maybe a dozen other countries and it just cannot end!

I heartily recommend 1809 - 1815 Austrians. They fight in corps and they fight and look good on the table. AUF march!

Typed by Terry Smith