Glorious Cavalry Charges

[Count von Csollich]

Ah Charles my favorite foe of Napoleon. He is highly underrated. If he was left to himself and was able to reorganize the Austrian army, what might he have achieved. To me he is the only general who fought Napoleon to a stand still in his prime.

You're definitely right, but as I've seen from the messages to his officers and from my closer study of the engagement at Ebelsberg (near Linz in upper Austria) he was very arrogant, though able, and at this town left out an opportunity. He could have insured a serious morale blow to the French if he hadn't hesitated and held back his subordinate FZM Hiller...

[antiochus]

 A Hapsburg prince arrogant how novel

[Count von Csollich]

allright point taken 
but nevertheless it's well known that the Hapsburgs always preferred marriage to war

[antiochus]

 I'm rereading a lot of Napoleonic books latlely in anticipation. I think it was in " Napoleon as a general " that the author makes the point that Charles won at even Wagram because he still had an army in hand. That from the view of a Hapsburg prince he was able to continue the dynasty and not have a catastrophic collapse and civil war ie " melting pot on a cold stove" as the empire was. So the point was Charles could not really go for broke in any of his engagements because this was always on his mind.

 What was it " happy Austria find ( ? ) in the marrige bed"

[Cavalier]

but nevertheless it's well known that the Hapsburgs always preferred marriage to war

I was not aware that there was a difference.

[HarryInk]

Unfortunately they too often just married their own.  Ain't too many families (outside of the far reaches of Oregon or Kentucky) that have a series of heriditary diseases named after them!

I'm reading Gill's 'thunder on the danube'.  The first two chapters, on the Hapsburg's confused and reactionary politics for going to war in 1809, are fascinating.

[Stiboo]

I think the point is -

There WERE cavalry charges in Napoleonic battles and these had an important impact in many of those battles.

Cavalry DID charge infantry squares no matter how stupid it seems to us now - they still did it, remember infantry formed square to repulse an expected attack not just to stop any attack at all ever happening..

So these should happen in the game,

“ Cavalry is useful before, during, and after the battle.”
 - Napoleon

[antiochus]

But the question really was, what kind of charge would you see. If cavalry attacked squares you would see them milling around shooting their pistols at the square not impaling themselves on it. When the french cavalry crested the hill at Waterloo they thought they were going to find a retreating army not one awaiting their attack. The reason Ney ordered the charge is because he thought the British were retreating. One more thing charges are very different than what we have been taught to imagime. A charge would start out as a walk and then develop slowly into trot and then only for 100 yards or so would it be a gallop. A rider on a blown horse is useless so you want to conserve their energy as much as possible. The infantry if they were going to break would have probably done it in the trot phase and not wait for the gallop. By then they would be already dead meat.A horse if it finds itself in a situation not to it's liking can stop on a dime. Look how many start at a fast pace to do a jump and then end up right before stopping and chucking the rider over the jump bar.

 Now I will grant you that a rider and a horse that have been a team for a long time will be much more in sync and the horse will trust the riders judgement much more. But with horse attritrition at the rate it was during these wars i would be surprised if most riders had a mount longer than a month if that long.

[Count von Csollich]

What was it " happy Austria find ( ? ) in the marrige bed"

Tu Felix Austria nube... You lucky Austria - Marry! 

[Count von Csollich]

A rider on a blown horse is useless so you want to conserve their energy as much as possible.

As seen at Eylau...surely you all remember the famous answer of the Grenadiers a Cheval when asked to surrender with their blown horses!!!

[Count von Csollich]

I'm reading Gill's 'thunder on the danube'.  The first two chapters, on the Hapsburg's confused and reactionary politics for going to war in 1809, are fascinating.

I find most fascinating that Charles actually was against launching an offensive but continuously lost his support in the "Kriegsrat" (similiar to "Horseguards")... he repeatedly urged his brother Francis to wait as his reforms had been implemented yes but not tried out and the troops still weren't familiar with them...

actually we could start a whole new topic on the campaign of 1809? anyone interested??

[antiochus]

 Thanks for that.I can't believe some of the things that i forget or twist at times.

We in the states, at least where I'm from call it having CRS  ( can't remember merde ).

[antiochus]

 No i don't what was their answer?

 I remember the " Hold your heads up those are bullets not turds " from earlier in the battle.

[Count von Csollich]

No i don't what was their answer?

 I remember the " Hold your heads up those are bullets not turds " from earlier in the battle.

Colonel Louis Lepic, after having passed the Russian lines twice, found himself and a few Grenadiers a Cheval surrounded by Russian Infantry and shouted out loud, after having received the Request to surrender: "Look at these faces, and see if they mean anything like surrender!" Following this he and his fellow men cut their way to freedom and returned to their own lines...

[antiochus]

Eylau had some of the best quotes. Like Soults " and we them our bullets are not made of cotten".