Questions regarding reforms for 1860's Austrian Army

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
It should come as a surprise that the Austrian (and later Austro-Hungarian Army) had a very horrifying win-loss record during the mid 19th century all the way until the fall of the Empire in 1918 (in fact it's only wins post-Napoleon were the First Italian War of Independence and the Second Schleswig War).

What if the Austrians suffer a worse enough defeat in the Second Italian War of Independence (an example borrowed from my timeline being Sardinia winning all of Lombardy-Venetia) What would it take for reforms to pass regarding the Austrian Army during the 1860's and who would be the one to spearhead such reforms?
 
The issue with the Austrian army, at least during the Seven Weeks War, was less that it was a bad military vis-à-vis organization, morale, troops, weapons, supplies, etc., and more that it had poor leadership. If Benedeck hadn't hesitated when he had the Prussian First and Elbe armies on the ropes Sadová would have been a crushing defeat for the Prussians.
 
It should come as a surprise that the Austrian (and later Austro-Hungarian Army) had a very horrifying win-loss record during the mid 19th century all the way until the fall of the Empire in 1918 (in fact it's only wins post-Napoleon were the First Italian War of Independence and the Second Schleswig War).

Austria defeated the Italians in 1866; of course it did them no good. And Austria eventually did defeat Serbia in 1915.

Austria lost both of those wars, but not because of the army's failures.

Germany lost both World Wars, but not because its army was incompetent.

What would it take for reforms to pass regarding the Austrian Army during the 1860's and who would be the one to spearhead such reforms?

No idea. Sorry.
 

ingemann

Banned
I think the best way is to read up on latter Austrian military reforms and push them through earlier.
In general most reforms in this period, was focused on a few elements. Change from musket to rifles, changes to conscription (increase the number of conscripted soldier and the years serving) and logistic. Of course I think that Austrian problems wasn't military even if their command sucked, but their infrastructure. Much of the German success came from their ability to move troops fast to the front, feed them and replace them. The Austrian problem was twofold between 1814-1848 the Austrian Empire grew stagnant, the reforms they had been through before and under the Napoleons Wars was stopped, and Austria's neighbours outgrew them. After 1848 and until 1918 the Austrian hit a new problem, while the Prussian economic policies focused on the state develop the infrastructure (canal and railroads) necessary for economic developments, the Austrians embraced the Austrian school, which focused on letting private actor develop the necessary infrastructure against the state keeping the taxes low. The result was that the Austrian infrastructure stayed rather underdeveloped outside border regions to Germany and the Austrian core.

So a way to improve Austria is in the aftermath of the Napoleon Wars keep pushing some reforms through. A start could be the removal of serfhood in Galicia and Hungary mixed with a land reform. The result would be the birth of an rural middleclass, which would increase both tax income and push the creation of light industry. Of course it would also lower the production of cash crops and the export, but the increase domestic demand and tax income would more than make up for lost tariffs. It would also have broken the back of the Hungarian aristocracy.
The Austrian school was to large extent adopted because most money in the Austrian empire was made from agricultural production (which was exported on the Danube) or from the mining and industry in the border regions. As such there was little interest among the rich to raise taxes for infrastructure, because they had little need for it. With the development of light industry for domestic demand, there will be a greater demand to develop the infrastructure.
 
The issue with the Austrian army, at least during the Seven Weeks War, was less that it was a bad military vis-à-vis organization, morale, troops, weapons, supplies, etc., and more that it had poor leadership. If Benedeck hadn't hesitated when he had the Prussian First and Elbe armies on the ropes Sadová would have been a crushing defeat for the Prussians.

The same thing can be said about the 2nd Italian Independence war, as Gyulay was far to cautious. He should of rushed at Sardinia right away before the French could cross the Alps.

I roughly agree with Ingemann, infrastructure was a huge difference. Though the US was able to build up a decent infrastructure in the East without too much government support. In the Western US government support was needed. In the Austrian Empire they would probably need Imperial/Kingdom government support in Galicia, Eastern Hungary, Croatia, and Transylvania (maybe not with all the mines here). However, they should be able to leave Austria, Bohemia, Lombardy-Venetia, and Western Hungary to local government or private development. Though, as Ingemann said the "key" would be an actual need (like light industry &/or rural middle-class) to build the railroads, besides military/state planning.

The other big glaring weakness, which a historical Austrian weakness, is Field Marshal officers. Austria's military just does not know how create or develop quality generals. When she has a great general (like Eugene or Radetzky) it is the obvious exception. A good set of Field Marshal officers might of noticed the infrastructure problems and other military problems like out-dated tactics/troop conscription.
 
Last edited:
The Austrians did push through reforms, and usually pretty good ones. After Solferino 1859, in which the French rifled artillery outranged and outgunned the smoothbore Austrian artillery, the Austrians reformed and re-equipped their artillery, and at Königgrätz it was all excellently handles rifled artillery that outclassed its Prussian counterpart. However, the Prussians outmanouvred the Austrias.

A nice PoD would be the dissolvement of serfdom and a land reform in Galizia and Hungary after the revolts of 1848. This creates a class of landed peasants grateful to the state and increases a need and investment in infrastructure and industry, and creates a loyal base which to recruit soldiers from. Invest a bit more in reforms and infrastructure, and set up a cadet school for officers, and you will have a competent Austrian force.
 

ingemann

Banned
The other big glaring weakness, which a historical Austrian weakness, is Field Marshal officers. Austria's military just does not know how create or develop quality generals. When she has a great general (like Eugene or Radetzky) it is the obvious exception. A good set of Field Marshal officers might of noticed the infrastructure problems and other military problems like out-dated tactics/troop conscription.

An expansion of the army would likely help with that. Bigger armies mean that you have to find commanders and officers outside the nobility and do more to educate them. This mean that you will both get a standardised officer education with clear measurable target (grades) and you will have a bigger talent pull.
Of course the Austrian Empire will always have a qualitative inferior army to Germany/Prussia, as their NCO will never reach Prussian quality.
This is based on the NCO of the Prussian army are result of a long development from the Soldier King's reforms, and only really work in an army, where the people mostly have a common identity (the NCO need to see their men as part of the same group identity as themselves).
 
Again, it was already competent. You don't need massive sweeping reforms to get what the OP asked for, you just need a little more pluck on the part of a few high ranking officers.
 
Top