What traits of Habsburg Austria made it capable of sustaining a multi-ethnic empire for so long?
- Thread starter Moetron 9000
- Start date
That I blame on Charles VI
Well, indeed, but Hapsburgs' military "unreadiness" looks as a pattern. Of course, performance in the War of the Austrian Succession can be blamed upon Charles VI who did not follow Eugene's advice of spending money on army rather than on bribing the electors.
But it is not like Austria was "ready" to the 7YW, especially as far as its leadership was involved and this (generally mediocre quality of the leadership) seems to be a pattern. Charles of Lorraine, who by the time of the 7YW had a "stellar" record of being defeated both by Fritz and Marshal de Saxe, retained his position due to the influence of his brother and lived to his reputation all the way to the Battle of Leuthen which forced his removal (after that he proved to be a good administrator of the Austrian Netherlands ). His successor, Daun, was a skillful commander and even managed to score some successes but he was lacking aggressiveness (which was clear to everybody including himself). He also seemingly had very peculiar (obviously, not from the Austrian perspective
) ideas on how to supply the allies fighting on Austrian behalf (most of the war Russian armies had to rely on the supply bases in the PLC) and what military cooperation amounts to. As a result, even before the death of empress Elizabeth, Russian-Austrian cooperation became tenuous, to put it mildly. Laudon was capable and energetic (perhaps slightly too energetic) but got high command only in his last war. Lacy was seemingly a good military administrator but (unlike his father, Peter von Lacy) not such a brilliant field commander.Then go the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with only one above the average Austrian general (and, IIRC, the only above the general Austrian general who was an Austrian
) being Archduke Charles. Then you have to wait until Radetsky and then .... nothing worthy of mentioning.
I strongly disagree about Austria's war readiness for the 7YW. At the war's start, the Austrian army was in the beat shape in had been in decades after Maria Theresa's considerable efforts at reform, both of the army and of the state. I did once write a 3000 odd word essay on more or less so if you want more people I can share that here but essentially between the end of the War of Austrian Succession and 1756 the Austrian artillery was overhauled by von Liechtenstein to become the best in Europe and the entire army's uniform, command structure and training was redesigned and reorganised. There was a reason Prussia was on the verge of total defeat within a few years of the 7YW starting.Well, indeed, but Hapsburgs' military "unreadiness" looks as a pattern. Of course, performance in the War of the Austrian Succession can be blamed upon Charles VI who did not follow Eugene's advice of spending money on army rather than on bribing the electors.
But it is not like Austria was "ready" to the 7YW, especially as far as its leadership was involved and this (generally mediocre quality of the leadership) seems to be a pattern. Charles of Lorraine, who by the time of the 7YW had a "stellar" record of being defeated both by Fritz and Marshal de Saxe, retained his position due to the influence of his brother and lived to his reputation all the way to the Battle of Leuthen which forced his removal (after that he proved to be a good administrator of the Austrian Netherlands ). His successor, Daun, was a skillful commander and even managed to score some successes but he was lacking aggressiveness (which was clear to everybody including himself). He also seemingly had very peculiar (obviously, not from the Austrian perspective
Then go the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with only one above the average Austrian general (and, IIRC, the only above the general Austrian general who was an Austrian
You did not get it: I was talking about their military leadership. IIRC, it was Nappy who said that a herd of sheep lead by a lion is better than a bunch of lions led by a sheep. Hopefully, you are not going to insist that Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine was a good commander-in-chief.
Prussia was on a verge of disaster (according to Fritz himself) after the crushing defeat at Kunersdorf in which Austrian troops amounted to less than 30% of the allied force and took part in the battle (only cavalry led by Laudon) only after the final attack of the Prussian cavalry on Russian positions had been repelled by the intensive artillery fire. Austrian artillery was quite irrelevant in that victory and their uniforms even less so. And the reason why the total defeat of Prussia did not happen was Daun's unwillingness to act aggressively.
Well aware of that, I just wanted to point out that your wording implied Habsburg ownership of Hamburg.
If you choose to look for one sure.
Charles of Lorraine aside, I think Austria was mostly ready for the resumption of hostilities.
No love for Karl Schwarzenberg or József Alvinczi? I mean I think its worth noting that of the rather exclusive pool of Generals who've beaten Napoleon, three of them were Austrian.Then go the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with only one above the average Austrian general (and, IIRC, the only above the general Austrian general who was an Austrian
You make it sound like that's a long wait, I mean he was Schwarzenberg's chief of staff at Leipzig.
Also, he's a butcher but Haynau was very good at what he did.
Kövess, Borojević, and Tersztyánszky weren't great, but I think one would be remiss to not give them a footnote.
That said I do think Austria had a bit of a problem with not recognizing and promoting their most talent officers, letting them instead waste away in the lower ranks for far too long while the politically connected sit at the top. With perhaps the most egregious example being how Artúr Görgei was able to spend 13 years in the Austrian army only for him to him to never advance beyond lieutenant, become completely disinterested in a military career, and latter lead the Honved against them.
Last edited:
I "got it", I agree the Austrian leadership was pretty terrible but the army itself was arguably the best it had ever been.
A valid point but considering how all conquering Prussia had been in the War of Austrian Succession the fact that the Austrians were able to inflict any defeats on them at all was impressive. Additionally, I fail to see your point regarding the artillery, so they weren't directly involved in the Battle of Kunersdorf, that's hardly indicative of their quality... Austrian artillery was widely regarded as one of the finest artillery wings in Europe even in WWI. And as for your uniform comment, you missed the point. That was merely an example of how things were comprehensively improved, from the minor matter of the uniform to the major matters of organization.
Last but not least, the reason for the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg was the sudden death of Tsarina Elizabeth and her replacement by the Prussiaphile Peter who pulled Russia out of the war.
The Austrian had no problem fighting south of Belgrad in the great turkish war before they had to trasfer they best troops to the french war. I think they could resonably take the territory they took in 1718 already in the Great Turkish war. The most I see them holding is Nis but thats unlikely.
Which did not prevent it from being mostly beaten in the battles.
Schwarzenberg was a joke appointed due to the political consideration. Alexander was complaining that he got grey hairs trying to force him to advance. And József Alvinczi surely qualifies as a military genius for failing to relieve Mantua and being defeated at Arcoli and Rivoli.
I know but his fame as an army commander is related to the campaigning in Italy which was in 1830's when he was in his seventies.
You know, this is a scary thing to say about an army which lost at Leuthen.
Of course, a lot of work had been done between the wars and in some areas Austrian army was very good and one more than one occasion it performed quite well but it was not winning the war even with a lot of help and this was a BIG problem.
I was just commenting on the claim that it were Austrians who put Prussia on a brink of a defeat.
Seemingly was not helping them too much in the terms of winning the battles and wars. They also had well-educated staff officers. One of them authored allied plan of Austerlitz battle.
This statement belongs to the thread "Popular misconcepts....".
Even before her death the "miracle" happened: the allied commanders were on barely speaking/communicating terms, Russian newly-appointed (by Elizabeth) commander, Buturlin, was not advancing anywhere, mostly protecting (not very successfully) supply bases in the PLC and the only serious actions happened in Pomerania where Rumiantsev forced capitulation of Kolberg (1761) to allow secure supplies by the Baltic Sea.
However, the factual breakdown happened even earlier, soon after Kunersdorf, when Saltikov was pissed off with Daun's inactivity. Some kind of cooperation was still maintained but the Russian commanders did not see too much sense in sticking their neck for a benefit of the ally that did not want to take a risk.
Of course, there was absolutely nothing "sudden" in Elizabeth's death: she was heavily sick by the time of
Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf (1757) and everybody expected her to die earlier than she did.
Mate your wording was "above average" not "military genius". Please put the goal posts back where you found them.
Also, how did Alexander's favouritism for aggressive strategy pan out at Austerlitz? I'd say making that Tsar stir crazy is a +1 for Schwarzenberg.
edit:
Yeah but at that point you're just complaining that Austria wasn't at war all that frequently.
Last edited:
Well, none of the contemporaries considered Schwarzenberg a great general and Alvinci was not able to relieve Mantua and lost at Rivoli. What's so great about him? Success in some skirmishes which did not change a strategic situation?
Well, on the issue of the grey hairs Alexander was referencing to the campaigns of 1813 - 1814 when at least some of Austerlitz-time foolishness was gone: starting from 1812 he was not trying to play a military commander just a "pusher". To be fair, in this capacity he was not very successful with the most advertised of his own generals, Kutuzov (who greatly obliged him by a timely death).
"Great" no, but again, your wording was "above average". And even with the near disaster at Dresden he was able to salvage his army and retreat in good order.
Fredrick the Great was caught sleeping on the job at Hochkirch, and Napoleon thought 600,000 men would be able to easily feed themselves through foraging in the Russian backwood. Even the greats have bad days, I'd say someone can lose to Napoleon and remain "above average".
You considered Archduke Charles to be above average despite Aspern-Essling being basically just a very large skirmish with minimal strategic implications. Ergo I'd confer the same status on Alvinczi.
Dresden was a disaster after which Metternich was considering peace negotiations with Napoleon. Not that all allied troops retreated in a good order: Schwarzenberg's left wing was smashed. The Russian and Prussian troops of the right wing did retreat in a good order and managed to defeat Vandamme at Kulm couple days later minimizing effect of Dresden and putting Austrians back into the fighting mood.
It seems that some Austrian troops had been involved at Kulm as well (Coloredo division moved behind the French left flank contributing to Vandamme's encirclement) but the top general in charge during the 2nd day was Barclay who got the credit (and St. George the 1st class
) even if the French had been stopped during the 1st day by the junior generals acting upon their own initiative. BTW, Nappy at Dresden was outnumbered 3:2 (214:135) and managed to inflict 38K losses while losing 10K.
Failures of the great commanders do not make all defeated generals qualifying as "above the average". Above the average general could lose to Napoleon (more than one did) but there was nothing outstanding in Alvinci.
You can confer whatever you want to whoever you want. The question is who is going to agree with you?
Essling was the 1st Austrian (and anybody's; well, Bennigsen claimed a victory at Eylau based on the greater French losses but, unlike Charles at Essling, he retreated after the battle) major field victory over Napoleon and prior to this Charles was quite successful during the Revolutionary Wars (Amberg, Würzburg, Emmendingen, Zürich, Ostrach, Stockach, and Messkirch). He reformed Austria's armies to adopt the nation-at-arms principle. Napoleon respected him enough to ask to be his proxy at wedding with Maria-Louise. This is why Charles has his monument in Vienna's Square of the Heroes. I don't recall any monument to Alvinci and one of Schwarzenberg is far away from the city center, close to the palace of the Princes of Schwarzenberg. Let Austrians to grade their own heroes. Of course, being a German, Hans Delbruck described Chalres as being empty-headed but I don't think that this opinion stuck.
Alvinci defeated Napoleon twice, once while outnumbered. At Arcola Napoleon was only spared defeat by the timely arrival of reinforcements. At Rivoli the forces under Alvinczi's direct control met with initial success only for two of his subordinates to get outflanked. Due to failing health he wasn't ever afforded the opportunity to have another rematch or make a bigger name for himself, but still he was probably the toughest opponent Napoleon faced at any point in the War of the First Coalition.
edit:
If beating up on Napoleon's underlings counts as above average then Schwarzenberg certainly qualifies as he never had much difficulty with that. Also, while the Tsar may not have liked him, Napoleon respected him enough to request his service durring the Russian campaign.
Last edited:
As I said the Prussian army was a beast and had one of the finest commanders in history, comparing an army's quality against that (especially when commanded by a bumbling idiot like Charles of Lorraine) is hardly a fair comparison. Fredrick the Great saidYou know, this is a scary thing to say about an army which lost at Leuthen.
Of course, a lot of work had been done between the wars and in some areas Austrian army was very good and one more than one occasion it performed quite well but it was not winning the war even with a lot of help and this was a BIG problem.
I was just commenting on the claim that it were Austrians who put Prussia on a brink of a defeat.
Seemingly was not helping them too much in the terms of winning the battles and wars. They also had well-educated staff officers. One of them authored allied plan of Austerlitz battle.
This statement belongs to the thread "Popular misconcepts....".
Even before her death the "miracle" happened: the allied commanders were on barely speaking/communicating terms, Russian newly-appointed (by Elizabeth) commander, Buturlin, was not advancing anywhere, mostly protecting (not very successfully) supply bases in the PLC and the only serious actions happened in Pomerania where Rumiantsev forced capitulation of Kolberg (1761) to allow secure supplies by the Baltic Sea.
However, the factual breakdown happened even earlier, soon after Kunersdorf, when Saltikov was pissed off with Daun's inactivity. Some kind of cooperation was still maintained but the Russian commanders did not see too much sense in sticking their neck for a benefit of the ally that did not want to take a risk.
Of course, there was absolutely nothing "sudden" in Elizabeth's death: she was heavily sick by the time of
Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf (1757) and everybody expected her to die earlier than she did.
As for the disaster at Leuthen,
Sorry, on what level is inflicting Frederick the Great's first defeat at the Battle of Kolin, the occupation of Berlin by 5000 hussars, the defeat of a Prussian army of 30,000 with an army a third of the size at Domstadtl, the surrender of 14,000 Prussians at Maxen in the lead up to the Battle of Kunersdorf, Austrian troops being decisive in winning at Kunersdorf,
victory at the Battle of Landshut, a second occupation of Berlin but Austro-Russian forces, the capture of Schweidnitz and the devastation of Prussian forces to less than 60,000, the breaking of Prussia's economy and ravaging of its coubtrtside not both winning the war and/or contributing significantly to driving Prussia to the brink of defeat.
I don't understand this point, you seem be to be agreeing with me here but not in the rest of your post...
As for your argument on the Miracle of Brandenburg, I disagree with you on that, it is true that Prussia was just about holding back the French, Russians and Austrians after Kunersdorf, but immediately before Elizabeth's death and Peter III's decision to not only withdraw from the alliance with Austria but also actually send a Russian army to help Prussia (thereby over doubling the Prussian army) was one of the main causes for the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg.
Last but not least, you use example of Austrian defeats to say their army and leadership was bad (and I agree that the leadership was far from perfect) but both von Daun and Laudon were somewhat competent commanders, von Daun more so than you give him credit for. Additionally, you can't judge the Austrian army's performance without comparing it to the the French (supposedly the greatest land power in Europe) and Russian performances against the same opponents.
Last edited:
Eh Russia did pretty well, Pyotr Saltykov was no Suvorov but he was still pretty decent. France at this time wasn't even able to beat Hannover, so I think it's reputation was almost a negative mirror of reality.
They did pretty well but still were defeated several times and as for France I do agree that their reputation, earned under Louis XIV, was far from the truth in the 7YW.