Thanks for an interesting and helpful tutorial. I am currently building an Austrian army for the 1809 campaign. I decided to go for 10mm as I felt that 28mm would take me ages and having painted that scale most of my wargaming life I fancied a change. I’m playing solo and so have to paint both sides, which is also a consideration. I’m intending to use GdA2 rules and so am looking at a division sized army. Thanks again for the tips👍
That sounds like a pretty cool period to be working on. I know what you mean about the 28mm they look good but are so time-consuming. When you get done it would be great to see some photos of the armies.
I've given thought to adding the Austrians to my 7 Years' War Prussians and French armies. I don't put a wash on; I did one French regiment with a base coat of white, but it turned a grubby gray with a wash, and I didn't like it. I used an Army Painter wash, by the way. That dry brushing technique was interesting, and I may give it a go. I think that 3/4 of the French success up until 1809 was superior generalship by Napoleon and his Marshals, especially Davout, Soult, Lannes, and Murat. Another factor was their better command and control structure overseen by Berthier. The corps and division structure was so much more flexible and manageable than the Austrian/Russian/Prussian use of columns and individual regiments all needing orders during a battle. As for fighting quality, I don't think the Austrians or Russians were that much outclassed. Marengo was almost a disaster for Napoleon that was saved by the timely arrival of Desaix and Napoleon's boldness in making the final counterattack. Austerlitz was an incredibly hard fight for the French. The Austrians pushed the French right hard, and if Davout was even an hour later, they would have caved in Napoleon's flank. The initial fight to get a foothold on the Pratzen Heights was also a grinding slog against both Austrian and Russian troops. It took almost two hours for the French troops to pry enough space away to make the final attack possible. Interestingly, musketry skill and fire discipline was the reason cited by French divisional commanders for the success of the initial push. Again, the clunky command structure and clumsy orders blunted the allied efforts more than troop quality. One shouldn't forget how effective Russian armies could be in the revolutionary war period before the appearance of Napoleon. Suvarov was remarkably successful, and he was using troops fighting in the same manner as they used at Austerlitz and Eylau. The latter should put paid to any question about the fighting quality of the average Russian soldier of the period. When placed in a good position supported by plenty of artillery, they were ferocious on defense and they were able to conduct a massive counterattack that would have smashed the French army if Napoleon hadn't ordered Murat to charge the entire reserve cavalry into them.
Very well said. I have recently read about the Russian troops of the time nearly refusing to surrender when they were fighting leading to so few prisoners. Commented on by a French General although I can't remember who it was. But yes I agree that it was the more strategic level, logistical and army reorganizations that really helped the French along with the raising of more(not all) men to positions of control based on merit rather than social standing. Whilst a lot of the other nations were still based on the older order of society and had not really needed to develop further for a considerable time.
Can you post the link to your Facebook page? I don't see it in the description or on your community page. I have troops and terrain pieces I'd like to share.
![Painting Napoleonic Austrian Infantry in (Mostly) Contrast! [How I Paint Things]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VeMMwDndm3k/mqdefault.jpg)
![Napoleonic French in (Mostly) Contrast for The Silver Bayonet [How I Paint Things]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VbPsNCvNg-0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for an interesting and helpful tutorial. I am currently building an Austrian army for the 1809 campaign. I decided to go for 10mm as I felt that 28mm would take me ages and having painted that scale most of my wargaming life I fancied a change.
I’m playing solo and so have to paint both sides, which is also a consideration. I’m intending to use GdA2 rules and so am looking at a division sized army.
Thanks again for the tips👍
That sounds like a pretty cool period to be working on. I know what you mean about the 28mm they look good but are so time-consuming.
When you get done it would be great to see some photos of the armies.
I've given thought to adding the Austrians to my 7 Years' War Prussians and French armies. I don't put a wash on; I did one French regiment with a base coat of white, but it turned a grubby gray with a wash, and I didn't like it. I used an Army Painter wash, by the way. That dry brushing technique was interesting, and I may give it a go.
I think that 3/4 of the French success up until 1809 was superior generalship by Napoleon and his Marshals, especially Davout, Soult, Lannes, and Murat. Another factor was their better command and control structure overseen by Berthier. The corps and division structure was so much more flexible and manageable than the Austrian/Russian/Prussian use of columns and individual regiments all needing orders during a battle.
As for fighting quality, I don't think the Austrians or Russians were that much outclassed. Marengo was almost a disaster for Napoleon that was saved by the timely arrival of Desaix and Napoleon's boldness in making the final counterattack. Austerlitz was an incredibly hard fight for the French. The Austrians pushed the French right hard, and if Davout was even an hour later, they would have caved in Napoleon's flank. The initial fight to get a foothold on the Pratzen Heights was also a grinding slog against both Austrian and Russian troops. It took almost two hours for the French troops to pry enough space away to make the final attack possible. Interestingly, musketry skill and fire discipline was the reason cited by French divisional commanders for the success of the initial push. Again, the clunky command structure and clumsy orders blunted the allied efforts more than troop quality.
One shouldn't forget how effective Russian armies could be in the revolutionary war period before the appearance of Napoleon. Suvarov was remarkably successful, and he was using troops fighting in the same manner as they used at Austerlitz and Eylau. The latter should put paid to any question about the fighting quality of the average Russian soldier of the period. When placed in a good position supported by plenty of artillery, they were ferocious on defense and they were able to conduct a massive counterattack that would have smashed the French army if Napoleon hadn't ordered Murat to charge the entire reserve cavalry into them.
Very well said. I have recently read about the Russian troops of the time nearly refusing to surrender when they were fighting leading to so few prisoners. Commented on by a French General although I can't remember who it was.
But yes I agree that it was the more strategic level, logistical and army reorganizations that really helped the French along with the raising of more(not all) men to positions of control based on merit rather than social standing. Whilst a lot of the other nations were still based on the older order of society and had not really needed to develop further for a considerable time.
Can you post the link to your Facebook page? I don't see it in the description or on your community page. I have troops and terrain pieces I'd like to share.
facebook.com/groups/715952393378859