"Austrian letdown in the Tyrol" Topic

Inbetween researching some Peninsular actions, I've been doing some reading on Hofer and the Tyrol revolt.

The Tyrol revolt of 1809 could be seen as ideal for smaller action and skirmishing wargames and is, in some ways, similar to the guerrilla warfare that took place in Spain. But unlike the actions in Spain, wargamers can employ Austrians and Tyroleans against French, Bavarians and Saxons.

It seems that, despite promises from the Austrian Emperor, the Tyroleans were deserted by the Austrians, especially after Napoleon's victory at Wagram. and they were left to manage on their own. However, it seems they fared quite well without them, if not better at times. This could be because they were fighting on their own turf and without the Austrians they generally stuck to guerrilla type of warfare, which gave them the advantage over their French, Bavarian and Saxon opponents.

In one case, the Tyrolean advance was blocked by a cannon covering the crossing of a bridge. The nifty Tyroleans climbed under the bridge and came up behind the gun and captured it.

If someone is looking for something different to wargame, I would suggest considering wargaming the Tyrolean revolt. I have already bought some Bavarians and some Austrian figures, some which might just pass as Tyroleans, from Front Rank, for some future skirmishing games.

I've not yet attempted to search out any decent OOB's but one book worth viewing, if you can get hold of it, is Loyal Rebels: Andreas Hofer and the Tyrolean Uprising of 1809 by F. Gunther Eyck, 1986. It offers some very suprising aspects of the revolt, including Tyroleans looting fellow Tyroleans and a suggestion that some of those doing the revolting, were inspired more by a desire not to pay taxes than for purely patriotic reasons.

It is an interesting campaign and Eureka actually do Tyrolean figures for it including one of Hofer himself.

Artillerymann

It certainly is and full of fascinating characters. Yet, for some reason, it seems mainly overlooked. I'm sure if people looked into it more, as I have started to do, they would start wargaming the revolt, especially since you can have regular, irregular and guerilla formations, fighting side by side. And you can have women and priests fighting. Cracking stuff!

What scale are Eureka? Are they compatiable with Front Rank 28mm mins?

The Eureka figures are 28mm and can certainly share a table with Front Rank.

Artilleryman

Thanks for info. I'll have to give them a look. But you never know, Front Rank might just bring some out. I think they will be considering new Napoleonic miniatures later in the year.

Artilleryman

Just had a quick peep at Eureka and I must admit, I am tempted, especially by the Hofer miniature. But I prefer to keep to one manufacturer, so I might wait to see what Front Rank come up with later in the year.

However, I have the feeling that more I read about Tyrolean revolt, and the fact they seemed to do most of the fighting themselves, the more interested I'm becoming, so I might just order a few, like the Hofer miniature, just in case Front Rank don't have any plans to produce any.

For gaming purposes, terrain might be a challenge & it seems to better fit small units, even skirmish, rather than the full blown battles Nap gamers love.

I wonder if you could get a Vietnam rule set & (heavily) adapt?

ochoin deach

Yes, I imagine some of the terrain fought over could be challenging for wargamers. But I think we all need a good challenge now and again.

I've not looked at all the actions, as yet, but I'm sure some were fought on fairly level terrain, across rivers and in villages etc. However, I'm only just getting into the Tyrol Revolt and having to read about it inbetween researching two Peninsular Projects.

@ Gazz

I wasn't being negative, just passing comment.
Having been to the area, there isn't that much level ground.Even the cows have their downhill legs longer than their uphill legs so they can stand level.

I know the terrain-maker in our group would love the challlenge.

Gazzola, you could wait for Front Rank but I suspect that might be in vain. As far as I know, the Eureka figures are the first in 28 mm. I also prefer to stick with one manufacturer but sometimes you have to cut cards with the devil.

Artilleryman

You are probably right, and sadly, there may not be that much interest in the Tyrol revolt, to make Front Rank (or anyone else for that matter) want to produce Tyrolean miniatures. I will probably start with obtaining some Eureka Tyroleans and see where we go from there. (Although I might have to make some mountains to persuade my fellow wargamers to have a go)

The lack of interest is sad really because, I'm sure, if people did read about the revolt, they would find it as equally interesting as any other area of the Napoleonic period. And it is so sad the way the Tyroleans were let down by the Austrians, especially by the Austrian Emperor and Archduke Charles, although, had it been up to the Archduke Johann, I'm sure they would have been given far more support. But still, they did well, even when they were deserted by the Austrians. It really is a fascinating period and certainly one I intend to dig deeper into.

ochoin deach

I've been to some parts of the area, but sadly, at the time, I didn't connect it with the Tyrolean revolt. I do remember some flatish sections, but small areas and fighting may not have taken place there. I haven't, as yet, dug deep enough into the revolt or sought out maps/images of the battle areas. But I will get around to it.

One aspect of the campaign that might be interesting to wargame is the fighting in the winter.

Teste remarked that the Tyroleans were hard to catch in the snow, until he figured out they were using snowshoes which the French then began to use.

A skirmish game with the opposite sides using snowshoes, or the Tyroleans using them and the French not, might be a real interesting game.

You'd probably have to scratch-build snowshoes (I don't know if anyone makes figures at that scale with them) but that should make for some interesting and fun modeling.

Sincerely,
Kevin

In Napoleon's Correspondence there is a death warrant for Austrian General Chasteler because of his cooperation in the massacres of Bavarian and French troops at the beginning of the campaign.

Unfortunately, Chasteler left the Tyrol before the French caught him, and I don't know how active the search was.

Sincerely,
Kevin

It's curious that the Tyrolean Revolt is treated as guerrilla warfare, when it wasn't actually a guerrilla until after Wagram. Before, it was a rebellion, where the Tyroleans fought in open battles against the Bavarian and French troops.

Gazzola,

I feel that it's a little bit unfair your criticism against the Austrians. After all, after Eugene expelled Archduke Johann from Northern Italy, and Napoleon did the same against Archduke Charles in Bavaria, there were not open lines of communication between Austria and Tyrol. How would have been them able to support the rebellion? Moreover, for the Austrians Tyrol was a sideshow. Their resources and manpower were stretched to the breaking point to allow them to support the Tyroleans.

basileus66

I think the Tyroleans did use Guerilla type actions, as well as fighting alongside the Austrians in regular formation at times. The Tyroleans complained of the Austrians being so slow because of their formations or perhaps, lack of interest.

But I think the problem is that the Austrians gave the impression that the Tyrol was more than sideshow because they made all sorts of, what turned out to be false commitments to the Tyroleans, especially after the Battle of Aspern Essling.

And the Archduke Charles said (Scharding Manifesto) 'I count on you, you can count on me.'

It turned out the Tyroleans could not count on him. Worse still was what the Austrian emperor promised -
(May 29th-Wolkersdorfer Proclamation) 'My faithful country of Tyrol including the Vorarlberg shall never again be separated from the body of the Austrian empire and I shall sign no treaty other than one that ties these lands indissolubly to My realm.'

But he did the exact opposite when the Austrians lost the war. However, it is amazing that many of the Tyroleans remained so loyal to Austria, although many lost faith with them after they had been deserted by them. Even Hofer left out mentioning Austria and the Austrian emperor in his speeches. At first, it appeared that many Tyroleans refused to believe that the Austrians had been defeated and were leaving them in the lurch.

An Austrian Colonel (Burscheid) even though the Archduke Johann had requested supplies and guns be left for the Tyroleans when the Austrians were ordered to withdraw, did the opposite and even gave the incoming French 12 cannons.

Even so, the 3rd battle of Bergisel, which the Tyroleans won, was fought by them alone, against the French and Bavarians, which gives them great credit.

I've not read about the 4th battle of Bergisel, but I keep being suprised by what I do read, including a fair amount of evidence that Hofer, for all his fine and stirring speeches, appeared to have kept evading doing any fighting himself. And some Tyroleans went home because he did not turn up when the fighting was taking place.

Kevin

From what I've reads so far, the Tyroleans were hard to catch no matter what weather conditions they fought in. So wargamers might have to allow for them moving quicker than the French and their allies. And many of them appeared to have been crack shots and hunters, so it might have been a bit like fighting thousands of 95th riflemen. A nasty business, just like Spain.

John,

The French considered it to be worse than Spain. Unfortunately for the Tyroleans, the Austrians didn't stay to support them, as the British did for the Spanish (even though they generally didn't like them) in the Peninsula.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin

Two considerations. First, it's true that the Tyrolean revolt had a guerrilla phase, but the Tyroleans tried at first to carry on a more conventional war. Of course, I know that what we call guerrilla warfare was, in many ocassions, just common peasant violence against the power of the state, as represented by regular troops. Bottom lines is that in 1809 guerrilla warfare wasn't used as a strategic decission, as much as a tactic, forced by circumstances.

At least in Tyrol that appears to have been the case, if Gill's narrative is interpreting correctly what happened there. However, as I am basing my assumptions in just a secondary source I would be gladly change my mind, if somebody shows me alternative evidence, more credible than Gill's.

I don't believe the situation in Spain and Tyrol are comparable, either. The British had advantages, that the Austrians didn't. In Spain the British had secure bases of operations; their centers of power weren't threatened by the French; their ability to carry on war against the French wasn't threatened; the Spanish had much more troops mobilized than the Tyroleans ever had; the communications lines between the main British forces in the Peninsula and Great Britain were never cut, while the Austrians lines with Tyrol were.

By the way, it wasn't 'The French' who considered Tyrol worst than Spain, but 'some French memoirists' that did so… others disagreed, as its common in memoirs (the idea that 'my war was worst than your war' is a common thread in all memoirs, from all times).

Best

Like basileus66 I'm a bit puzzled by the comments inferring the Austrians / Archduke Charles ‘cruelly abandoned' the Tyrolean freedom fighters? Those statements imply a deliberate or cynical military decision not to support them, but that's not really the case – events rather forced the Austrian's hand.

From memory the 1809 Tyrolean Revolt falls into two distinct phases. First comes the initial popular uprising against the unpopular Bavarian occupiers (since 1805) at the onset of the Austrian offensive into Bavaria. The well organised Tyrolean militia – largely unassisted – successfully eject the Bavarians in a combination of guerrilla and open warfare (including at least two pitched battles on Mount Isel I think). Regular Austrian army units then arrived in the Tyrol as Archduke Charles and his army push westward further into Bavaria, at which point the local militias were stood down. However, as we know the Austrian offensive runs into trouble and Charles (+ Hiller) is then systematically outmanoeuvred all the way back down the Danube valley to Vienna and beyond. At which point the Tyrol became isolated from the main theatre of war and cut off from any meaningful chance of support from the main Austrian forces (including those withdrawing from North Italy).

The second phase of the revolt comes AFTER the principal military operations in the Danube valley had ended. The few Austrian regular army units effectively left stranded in the Tyrol were required to evacuate the region as a condition of the ceasefire signed after Wagram / Znaim (which ceded the Tyrol back to Bavarian control). The Austrians were by then a defeated nation honouring the conditions of a peace treaty – so in what way were they "letting down" or deliberately abandoning the Tyrolean people? I do not see how the Austrians' actions can be compared unfavourably with the British in Spain – the military and political situations are not the same.

With the enforced withdraw of the Austrian regulars Napoleon sent some 40,000 Bavarian and French troops to reclaim the Tyrol in the Fall of 1809 and it is then that Hoffer and his supporters call the militias to arms a second time and another round of both open and vicious guerrilla warfare begins. Initial successful they drive the Franco-Bavarian forces out again and at one point, realising they can offer no assistance (due to geographical, political and military constraints) the Austrians sensibly attempt to broker a truce – but it is Hoffer that rejects it. Ultimately the Tyrolean Revolt fails because of enforced isolation and the weight of resources sent against it.

Indeed, the very reason that the Tyroleans were pretty well organised militarily was their remote location from the Habsburg heartland. Therefore, since the late Middle Ages the deal had been that they were exempt from certain taxes and troop levies, but would have to look to their own defence – which they did in 1796/97, and again in 1809 (They stood to in 1805 as well, but were not engaged I believe).

Having acquired some of Eureka's Tyroleans I can wholeheartedly recommend them. Being on the stout side, once painted they should work well with Front Rank's Bavarians or French.

Robespierre

Just time for a quick post.

I think you were right that the Tyroleans fought some of the earlier actions, or tried to, in open warfare, but generally, it was guerrilla style actions and ambushes in which they were most successful and a lot of it was like the actions in Spain.

Talking ot Spain, the British generally kept whatever promises they made to the Spanish. The Austrians did not keep their promises to the Tyroleans. This perhaps shows that the Austrians, at least the Austrian emperor and perhaps the Archduke Charles, only viewed the Tyrolean revolt as a sideshow, which they hoped would keep French troops away from other areas.

The problem is that the poor Tyroleans believed every word the Austrians said, only to be let down. The Austrian emperor should not have produced a proclamtion stating he would never sign a treaty that did not keep the Tyrol connected to Austria. But he did, and it is no good saying to the poor Tyroleans, well, losing war meant he could not keep his word, sorry about that. Fat lot of good that did them! They were let down, simple as. But it goes to their credit that they did so well without the Austrians, if not better.

Musketier

Yes, I am very tempted by the Eureka Tyrolean miniatures but I'm not sure I want the Hofer miniature or not now, considering he didn't appear to do any of the fighting.

However, I suppose he could be used as a morale factor and kept to the back of the combat area, as in real life. And the figure looks a good one to paint up.

The problem is that the poor Tyroleans believed every word the Austrians said, only to be let down. The Austrian emperor should not have produced a proclamtion stating he would never sign a treaty that did not keep the Tyrol connected to Austria. But he did, and it is no good saying to the poor Tyroleans, well, losing war meant he could not keep his word, sorry about that.

Then, praise tell me, would have the British kept their promises to Spain if London would have been under French occupation, their country swarming of French and German troops and their armies defeated? I don't think so.

Great Britain didn't keep her promises to the Spanish because the goodness of her heart, or the high morals of her government, but because national interest recommended her to do so. Once the war in Spain was over, all Great Britain commitments taken during the war, were quietly forgotten. That's realpolitiks in action. The Austrian weren't worst -or better- than the British at keeping promises, or than any other state that has ever existed, for what is worth.

basileus

It is no use making sweeping statements like that because we will never know. But did the British king make a proclmation that he would never sign a treaty that didn't tie Spain to Britain? I doubt it. But, as I mentioned before, the Austrian emperor made one in which he stated he would not sign a treaty that did not tie the Tyrol with Austria. But he did!

The British could have kept out of the war after Corunna, but they didn't. They returned. Perhaps it is more a case of the British only making and keeping promises they felt they could really keep and perhaps, wanted to keep? And in Spain, when the war was over, the French were pushed out of Spain. That was not the case in the Tyrol. The Spanish didn't need help then, the Tyroleans did!

In the proclmation perhaps the Austrian emperor should have pencilled in – 'unless we lose the war, then tough, you are on your own'.

You talk of politics, but it is obvious, apart perhaps from the Archduke Johann, who did appear to show real concern and admiration for the Tyrol and the Tyroleans, that the Austrian support was purely 'political' and nothing else. A paper promise to keep them on their side. And when you get Hofer leaving out Austria and the Austrian emperor in his speeches, then you know what the Tyroleans really thought of the Austrians and their false promises.

Quite right basileus66. Well said.

Gazzola wrote:

This perhaps shows that the Austrians, at least the Austrian emperor and perhaps the Archduke Charles, only viewed the Tyrolean revolt as a sideshow, which they hoped would keep French troops away from other areas.

Because a sideshow is exactly what it was! Are you suggesting Archduke Charles should have divided his forces and allocated more Austrian troops to the defence of the Tyrol – while Vienna and the Austrian heart land were under direct threat from Napoleon's main effort? Charles would have been a very poor general if he'd done that.

The Tyrolean people were desperate to rid themselves of the Bavarian occupation which they saw (amongst other things) as oppressing their religious freedoms. Yes, certain assurances were made by the Austrians, but the Tyrol would have risen in revolt irrespective of anything the Austrian government had offered – they hated the Bavarians (and the "godless" French ‘Republic' even more). The "poor Tyroleans" were not stupid – they knew risks and their leadership knew what the realities of the situation were if the Austrian offensive into Bavaria failed, but they seized their best opportunity for freedom. Regrettably for them (and the Austrians) things didn't work out for them. Portraying the Austrians as the villains in this piece doesn't take into account the "realpolitiks" of the situation (as basileus66 so aptly puts it).

I think you were right that the Tyroleans fought some of the earlier actions, or tried to, in open warfare, but generally, it was guerrilla style actions and ambushes in which they were most successful and a lot of it was like the actions in Spain.

Yes – MOST of the fighting was of a particularly vicious, insurgency type warfare, with atrocities on both sides (there the comparison with Spain is merited), but at Mount Isel on the 25th May the Tyrolese militia fielded 17,000 men. Sounds like something close to a pitched battle to me.

Gazzola

What mistifies me is that you states that "the Austrian support was purely political and nothing else" as if it was something wrong about it. And which support from a country to another in a war wasn't political? Just tell me one single example in all history. I can't think about anyone. States aren't charities. They don't take the decission to go to war because anything else but politics. I believe that Clausewitz summed it up rather well.

After Corunna the British thought seriously about leaving the Peninsula to its own devices. Only after long discussions and weighting the alternatives, the British government decided to carry on with the war. In that decission, by the way, both Wellington brothers played a big role. But, in the end, the decission was purely political, based upon what the British government thought suited best Great Britain interests. And fairly so. After all the first duty of any government is to look after the interests of its country.

Joseph signed a peace with the French, breaking his former promise to the Tyroleans… but he did it when there wasn't other alternative. May be you have not notice, but Austria was defeated, under foreign occupation and without the means to continue the fight. What the Austrian emperor did was to take the only possible option. And as Robespierre pointed he tried to broke a deal between the French and the Tyroleans, to avoid further and pointless shed of blood.

So, tell me, what else could have done the Austrian emperor? To continue the war until his empire would have been wiped out by Napoleon? Would have that decission lived up to your moral standards?… Although, I should add that I can't understand why the obsession to pass moral judgements on the past, for starters.

basileus66

I think you need to calm down for a start! My moral standards? Aren't you taking this a little too personally? I'm just going by what I'm reading and what happened, like it or not.

By political you surely knew what I meant. It was political support, or if you prefer, 'paper' support. Or even a case of 'make a proclmation stating your support, but one that doesn't mean you will actually stick to it, if things don't go your way'.

The point is, the British carried on supporting the Spanish, the Austrians deserted the Tyroleans, when they were no longer any use to them. And there is no case that I am aware of, of the Austrians making it clear to the Tyroleans that they would withdraw all support if they lost the war. The Tyroleans were obviously under the impression that they would not be deserted, no matter what. That's why many of them refused to believe that the Austrians had agreed to hand the Tyrol over the French and the Bavarians. Gunther Eyck even mentions in his book that Hofer actually prevented a message instructing Austrian troops to withdraw to reach them, that's how desperate they were for the Austrians to stay and help them.

But these things happen in war and sadly, it was the Tyroleans who suffered for it. You might think I'm being a bit harsh on the Austrians, but I'm just trying to be realistic. On the positive side for the Austrians, the Archduke Johann did appear to show real concern and I'm sure he would have arranged some form of support, at least supplies and weapons, had it been in his power to do so. The Austrians also allowed the Tyrolean leaders who were fleeing the Tyrol to move into Austria, which could have been dodgy.

Robespierre

I'm not looking for villians and heroes, What an absurd suggestion!

I am reflecting on what actually happened. And you and basileus66 might not like it, but that's the way it was. The Austrians let the Tyroleans down big time. Probably because, as you state yourself, they only saw the Tyrol as a sideshow and didn't offer enough support, and then deserted them when they most needed help. It doesn't really matter if the Austrians had no choice – that excuse didn't help the Tyroleans.

Italy in 1796 was seen as a sideshow and look what happened there. A shame the Austrians did not learn from history. As for the fighting, as Eyck states in his book, the Austrians acted more like auxiliaries, with the Tyroleans doing most of the fighting, and then all of the fighting after the Austrians were defeated, lost the war and withdrew from the Tyrol.

From what I can see, the most the Austrians ever provided, was around 10-11,000 men and 17 guns, and that may have only been during the early part of the revolt under Chasteler.

Yes, there were pitched battles but even when involving 15,-17,000 men, it did not not mean they fought a regular form of warfare. Had they done so, then they may have been defeated by the French, Bavarians and Saxons earlier on. Eyck states that when a French commander wanted to negotiate with the Tyrolean leader, the Tyroleans replied that they were all leaders.

But it is the mixture of the revolt that attracts me, especially as a wargamer, not the politics. You can have regular units and formations alongside irregular units and formations. And you can have women and priests. Cracking stuff!

Gazzola

I'm pretty calm. Honest. The only person that can make me lose my equanimity is my eldest son, and fortunately he isn't interested in Napoleonics (SF is his thing). Don't forget that this media isn't too amiable to convey the nuances of expression.

But, if I asked for your moral standards is because you are passing a moral judgement, not making an historical analysis.

My problem with your argumentation is that you insist in comparing Austrian and British policies, when it's like to compare apples with oranges. When you argue that "the Austrians let the Tyroleans down big time", you are implying that the Austrians had a choice in the matter. However, my point is that the French had robbed the Austrians any capacity to intervene in support of the Tyroleans rebels.

And that's the main difference between Great Britain and Austria. The British HAD a choice in the matter. The Austrians didn't. If the Austrians can be blamed for something is for being naïve, and for making a faulty analysis of the political situation in France and the possible reactions of Napoleon (Gill's explain it very well in his first book of the 1809 campaign; and as I know that you have his book, I won't repeat his arguments here).

Well… from this point on we can only go in circles, so I´ll leave you the field.

Best regards

PS: By the way, although as reader I understand that people passes moral judgements on the past, as historian it makes my skin crawl!

I have a vague idea that the Tyroleans and their Habsberg overlords had a mild historical antipathy for one another.

On one side was a desire for more independance on the other a vying for greater control.

Yes: all pretty vague I know but I must have read it somewhere!

basileus66

I think you will find that you and Kevin were the first to mention the British. I mentioned the guerrilla warfare in Spain, in which there are some similarities. So I am not 'insisting' on comparing anything. I'm just pointing out some facts which you obviously disagree with.

I get the impression that the Austrians did let the Tyroleans down, no matter what excauses you come up with. The Tyroleans felt the same.

In terms of Spain, I don't think the Spanish felt the British let them down, because together, they cleared the French out of Spain.

The Austrian emperor, made promises he probably knew he could not keep, UNLESS he won the won. But he had to convince/fool the niave Tyroleans that he wouldn't desert them. But he did. Sorry, but that can't be denied. It was pure politics, not genuine support. Charles is a little less guilty of the same. Only the Archduke Johann can, in my opinion, hold his head high concerning the Tyrol.

When the Austrians withdrew from the Tyrol, not only did they appear to have taken all their weapons and supplies, which would have been helpful to the Tyroleans, but they also took the Tyrolean treasury. The Tyroleans were skint! Requests for financial aid from the emperor were ignored, so guess who they asked next – Britain. And Britain gave them cash.

I'm not interested in 'carrying the field' and all that rubbish. It is just a debate in which we discuss the Tyrol revolt. I just think the facts speak for themselves, whether you like it or not. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. I hope that is the same with you?

My main interest now is in wargaming the Tyrol revolt, and I will be keen to hear from anyone who has attempted to so. We're considering it but it will be some way down the line, since we have other projects to sort out first.

And I've just been reading that they actually had their own artillery, but half the barrels were made of wood! And they had no trained gunners or ammunition and virtually no cavalry. And yet they still did so well, especially without the Austrians. Fascinating stuff.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. I hope that is the same with you?

No problem here.

I just think the facts speak for themselves, whether you like it or not.

Same here… although it seems that those facts say to me different things that they say to you.

I'm not interested in 'carrying the field' and all that rubbish.

Just a figure of speech. No big deal.

And now I quit. Promise!

I'm not looking for villians and heroes, What an absurd suggestion!

Are you sure?

The title of the thread? ("Austrian letdown in the Tyrol") The references to Austria letting the Tyroleans down "big time"? You certainly couldn't be accused of lionising the Austrians!

But joking apart, I'd like to try and clarify and reinforce a few things Gazzola –

You wrote –

The Austrians let the Tyroleans down big time. Probably because, as you state yourself, they only saw the Tyrol as a sideshow and didn't offer enough support, and then deserted them when they most needed help.

Well no, I didn't say the Austrians saw the Tyrol as a sideshow, I said the Tyrol WAS a sideshow. There's a subtle but important difference in perseption there. By that I mean everyone at the time was well aware that the Tyrol was a sideshow – it was not just some vague Austrian perception. Napoleon knew it; Archduke Charles knew it; the Hapsburg government back in Vienna knew it. They all knew the 1809 war would be decided in the Danube Valley – certainly not in the Tyrol. And the Tyroleans knew it as well.

You then go on to say -

Italy in 1796 was seen as a sideshow and look what happened there. A shame the Austrians did not learn from history.

Now I confess, I'm a bit baffled by that statement. You appear to be suggesting ("A shame the Austrians did not learn from history") that had the Austrians treated the ‘sideshow' Tyrol theatre more seriously they would have been better off? This brings me back to my earlier question (which, I must point out, you avoided) as to whether or not you thought Archduke Charles should have committed more troops to the Tyrol. Are you seriously suggesting that if Charles had divided his forces in the Danube Valley (in the face of Napoleon) and sent a considerable portion of them to be (in all likelihood) left stranded in the Tyrol – that the result of the war of 1809 might have been better for Austria? If you are that's a pretty radical reinterpretation of the 1809 Danube campaign! In the event, the Tyrol might well have held out in the short term, but surely such a foolish division of forces into a sideshow would only have hastened the destruction of the main Austrian Army in the Danube and utter defeat for the Austrians – which inevitably would have still resulted in the Tyrol returning to Bavarian control?

I agree that the Austrian Emperor's promises of support to the Tyrol we're ill advised – naïve even, in terms of the strategic situation, but he isn't the first (or the last) world leader who has made a rash statement of unqualified support in a moment of patriotic fervour. If the books you are reading are portraying the Tyroleans as the brave victims, duped by unfaithful Austria who they depended upon for protection, I would respectfully suggest there is a bit of pro-Tyrol spin going on. The reality is that the people of the Tyrol were only too well aware that they were expected to be self reliant when it came to their own defence. There was a long standing tradition of this going back to the Middle Ages. Why, Gazzola, do you think the Tyrolean Militias were founded in the first place? And why was the founding of the Tyrolean Militias encouraged and rewarded (with tax cuts etc) by Vienna? It's because BOTH parties mutually recognised the geographical difficulties in defending the Tyrol which sits at the western tip of Austrian possessions – easily cut off from the rest of Austria in the event of a rapid enemy incursion coming up the Danube Valley (as happened in 1809) or vulnerable to attack from the south from the northern Italian plains (as happened in 1796).

There's a reason why so few regular Austrian troops were committed to the Tyrol. The Tyroleans were expected, for the most part, to look to their own defence (no matter what waffle the Austrian Emperor might have been spouting). After all they had done just that – and quite successfully in 1796, to the extent of pursuing the French invaders back into Italy as an organised independent Tyrolean army.

In 1809 the Austrians put up a good fight; inflicted a reverse on Napoleon at Aspern; and, perhaps with a better plan and better staff work, might arguably have fought the French to a standstill at Wagram – but they lost and got knocked out of the game. If you want to argue that the Austrians "let the Tyrol down" by being militarily defeated, in spite of their best efforts, against the greatest generalissimo who has ever lived – that's fair enough – no argument from me. But suggesting the Austrians deliberately mislead and abandoned the people of the Tyrol doesn't stack up.

But it is the mixture of the revolt that attracts me, especially as a wargamer, not the politics. You can have regular units and formations alongside irregular units and formations. And you can have women and priests. Cracking stuff!

On that point, at least, I whole heartedly agree with you.

Basileus66,

I agree entirely. Historically Raison d'État has always been a matter of political realism with national security and survival of the state taking priority over moral and all other concerns. The interests of the state were no different during the Napoleonic period from today, and any other time for that matter. Introduction of moral values into the equation is unrealistic and incredibly naive.

Bill

German-speakers (or those with a good translation programme!) might be interested in the links on this page:
link
which has plenty of detailed descriptions of troop movements and some original documentation.

Areas like Wörgl and Strass would be relatively flat, while others such as Franzenfeste or Scharnitz were very mountainous terrain. The Bergisel, with its four battles, is more of a hill (despite being named a mountain) to the south of Innsbruck which guards the entrance to the Inn valley from the direction of Italy (and, to be more relevant in those days, the South Tyrol).

English Wikipedia has an overview of the Bergisel battles (taken from a few books including Digby Smith) plus the regular forces order of battle in 1809 (obviously the Schützen companies are not included).

alphinetoffee

Thanks for that info. From what I've read I was under the impression that there were some flatish areas, which gives some hope for wargamers. I'm hoping to find the time to look deeper into the actions and sort out the terrain and troops involved, so your information is really appreciated.

basileus66

I did not want to go into deep debates on the political side of the revolt, but have enjoyed your views and disgareements.

And yes, you are probably right when you say the facts say one thing to you and one thing to me. People do tend to view things differently and from different angles. It creates different views and that creates debate and discussion, as one side tries to convince the other side to change their views. That's why you get people admiring or disliking Napoleon or Wellington etc. Nothing wrong with that.

As I say, I see no problem with us both agreeing to disagree and I really had no aims of winning the field. I didn't see it as a battle or some form of confrontation, but a decent debate or an area I'm fairly new to but find very interesting.

Robespierre

I am sure, yes. I was not looking for heroes or villians. Perhaps you just don't want to believe it?

Yes, I should gobe with 'Wargaming the Tyrol' as a title. My fault entirely. But I was suprised by the Austrian emperor making such a proclmation, especially to people who were so loyal to Austria, without having the definite ability to stick to his word. In my opinion, he was either fooling the Tyroleans or overconfident about winning the war. In either case, he should not have made such a promise.

I disagree with you that everyone saw the Tyrol as a sideshow. The Tyroleans thought their revolt was important to Austria, not just a sideshow, albeit, going by the little Austrian support they received, that's all it was. Would the Tyroleans have revolted to enthusiastically had the emperor said 'Look, you are just a sideshow and despite what I said in my proclmation, I don't really mean because if we lose the war, you will be ignored and no help provided.'

I've never suggested that Charles divide his forces. You did. But the Austrians could have sent more troops than they did, which just might have persuaded Napoleon to send more troops to deal with them, rather than just troops to put down a revolt.

No, the books I've looked at, including Gill's books, have just retold the facts, without any bias either way. They suggest that the Tyroleans, despite being so self-reliant, were hoping for more support than they received from Austria, including troops weapons, supplies and money. As already mentioned, when the Austrian left, they took their weapons and supplies and also the Tyrolean treasury. That's hardly what I would call a sign of support. And they appeared to have ignored requests for money, at the very least, after they had withdrawn.

In short, perhaps it is the poor Tyroleans who were fooled or niave enough to expect more from those they showed so much loyalty to. Whichever way you look at it, and you obviously look at it in a different way to me, the Austrians and especially the Austrian emperor let them down – big time. Nothing you have said has persuaded me to think otherwise and your views on everyone seeing the Tyrol only as a sideshow, only supports this view. As with basileus66, I have no problems with accepting your views. I just hope you can accept mine?

But I am glad you agree with me on the interesting aspects of wargaming the revolt. Alphinetoffe has just made a post that suggests there are flatish areas, so wargamers can field regular formations against regular and irrelgular formations. I'm looking forward to undertaking more research, as soon as time permits.

@alpinetoffee,

Thanks for pointing out a very interesting site.

Bill

'But, if I asked for your moral standards is because you are passing a moral judgement, not making an historical analysis.'

'By the way, although as reader I understand that people passes moral judgements on the past, as historian it makes my skin crawl!'

Bas,

For the most part I agree with you. However, moral judgments (for lack of a better term) are passed all the time on the past on this forum by various posters, including myself, and many times in books by authors. If it is done, it can be a part of historical analysis, but it needs to be stated as such.

I believe that Francis cynically betrayed the Tyroleans by inciting them to revolt, and then leaving them holding the bag. General Chasteler got out as soon as he oculd because he knew the French and Bavarians would be after his scalp, literally, because he had allowed/looked the other way/encouraged or whatever Tyrolean massacres of French and Bavarian troops. Chasteler was actually under a French order of execution if caught.

Ferdinand running from Ulm leaving Mack holding the bag, so to speak, in 1805 is a moral judgment-he was a coward or a pragmatist, depending on how you look at it. Frenchment passed sentence on Marmont for his treachery in 1814, even inventing a verb to describe the activity. That is a moral judgment.

Napoleon has been taken to task, if you can call it that, too many times on the forums for being 'corrupt' and other moral judgments. It has been done lately as a matter of fact.

If that approach is to be taken, then it has to be, as I have said many times, in the times in which these people lived by their standards, not by the politically correct, holier-than-thou attitudes that are too many times used by too many authors, commentators, or what have you.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin

Well said. I think some people only see what they want to see, in that if you say something they don't like or disagree with, they accuse you of basing it on your own morals, that it is not a historical judegment based on the facts.

They also tend to make the mistake of basing their judgements, perhaps, in some ways, biased judgements, on hindsight. Eg: The Austrians should not have aided the Tyroleans because they were beaten at Wagram. But at time of the Austrian emperor making his Proclmation, the Austrians had defeated the French at Aspern Essling, so no thoughts of defeat were in their heads at the time, otherwise there wouldn't have been a Wagram.

And as I mentioned earlier, had they sent more troops to the Tyrol, it may (or may not) have caused Napoleon to send more troops to the area and away from the Wagram combat zone. They lost anyway, so not sending any didn't make any difference to the outcome of the war. The Austrians lost and sadly, so did the Tyroleans.

I had promised not intervene further in this thread. Well, I am weak and will break that promise. However, I feel I need to answer to some Gazzola's and Kev's statements.

they accuse you of basing it on your own morals, that it is not a historical judegment based on the facts

How else would you qualify the following statement: "The Austrian emperor should not have produced a proclamtion stating he would never sign a treaty that did not keep the Tyrol connected to Austria."? That is a moral judgement, based on hindsight, as you are using the "should not" instead of simply stating the facts -i.e. that the Austrian emperor did make a promise that he couldn't keep-.

All your argument is based upon that the Austrians let down the Tyroleans, and that action was, in your opinion, damnable. I disagree with that statement because when the Austrians did, their ability to continue the war against Napoleon was so severely impaired that they couldn't continue to resist. In other words, I am not saying -and never did- that the Austrians 'should have not', but that the Austrians 'could not' helped the Tyroleans after Wagram. That's not hindsight, but simply a statement of the strategic situation after Wagram.

If something can be blamed on the Austrian emperor is to have let the enthusiasm for the victory at Aspern-Essling to cloud the strategical analysis of the war. My opinion is that it was faulty analysis, not deviousness, which impulsed Joseph's to make promises to the Tyroleans that he couldn't keep.

Kevin said:

"I believe that Francis cynically betrayed the Tyroleans by inciting them to revolt, and then leaving them holding the bag."

To be a fact you should be able to prove:

a) That the Tyrolean revolt was directly fired by Austrian emperor's promise made after Aspern-Essling, which, with the dates in hand looks unlikely, as the revolt started in April 10th.

b) That the Austrian emperor did make that promise knowing that he wouldn't be able to keep it. I concede that was possible, but until proven by documents it's just a guess without basis in facts. Of course, may be you are aware of Austrian documentation that I ignore, that proves that intent by Austrian part -I'm not a specialist in the war in Central Europe, and all my information cames from secondary sources, so it's perfectly possible that there are minutes, or letters that proves that Joseph II cinically encouraged the rebellion, even when he was aware that the Tyroleans would be left hanging dry, as soon as possible. But until those documents are shown, I will hold back from labelling Austrian policy towards Tyrol as cynical.

c) That the Tyrolean revolt wouldn't have happened without Austrian encouragement. Again, it's possible, but there are also enough contrary evidence to suspect that the Tyroleans would have rebelled against the Bavarians with or without Austrian encouragement.

Gazzola said:

And as I mentioned earlier, had they sent more troops to the Tyrol, it may (or may not) have caused Napoleon to send more troops to the area and away from the Wagram combat zone

I think that very unlikely, based on the common reaction from Napoleon to threats in what he thought it wasn't the main theater of war.

If the French emperor characterized for something was for that his driving strategy was every time to destroy the main enemy force, ignoring threats to his strategic rear. In all of his campaigns he didn't deviate from his main goal, as he knew that once the enemy main army was defeated he would be free to deal with any threat in secondary theaters.

For the Austrians to have changed that, they would have need to send so many troops to Tyrol that they would have in fact transformed it in the main theater of war, which strategically speaking would have been madness (Tyrol economy couldn't support such an increase on troops; it would have collapsed).

If you want to make a guess on alternative strategical scenarios, you can't forget how one of the parties involved commonly acted. In this particular case, you need to remember how focused was Napoleon, and how difficult was to distract him from his main target once he set his sights on it.

Best

This is an absurd discussion – what could the Austrians do -after their field army was destroyed?

They had to sue for peace to please the French Emperor and nothing else.

Bas,

Don't apologize-you have nothing to apologize for-all of your postings contribute to the discussion and are interesting to read and take note of. And you're always a gentleman.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'This is an absurd discussion – what could the Austrians do -after their field army was destroyed?'

Interesting statement. When was the Austrian 'field army' destroyed?

Being defeated does not necessarily mean being destroyed or annihilated (the last two are two different things altogether).

K

Gazzola Has Gill? Good. I suggest he reads from pages 312 (bottom paragraph) to the end of the first paragraph at the top of page 314 (Volume III). It's a fair and balanced assessment.

Emperor Francis (basileus66 is a little off the mark above with "Joseph II" but that's not important) extravagant posturing and promises are rightly acknowledged as is the sense of betrayal felt by the Tyroleans, BUT Gill correctly places the rebellion in its proper context as the side show it was to all concerned (Napoleon included) and how real or imagined the ‘betrayal' was. As he says – "The Tyrolian insurrection with its colourful folk figures (especially Hoffer), its picturesque mountains, and impassioned struggle, quickly became a touchstone for most German nationalists. As a consequence, much important detail has been lost in subsequent mythologising and hagiography. It is well to remember, therefore, both the accomplishments and the weaknesses (Austo-Tyrolian frictions, intra-Tyrolian disputes) of the Tyrolian rebellion and its place as a significant, but secondary theatre of operations in the scope of the 1809 war."

Robespierre

You are right! I was mixing Francis with Joseph II. In my discharge, I must say that I am reading Duffy's "Instrument of War" (Austrian army at the SYW) and mixed up the names of both emperors!

Robespierre,

I don't believe that anyone has placed the situation in the Tyrol above what Jack Gill has stated. It was a secondary theater but it should also be noted that thte Tyrol was not pacified until 1810 and Prince Eugene played a significant role in that pacification. Just a point of interest.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Since people seemed interested in the German-language link above they might also fancy taking a look at the booklet section of the Military History Museum in Vienna, which has some written in the 1980s but which are still available:
hgm.or.at/162.html?&L=1
There are some there specifically for Tyrolean battles in the Napoleonic era. (As well as other parts of Austria.)

Note that the email address on the English section of that site is incorrect and that the contact information on the German section is correct. (E.g. the hgm.or.at one and not the bmlvs.gv.at one.)