tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post6409017411140155434..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Battlefield Royal: Archduke Charles of AustriaMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-5727305054992577792009-09-30T13:04:16.400-05:002009-09-30T13:04:16.400-05:00A good sketch of the Archduke, but I have a minor ...A good sketch of the Archduke, but I have a minor quibble. Napoleon I's "Army of Germany" in the war of 1809 was not, a "much better army than in the past" -- but a worse one, most of the best French troops were in Spain, the French portion of the army had too many conscripts, and the contingents of the German and Italian allies of France were lukewarm about fighthing. <br /><br />The Archduke did excellent work preparing the Austrian Army to fight in 1809, and I think that the army which he took into Bavaria was much the best the Austrians fielded in those wars, although he made some costly mistakes as a field commander. Defeated at Abensberg, Landshut and Eckmuhl, but victorious at Aspern/Essling, the Archduke was the best general Austria had, despite his final defeat that year at Wagram.<br /><br />I have wondered why he didn't take the field again in 1813. No disrespect intended to Prince Schwarzenberg, but I think Charles was the better commander. His son, Archduke Albrecht, was similarly gifted, giving the Italians a good hiding at Custoza in 1866.El Jefe Maximohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661511063910659377noreply@blogger.com