Battle of Castiglione: A Polemos Ruse de Guerre Refight

[Whirlwind]

Please see here for a refight of the Battle of Castiglione using the Polemos Ruse de Guerre rules and Baccus 6mm figures.

[OotKust]

37 to 28 battle units I’d certainly hope I’d win too- ~30% greater. I’m not sure where the ‘hill’ on the Austrian left came from; given the ‘old’ map it appears to be a flat(ish) plain for most of the combat area. Orientation?  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castiglione .

That said, I’d wonder at the apparent high ‘skill’ values of [most of] the French Army given the excess of despondency and degradation noted in most histories (no I’ve not researched this era as much as the 3rd Coalition).

Edit: The bulk of what appeared as the Army of Italy at the ‘takeover’ by Buonparte is described here as:

In September 1795 , it received 4 divisions (16,000 men) of reinforcements from the victorious Army of the Eastern Pyrenees. With these reinforcements, the army is made up in very large majority of battalions of volunteers from the South.

Emphasis mine. Scherer was Commander of THAT Army also, so was no slouch. A year later after his resignation by political actions, he was appointed Minister of War !(1797)_dw.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm%C3%A9e_d%27Italie

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barth%C3%A9lemy_Louis_Joseph_Sch%C3%A9rer

I guess only an ‘Austrian’ would hide his [attacking] cavalry strength in mountainous terrain! cheers

[Whirlwind]

Hello OotKost,

For most refights, I have a relatively strict adherence to the scenario rather than my own interpretations (I write my own when I want to do that).  That said, I believe the hill on the Austrian left is  called Monte Medalano.  It is marked on this map here:

I take your point about the perhaps generous ratings to the French but, again, I tend not to mess with the ratings assigned with a scenario writer too much, unless I am so confident that I am right that it would spoil the enjoyment of a game to not change it, if that makes sense?

[OotKust]

Ok I can see the title, but there’s no elevation shown on the map, and it is right next to the word ‘Plain___ ‘ so I still wonder. It appears as three buildings, so with little elevation and a tiny ‘redoubt’ built solely as a ‘flank’ guard to a ‘line’?

Of note:

As a reward for his bravery, Bonaparte appointed Augereau to bring to Directory the 7 flags taken from the enemy. Bonaparte, who became Emperor, gave him the title of Duke of Castiglione for these same reasons.

The more cynical among us would also conjecture that he was getting rid of an argumentative subordinate for a while, as Augereau  had been and would be again an equal, General en Chef of armies.

cheers

[Not Connard Sage]

OotKust wrote:

I’m not sure where the ‘hill’ on the Austrian left came from; given the ‘old’ map it appears to be a flat(ish) plain for most of the combat area.

Ever been to Mantua?

I have 😉

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Chris Pringle]

Interesting one! Solferino was fought on essentially the same battlefield. This map shows Monte Medolano as a pronounced isolated elevation. However, if you look for it using Google streetview it is virtually invisible, and the topographic map suggests it is negligible. Could it have been flattened out over the past 150 years?

I hardly think the Army of Italy was degraded or despondent by August 1796 – since April the French had kicked the Austrians out of the richest part of Italy, taken three of the Quadrilateral fortresses and were besieging the fourth. They were jubilant, well-fed, and better-led (and they knew it).

[Guy Farrish]

Not been to the battlefield, but the Napoleon Series Archive here – Castiglione Battlefield Tour has this ‘tour’ which shows a picture of some trees on the current position of the feature with the note

Monte Medolano: the slope. This so-called �mountain� rises barely 5 meters above the plain. Under its present heavy growth of trees the rise is indistinguishable at a distance.

You can just about see it on Street view but it involves imagination and a better coup d’oeil than I possess!

It may have been altered over the years but it shows what may be a significant point for generals may not even routinely make it onto our tabletops. Perhaps such features should make more appearances, to be used or ignored at our ‘discretion’?

 

By the way – nice battle report :^)

 

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Not been to the battlefield, but the Napoleon Series Archive here – Castiglione Battlefield Tour has this ‘tour’ which shows a picture of some trees on the current position of the feature with the note

Monte Medolano: the slope. This so-called �mountain� rises barely 5 meters above the plain. Under its present heavy growth of trees the rise is indistinguishable at a distance.

You can just about see it on Street view but it involves imagination and a better coup d’oeil than I possess! It may have been altered over the years but it shows what may be a significant point for generals may not even routinely make it onto our tabletops. Perhaps such features should make more appearances, to be used or ignored at our ‘discretion’? By the way – nice battle report :^)

 

Well that’s the age old problem with tabletop battlefields innit. No matter how much geography you throw at them they’re still too flat, as a glance at any OS map, or a stroll outside, will prove.

I’m in the Conwy valley ATM, and getting a square mile of this terrain on a table would be mind blowing.

It does show that one perhaps shouldn’t opine about terrain features until one has actually stood on the terrain. 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Whirlwind]

Many thanks to everyone for their contributions, it has been an interesting look at the subject – and especially thanks to NCS for passing on his insights from having actually been there! I think that the balance of evidence is that their was a small but significant feature at this point at the time of the battle – which makes sense, otherwise there was very little reason for Wurmser to use the position here at all.  I expect that my set-up does not do true justice to the relief of the battlefield even by wargames standards but the point I think is to capture the tactically important features and not worry overmuch about anything else, which the Miniature Wargames scenario in fairness seems to have done.

[OotKust]

>>Ever been to Mantua?

No- but then I’d bet 99% of commenters have never visited theirs either. However I did make an effort- about 35 battlefelds driven and walked from middle France to Vienna and Alessandria, and Waterloo; never made Austerlitz in Bohemia due to the partners fear of going behind the Iron Curtain; and about 4 states in US following the Revolutionary trails.

>>Could it have been flattened out over the past 150 years?

Everything is possible. yet many of these places remain largely untouched. Of course Waterloo grew a mound; Stare Vinorady at Austerlitz is much reduced from its cited 300 height (another ‘nob’).

>> This map shows Monte Medolano__

Obviously a much higher scale of map. If you look at the previous wiki one there is zero inference of any such elevation. Wondering how Marmonts battery would have been expecting to reduce any fortification IF they had been that elevated, but 5m seems more resonable and clearly not much more than a walk in the park.

What should be astounding to us, is the declining/ ignorant awareness that linear warfare just wasn’t it any longer. The Austrians really expected a simple frontal attack on their terms?

>>I hardly think the Army of Italy was degraded or despondent by August 1796 – since April …taken three of the Quadrilateral fortresses and were besieging the fourth.

And a year later the almost same Army had lost the entire region again to new Allied commanders. The subservience to ‘places’ held was an Empirical meme and wasn’t really enforced in French doctrine.

Again in 1800, defensively holed up in Alessandria, the Austrians marched out to thrash the French intruders on their domain. And nearly did.

Five days later the Armée du Rhin in the Battle of Höchstädt under Moreau defeated, Kray defending Ulm, with a covering force, described as-

The campaign culminating in Kray’s evacuation of Ulm was one of Moreau’s most resounding triumphs. Napoleon Bonaparte had given Moreau specific instructions about the conduct of the campaign, all of which Moreau had ignored. Regardless,…

Given the proximity of timing, 5 days apart, I wondered if either side knew of the previous reversal of fortunes; and whether anyone at French command cared about Moreau’s win in taking strategic territory once again?

So the maintenance of fortresses while a necessary evil, but was not a comittment to be tied to. Austria continued this nonsense until 1805 in all theatres.

I’ll raise this in a new topic shortly,

cheers

[Chris Pringle]

OotKust wrote:

What should be astounding to us, is the declining/ ignorant awareness that linear warfare just wasn’t it any longer. The Austrians really expected a simple frontal attack on their terms?

By his deployment, Wurmser was trying (a) to cover his own line of communications and (b) to link up with Quosdanovich. I don’t know if he was expecting a simple frontal attack or what, but during the battle the Austrians themselves pushed forward on their right towards Quosdanovich.

I believe the Austrians were still using the regulations of 1765 (?) which were built on the template of their victory at the battle of Hochkirch in 1758. Their model was to march in multiple columns for logistical reasons, not combined-arms corps – basically the artillery was in the middle column, cavalry in the flank columns – so as to arrive sooner and form a battle line quicker than if in fewer longer columns, which would need more time to deploy. The whole of the 1796 campaign makes it apparent that they were still fighting mid-C18 linear warfare and didn’t understand that the rules had changed. I love Clausewitz’s dissection of them in his history of the campaign.

Thanks, Whirlwind, for another nice report and for prompting this interesting discussion!

 

 

[Not Connard Sage]

I’ve been wrong loads of times. I got over it.

I think that the only things arguable about the hill now is how wooded was it over 200 years ago, and was an entire battery of guns deployed on it?

The plain below it would certainly have been an unwelcome place to be once the guns started firing.

Whirlwind, I’m glad you found my PM and the link interesting. Keep up the battle reports, they’re always worth reading. 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Chris Pringle]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

I’ve been wrong loads of times. I got over it. I think that the only things arguable about the hill now is how wooded was it over 200 years ago, and was an entire battery of guns deployed on it? The plain below it would certainly have been an unwelcome place to be once the guns started firing. Whirlwind, I’m glad you found my PM and the link interesting. Keep up the battle reports, they’re always worth reading.

It is certain that Wurmser established a redoubt on Monte Medolano. I would bet that this entailed clearing any trees that may have been on it, as well as clearing those in its field of fire, and using them as logs to reinforce the redoubts and perhaps some as abattis.

(But I too have been wrong loads of times.)

[Not Connard Sage]

From Oot Kust’s Wiki link, above.

“At this point, Bonaparte launched his masse de rupture against Monte Medolano. Chef de battalion Auguste Marmont galloped his horse artillery up to point blank range and opened fire. Grenadiers then stormed the hill.” Chandler ‘The Campaigns of Napoleon’ 1966.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Chris Pringle]

Not a grenadier-proof redoubt, then!

[OotKust]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

From Oot Kust’s Wiki link, above. “At this point, Bonaparte launched his masse de rupture against Monte Medolano. Chef de battalion Auguste Marmont galloped his horse artillery up to point blank range and opened fire. Grenadiers then stormed the hill.” Chandler ‘The Campaigns of Napoleon’ 1966.

The actual reference s given as : Boycott-Brown, p 401, so not sure if you’ve extrpolated that back or not.

However such statements I feel cannot be left unchallenged these days.

“Bonaparte launched his masse de rupture…”

Seems an entirely unlikely sentiment. History shows that Buonaparte did not lead from the front all that often, and gave to ‘marshalling’ his commanders from the safe ‘3rd zone’ from the conflict. (See Marengo and Austerlitz etc…)

“Marmont galloped his horse artillery up to point blank range…”

Again I’d like to know the source for such a statement. Did they, unaided, expose themselves ‘because they could’? And was it in front of said ‘Monte’ or actually on it, if we are led to believe the Austrians hadn’t left the ‘elevation’?

“Grenadiers then stormed the hill.”

I’ve not seen an exact OB for this battle, and the refight doesn’t give ‘real designations’ of units, but I see no ‘elite’ designated. I have much of Nafzigers work in both electronic files and hard copy but not found this one.

Despite the courageous and worthy writing of Dr. Chandler, he has his failures, to be expected on such a major issue as his topic (and yes I own an original copy), but things like the strong depiction of such as the tactical ‘advance’ formation by St. Hilaires Division at Austerlitz in approved ‘Napoleonic’ fashion has been shown to be bunkum.

It has been shown Napoleon spent years re-writing history in his own favour and to some extent uncaring authors have used these misguided missives as if they were court records of worth and truth. Sadly not we see, no reason it should ruin a good game however, cheers

[Chris Pringle]

For what it’s worth, here’s Clausewitz’s account:

“The Austrians had strengthened their own left wing with a redoubt, which they established as a secure pivot. Bonaparte had this work intensely bombarded by twelve heavy guns, then assaulted by three grenadier battalions under General Verdier. It was taken after vigorous resistance.”

(p125 of “Napoleon’s 1796 Italian Campaign.”)

 

[OotKust]

Which just goes to show even the best ‘analysts’ don’t agree- from horse charging to heavy 12 pounders, and something in between…

[Guy Farrish]

Not sure where the 12 pounders come from, but there are some apparent differences in precisely, though not generally, what happened.

Clausewitz says 12 heavy guns (thanks Chris)

Marmont (obviously a tad self serving, but…) says horse artillery – ‘five companies serving 19 pieces’  charged forward (over a defile!)* in sections of two pieces and ‘the head was crushed’ (whatever that means) but the rest of his artillery unlimbered ‘at very close cannon range’, where despite the enemy being of heavier calibre, they rapidly demounted half the Austrian guns.

(he doesn’t mention grenadiers or Verdier but simply says Serrurier’s (Marmont’s spelling) division arrived).

Atlas Des Plus Memorables Batailles, Combats Et Sieges Des Temps Anciens, Du Moyen Age Et De L’Age Moderne, en 200 feuilles … Atlas der merkwürdigsten Schlachten, Treffen und Belagerungen der alten, mittlern und neuern Zeit in 200 Blättern 1831, p.731.(That’s a mouthful! Sorry- but it is two languages!) says ‘A battery of twenty cannon’ was ordered by Napoleon against the Austrian left wing with a great success against the enemy there and subsequently General Verdier took the hill with three battalions of grenadiers. (no source).

The section from the initial Wikipedia link by OotKust is not a quote from Chandler (although the reference at the end of the section is Chandler pp198-199) but a summary of what he says (198-9 does in fact contain the relevant quotes from Marmont’s Memoires, which would have saved me time if I’d bothered to read that but at least I had the fun of reading it in the French first).

The only other references in Chandler’s description of the battle are from Commandant J Colin’s Transformations of War and Napoleon’s Correspondance, and not directly relevant to the attack on Monte Medolano

 

So – some Austrians occupied a small rise, built a redoubt of sorts, and based their left flank on it, with heavy artillery. Some French guns (horse artillery probably from descriptions – but ‘heavy’ according to Clausewitz- who wasn’t there  but didn’t have an axe to grind) between 12 and 20 depending who you believe and what happened, unlimbered fairly close to the redoubt and opened a heavy fire on the position. This sufficiently discommoded the Austrians and allowed French infantry – possibly Verdier’s husbanded Grenadier masse de rupture (Rather a small 3 battalion masse)  – to take the ‘hill’ and turn the Austrian line.

I’m not sure I’m really much the wiser but thanks everyone for making me go and do a little digging :^)

 

*This I think is the source of the galloping artillery -‘ je lançai ma colonne au grand galop’

[Not Connard Sage]

Don’t get too hung up on the word ‘monte’, It doesn’t necessarily mean mountain or even hill. It can be a pile or heap, and figuratively, a lot of something – un monte di lavoro.
While that area of Lombardy is pretty flat, there are still lumps and bumps, and quite a lot of trees – not all of which are poplars…

This is a view up the mountain/hill/heap.

And this is a view from it.

The SP236 cuts through the site of the battle at about the right wing of Augerau’s position.

Anyway, enough of the bloody hill. Moving on.

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Not sure where the 12 pounders come from, but there are some apparent differences in precisely, though not generally, what happened. ’

I daresay there are primary sources hidden away in dusty archives in France and Austria. The problem still remains that not all primary sources agree. The best you can hope for is a balance of probability.

If you’re going to deploy artillery to engage in counterbattery fire at close range, I’d say that lugging 12pdrs and their accoutrements across the field of fire is going to end in disaster. So I’m going with horse artillery, 4/6pdrs, and I’m sorry but I don’t give a monkey’s if they were Gribeauval, Valliere or AnXI gone time travelling. So let’s stop that nonsense before it starts, and no bricoles either OK?

It’s worth remembering that there was another battle of Castiglione in the WSS, 90 years before Napoleon. Dunno if that bloody hill gets a mention in that.

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Guy Farrish]

Never fear, I’m not fussed about the word ‘monte’, ‘colline’ or ‘hill’ :^)

If the Austrians and French deemed it significant enough to fight over, good enough for me!

Good photos!

 

No prolonges then?

[OotKust]

>> 4/6pdrs,

No don’t be ridiculous. Everyone knows the ‘Artillerie Volante’ were armed with 8pouce pieces!

Yes ‘geography’ is simply a name/ title; it means less and less as time passes. We have a ‘Three Kings’ here, but two of the volcanic eruption cones have been mined out of existence in the last 150 years- immigrants will ask in wonder…. 🙂

I’d agree,  artillery ‘rapidly’ crossing a defile (by a ford?) for their own good safety concerns, hardly makes the ensemble a “charge” of artillery. I’d also question whether anything BUT the Austrian artillery was contained within any entrenchments. The line is just far too long to have been dug-in.

And I still can’t fathom why the ‘superior’ arme-blanche of Austrian cavalry wasn’t there in support to defend it. Certainly the French outflanking would have been severely handled if they had.

cheers

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Good photos!

Well, in the interests of honesty and openness, I should point out that they’re not mine. I do/did have some, somewhere, on proper photographic paper. They’re that old! Can’t find them though, Mrs Sage has probably tidied them away 🙂

Guy Farrish wrote:

No prolonges then?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Author]

Posts