The decisive engagement of the War of the Fifth Coalition, the Battle of Wagram came on the heels of the French defeat at Aspern-Essling and ended with a decisive yet bloody victory for them. The Austrian army's numerical disadvantage was worsened by the fact the reinforcements (around 13.000 men) they were meant to receive in the second day didn't arrive in time. Even so, they came close to threatening the French left flank and rear at one point.

IOTL the French army was so exhausted it couldn't pursue its defeated enemy, so what if the Austrians got their reinforcements and, after another day of brutal fighting, forced the French to retreat across the Danube a second time? How would the war develop from then on? My money is on Austria eventually losing in the end since the Grande Armée hadn't yet been wrecked by the disasters in Spain (which was still in its opening stages) and Russia.

Even so, could they fight on until 1810 or so? Could Prussia enter the war on their side by then, and what about Russia?
 
The decisive engagement of the War of the Fifth Coalition, the Battle of Wagram came on the heels of the French defeat at Aspern-Essling and ended with a decisive yet bloody victory for them. The Austrian army's numerical disadvantage was worsened by the fact the reinforcements (around 13.000 men) they were meant to receive in the second day didn't arrive in time. Even so, they came close to threatening the French left flank and rear at one point.

IOTL the French army was so exhausted it couldn't pursue its defeated enemy, so what if the Austrians got their reinforcements and, after another day of brutal fighting, forced the French to retreat across the Danube a second time? How would the war develop from then on? My money is on Austria eventually losing in the end since the Grande Armée hadn't yet been wrecked by the disasters in Spain (which was still in its opening stages) and Russia.

Even so, could they fight on until 1810 or so? Could Prussia enter the war on their side by then, and what about Russia?
Russia was “fighting” on Napoleon’s side. The Russian Corps under the command of Prince Golitsyn crossed the Austrian border on June 3, 1809 and occupied part of Galicia. But in fact, Alexander I did not go beyond this, warning Napoleon that Russian forces were involved in other wars (with Turkey, Persia, Sweden, England). Golitsyn's troops moved as slowly as possible, with instructions to avoid a serious clash with the Austrians. There were only minor skirmishes between Russian and Austrian troops with minimal losses. Russia was in no way interested in defeating Austria.

Anyway, the part about Sweden Turkey and Persia was true so I doubt that, even if AI was inclined, he could get seriously involved against Austria. Well, of course by June 1809 the military activities in Sweden were almost over and the peace was signed in September but formally AI was correct. 😜 Anyway, the troops could not just march from one war to another across a big part of the European Russia.
 
Russia was “fighting” on Napoleon’s side. The Russian Corps under the command of Prince Golitsyn crossed the Austrian border on June 3, 1809 and occupied part of Galicia. But in fact, Alexander I did not go beyond this, warning Napoleon that Russian forces were involved in other wars (with Turkey, Persia, Sweden, England). Golitsyn's troops moved as slowly as possible, with instructions to avoid a serious clash with the Austrians. There were only minor skirmishes between Russian and Austrian troops with minimal losses. Russia was in no way interested in defeating Austria.

Anyway, the part about Sweden Turkey and Persia was true so I doubt that, even if AI was inclined, he could get seriously involved against Austria. Well, of course by June 1809 the military activities in Sweden were almost over and the peace was signed in September but formally AI was correct. 😜 Anyway, the troops could not just march from one war to another across a big part of the European Russia.
Is there a chance Austria could hold out until the end of the year, or at least retake Vienna? I assume the latter could only happen if the French are routed somehow.
 
Having the reinforcements come sooner doesn't help very much. The French though Archduke John would have 30,000 men not 13,000. They kept a large force in reserve, so even though they had a decent numerical advantage, that wasn't in play most of the day. Archduke John is more useful as a force in being than an actual fighting force, though his OTL arrival time might work well to panic the French and destabilize their open right flank (once that reserve has been committed). To be honest, the Austrians came very close to winning. Ignoring some prisoners taken during the Austrian withdraw stage, French casualties were almost certainly higher (maybe even counting them, from what I remember when I looked, 40,000 is probably more realistic than Wikipedia's 35,000 for French losses).

I think the best POD is Kollowrat pushes forward. That does several things. The French left flank was already deeply in trouble, famously Bernadette's Corps collapsed. One of Massena's divisions was basically destroyed also. If he pushed forward vigorously, that destabilizes Massena's other flank. I think there is good odds everything falls apart and instead of reenforcements desperately holding it together, they get sequentially shredded. It also lets Klenau advance further into the French rear. He basically had to stop as Kollowrat's failure to advance left his north flank completely exposed (he was ~3km ahead of any other Austrian forces) and his south flank had Boudet and Lobau. I've thought before about doing a timeline about that, but too busy for that.
 
Last edited:
The Fifth Coalition was a costly conflict for the French. Jean Lannes perished at Aspern-Essling. Napoleon himself was injured earlier in the campaign at Ratisbon. Perhaps the trend continues?
 
Wonder what terms would be if Nappy lost small in 1809? I"m assuming he'd not be bled dry as much as he was in Russia.

Grand Duchy of Warsaw is gone, I doubt Prussia gets restored, but Austria makes pretty solid gains, Russia gets some too for balance of power reasons. France might be barred from any sort of Contintental system.
I could see Nappy lasting longer with a defeat if it isn't too crippling, especially since the losses wouldn't be too painful for France as it would mostly be allies.
 
I think the best POD is Kollowrat pushes forward. That does several things. The French left flank was already deeply in trouble, famously Bernadette's Corps collapsed. One of Massena's divisions was basically destroyed also. If he pushed forward vigorously, that destabilizes Massena's other flank. I think there is good odds everything falls apart and instead of reenforcements desperately holding it together, they get sequentially shredded. It also lets Klenau advance further into the French rear. He basically had to stop as Kollowrat's failure to advance left his north flank completely exposed (he was ~3km ahead of any other Austrian forces) and his south flank had Boudet and Lobau. I've thought before about doing a timeline about that, but too busy for that.
I can only imagine just how many French troops could get trapped on the wrong side of the Danube, if their line of retreat is blocked.
 
Wonder what terms would be if Nappy lost small in 1809? I"m assuming he'd not be bled dry as much as he was in Russia.

Grand Duchy of Warsaw is gone, I doubt Prussia gets restored, but Austria makes pretty solid gains, Russia gets some too for balance of power reasons. France might be barred from any sort of Contintental system.
I could see Nappy lasting longer with a defeat if it isn't too crippling, especially since the losses wouldn't be too painful for France as it would mostly be allies.
I could see Warsaw holding on, but the German client states being lost and the model states abolished. Italy I think he holds onto but may reorganize.
 
Is there a chance Austria could hold out until the end of the year, or at least retake Vienna? I assume the latter could only happen if the French are routed somehow.
Let’s not overestimate Russian military of that time. The big numbers of 1812 and 1813 were results of the reforms conducted by Barclay when he became Minister of War (1810). Prior to this seemingly big general numbers were almost meaningless: most of these troops had been dispersed all over the empire as the garrisons (meaning - low quality) and the field armies lacked modern organization, which also was a product of these reforms.
 
Having the reinforcements come sooner doesn't help very much. The French though Archduke John would have 30,000 men not 13,000. They kept a large force in reserve, so even though they had a decent numerical advantage, that wasn't in play most of the day. Archduke John is more useful as a force in being than an actual fighting force, though his OTL arrival time might work well to panic the French and destabilize their open right flank (once that reserve has been committed). To be honest, the Austrians came very close to winning. Ignoring some prisoners taken during the Austrian withdraw stage, French casualties were almost certainly higher (maybe even counting them, from what I remember when I looked, 40,000 is probably more realistic than Wikipedia's 35,000 for French losses).

I think the best POD is Kollowrat pushes forward. That does several things. The French left flank was already deeply in trouble, famously Bernadette's Corps collapsed. One of Massena's divisions was basically destroyed also. If he pushed forward vigorously, that destabilizes Massena's other flank. I think there is good odds everything falls apart and instead of reenforcements desperately holding it together, they get sequentially shredded. It also lets Klenau advance further into the French rear. He basically had to stop as Kollowrat's failure to advance left his north flank completely exposed (he was ~3km ahead of any other Austrian forces) and his south flank had Boudet and Lobau. I've thought before about doing a timeline about that, but too busy for that.
Archduke Johann's behavior at this battle haunted him the rest of his life, since he was given the sneering nickname of "Brücklhans" /Brücklhannes" (Bridger Jack) for his late arrival at the battle. IIRC Johann had a bit of an exaggerated sense of his own skill (his victories were more due to Frimont, von Riesch and Liechtenstein) and was in a bit of a tiff about being placed in a subordinate position to the duke of Teschen. It was why the defeat at Wagram was blamed on Johann, a fact the French exploited by rewarding Johann (he was presented with the grand cross of the Order of Maria Theresia by Eugène de Beauharnais-don't ask, I thought the MT was a Habsburg order-) and mentioning him in the French dispatches but ignoring the other generals. Ironically, Johann was one of the most anti-French of the emperor's brothers (but the smear campaign worked and Johann never got another command until the Waterloo campaign IIRC)
 
Could the Viennese population revolt against the French occupiers if their defeat at Wagram is a complete disaster - if they suffer more than, say, 50.000 casualties?
 
Well, the Austrians thought that there would be popular uprisings through germany, perchance after Napoleon suffers a crushing defeat, like 50% casualties, at wagram, those uprisings would occur. Maybe the Black Brunswickers do better, garner more support, if its that bad, Prussia might be convinced to join.
 
I think the best POD is Kollowrat pushes forward. That does several things. The French left flank was already deeply in trouble, famously Bernadette's Corps collapsed. One of Massena's divisions was basically destroyed also. If he pushed forward vigorously, that destabilizes Massena's other flank. I think there is good odds everything falls apart and instead of reenforcements desperately holding it together, they get sequentially shredded. It also lets Klenau advance further into the French rear. He basically had to stop as Kollowrat's failure to advance left his north flank completely exposed (he was ~3km ahead of any other Austrian forces) and his south flank had Boudet and Lobau. I've thought before about doing a timeline about that, but too busy for that.
Klenau was also really undecisive, in whether he should strike at French rear, or their bridges. Frankly, if he and Kollowrat got a slightly more decisive personalities (which was unfortunately not encouraged in the Austrian army), Massena would be in deep shit.
Could the Viennese population revolt against the French occupiers if their defeat at Wagram is a complete disaster - if they suffer more than, say, 50.000 casualties?
Viennese welcomed the French pretty nicely IOTL. It was honestly weird, as large parts of Austrian lands got swept up in a patriotic wave (volunteer units were used for the first time in big numbers by Austria), but in the capital the old, not-really-that-personall attitude towards occupiers took place. An uprising is quite unlikely.

All in all, Wagram can end quite well for Austria, if several previously mentioned factors (Kollowrat, Klenau and Archduke John), manage to improve their performance. But it is somewhat unlikely that a big cut-off would be managed. For one, French reserves were large, and able to hold the bridges for a potential retreat (Napoleon made sure of that after Aspern). And two, Archduke Charles was not one for a war of anihillation. He wa an 18. century style general, and believed that enough defeats would force Napoleon to negotiate, while complete destruction of the French army would be more trouble then it was worth. So a victory at Wagram, while impressive, and further improving Austrian position for negotiations and post-war settlement, would likely not lead to a large strategic change. Unless you add one more ellement.

Kill Napoleon. Which surprisingly wasn't that impossible. Marshall Massena took the field in a large carriage, that was targeted by the Austrian artillery. around 10:00 AM, after Bernadotte's corps got routed, Napoleon joined up with Massena. The carriage was targeted again by Austrian artillery, but no hits were scorred (by some miracle). A lucky cannonball, and you can reduce Napoleon Bonaparte and Massena to a human gulash.
 
Well, the Austrians thought that there would be popular uprisings through germany, perchance after Napoleon suffers a crushing defeat, like 50% casualties, at wagram, those uprisings would occur. Maybe the Black Brunswickers do better, garner more support, if its that bad, Prussia might be convinced to join.
I think this requires an earlier POD, like Napoleon being fatally wounded at Ratisbon instead of recovering from the injuries received there.
 
Well, the Austrians thought that there would be popular uprisings through germany, perchance after Napoleon suffers a crushing defeat, like 50% casualties, at wagram, those uprisings would occur. Maybe the Black Brunswickers do better, garner more support, if its that bad, Prussia might be convinced to join.
Austria was honestly going quite wild, fo what the Habsburgs usually did. Archduke Charles made an open call for a German national uprising when he entered Bavaria, the recruiting of large amounts of volunteers, and open support for the nationalist rising in Tyrol.
It was the closest Austria ever got to revolutionary French methods, and the defeat of 09 ended any further move in this direction.
 
I think you are unfair to Klenau. His previous record shows him as reasonably bold and competent, decidedly above the Austrian average. He is in a vulnerable position with an unfamiliar Corps he took control of *one* day before the battle. By 10am he was *well* in front of Kollowrat and he had only 14,000 men. He can't really advance toward the bridges without being disconnected from Kollowrat. Frankly I think that there are good odds if he had done that, that's the last we hear of his Corps. Same with a deep advance. More viable might be instead of having the bulk of his forces between Aspern and Breitlee, have it between Aspen and Essling and then advance straight north. It is a decent bit of space, so he is going to end up stalled by Massena south of Raasdorf. Still helpful, can throw some enfilading fire at the Grand Battery. Moral of the story though is he can and probably will do a lot more if Kollowrat is a few kms forward. And there is no reason that can't happen, why did it take until 9:30am to be fully lined up when the Grenadiers to the north did that at 7:30am and Klenau was advancing on Aspern at 8am.

In terms of how I see things going, sequential grinding up of the French center. This POD doesn't effect the other wing, so that still gets driven back. The problem for Napoleon is by the time it is clear he needs Davout/Oudinot, they will have advanced a decent ways and it will take several hours to get them to Raasdorf. He may end up unable to retreat to Lobau, but it is pretty unlikely that the army gets destroyed, instead retreat east once it gets dark. True they *think* Archduke John has 30,000 men, but they *know* Charles has 4X that. I think retreat toward Bratslavia, there is some rough terrain there, use it to anchor and cross. Charles also crosses somewhere. Then Napoleon has one last chance to win a great battle. The problem for Napoleon is he has less opportunity to pick up reenforcements, since Eugene left only ~8,000 men near Pressburg versus ~13,000 under Archduke John and ~25,000 Hungarian militia east of Pressburg admittedly of shaky quality. Napoleon may end up needing to retreat and that may well have to be toward Italy rather than Bavaria.

So what happens next? Serious, serious problems in Germany. With many of the Alpine passes blocked by insurgents, it is going to be an over 1,200km trip to get back to Southern Germany. Napoleon will transfer himself and likely cavalry before then, but it will be October by the time the infantry is back. Conveniently Austrian forces defeated a French Corps, the Westphalians, and Saxons west of Bohemia in the week after Wagram (only OTL to have their brilliant campaign be entirely pointless). I expect the Saxons flip quick, since Napoleon will be 0-for-2 and they are being occupied. There is less than 20,000 French in the Danubia (plus Bavarian, Wurttemburgian, and Baden although most of their forces were containing the Tyrol Rebellion). Once Archduke Charles connects with the Hungarians, he will be able to spend a few Corps west and I suspect at that point the South German states negotiate before they are occupied. Also, at the end of the month 40,000 British soldiers will land in Holland. Louis's relationship with Napoleon is rapidly deteriorating and he seemed to think his first loyalty was to his subjects, so I think he may well flip given Germany is collapsing, Napoleon is deep in Austria retreating toward Italy and he has a giant army on his doorstep. When Prussia and Russia join isn't *that* important since it will be several months before there will be a large French army on the German front (August/September for Prussia maybe? Since by that time other than some garrisons the French may be back on the Rhine, not sure for Russia but they weren't committed to Napoleon by any means and mopping up the Poles will be tempting).

It is quite possible for a Wagram victory to end similar to OTL just later. However, I think a scenario where Napoleon is facing a 1813 style coalition (perhaps a bit weaker, but then Napoleon is also missing the Confederation of the Rhine) by the end of the year is pretty plausible. It will be very different dynamic though. Unlike where it was 3 rough equals, Austria will be the clear senior partner with a much larger army than 1809. Russia is still early in reforming. Prussia will liberate itself but being returned to 1807 size will be more of a 'gift' of principle than 'earned'. It is also a different Austria in other ways, the peak of them leaning into Revolutionary Frenchness. Levee en mass, Austria's ~600,000 man army in 1809 would not be exceeded until Austria's mobilization in WWI. German nationalism, leaning into it.

Also, Napoleon being wounded is good. Him being killed might be a flop, end in a boring restoration of Peace of Amiens situation, everyone goes home. Need his reluctance to accept terms his opponents will take.
 
Last edited:
Assuming Wagram starts a chain reaction that ends with the French getting kicked out of Germany (somehow...), how does this affect the dynamics that may lead to its unification? Austria will get most of the credit, for obvious reasons, and there's the stuff @LordMartinax mentioned.
 
Top