COMMENTS.
It is not only on account of its great and far-reaching results that Königgrätz must be rated as one of the greatest battles of the world. In point of numbers engaged, it was the greatest battle of modern times; for the two contending armies aggregated nearly half a million men. In this respect it exceeded Gravelotte, dwarfed Solferino and even surpassed the “Battle of Nations” fought on the plains of Leipsic, fifty-two years before.
Yet, considering the numbers engaged, the loss of life was not great. The sum total of the killed and wounded was nearly 6,000 less than at Gettysburg, though in that sanguinary struggle the combined strength of the Union and Confederate armies was less than that of the Austrian army alone at Königgrätz.[14] In fact, of all the battles of the War of Secession, Fredericksburg, Chattanooga and Cold Harbor were the only ones in which the losses of the victors, in killed and wounded, did not exceed, in proportion to the numbers engaged, the losses of the defeated army at Königgrätz. A bit of reflection upon these facts might convince certain European critics that the failure of victorious American armies to pursue their opponents vigorously was due to other causes than inefficient organization or a lack of military skill. In the words of Colonel Chesney: “In order to pursue, there must be some one to run away; and, to the credit of the Americans, the ordinary conditions of European warfare in this respect were usually absent from the great battles fought across the Atlantic. Hence, partly, the frequent repetition of the struggle, almost on the same ground, of which the last campaign of Grant and Lee is the crowning example.” It is, perhaps, not too much to say, that had Von Benedek been a Lee, and had his army been of the nature of Lee’s army, even if defeated at Königgrätz, the next day would have found him on the left bank of the Elbe, under the shelter of hasty entrenchments, presenting a bold front to the Prussians; for there was no reason, aside from demoralization, for the retreat of the Austrians far from the scene of their defeat. Their communications were neither intercepted nor seriously endangered; their losses had not been excessive; and, but for their discouragement and loss of morale, there is no reason why their defeat at Königgrätz should have been decisive.
Not the least of the causes of the Austrian defeat was the autocratic policy of Von Benedek, which caused the entire management of the army to be centralized in his own person, and the plan of battle to be locked up in his own mind. However brave, willing and obedient a subordinate officer may be, there can be no doubt that his duties will be better done, because more intelligently done, if he has a clear knowledge of the part that he is called upon to perform. The higher the rank, and the more important the command, of the subordinate officer, the more certainly is this the case. Yet Von Benedek seems to have desired from his corps commanders nothing more than the blind obedience of the private soldier. On the day before the battle of Königgrätz all the corps commanders were summoned to headquarters; but Von Benedek, after alluding merely to unimportant matters of routine, dismissed them without a word of instruction as to the part to be performed by them in the battle which he must have known to be imminent. On the day of the battle the commanders of the corps and divisions on the right were not informed of the construction of the batteries, and were not notified that these entrenchments were intended to mark their line. Instead of being thrown up by the divisions themselves, these works were constructed by the chief engineer, without one word of consultation or explanation with the corps commanders. Had the commanders of the IIId, IVth and IId Corps been informed that their principal duty would be to guard against a possible, if not probable, advance of the Crown Prince, it is not likely that the line Cistowes-Maslowed-Horenowes would have been occupied by the right wing; but these generals seem to have taken up their positions with no more idea of their object or of their influence upon the result of the battle than had the men in the ranks.
The selection made by Von Benedek of a field for the coming battle cannot be condemned. On the whole, the position was a strong one, and the fault lay in the dispositions purposely made, or accidentally assumed, rather than in any inherent weakness in the position.
According to some writers, Von Benedek committed an error in holding his advanced posts in the villages on the Bistritz with small forces (which in some cases did not exceed a battalion), while the Prussian advanced-guards generally consisted of a brigade at least. Derrécagaix says: “It was of importance to the Imperial Army to compel the Prussian forces to deploy at the earliest moment; to tire them before their arrival at the Bistritz; to dispute the passage of that river, which constituted an obstacle, in order that they might approach the main position only after having exhausted their efforts and lost their élan through heavy casualties.” To this end, he suggests that the Austrians should have established west of the Bistritz, on the two roads by which the Prussians must necessarily have advanced, two strong advanced posts, composed of troops of all three arms, and sufficiently strong to resist the enemy’s advanced-guards. He continues: “The Bistritz formed a first line of defense, on which it would have been possible to check the assailant’s efforts. It possessed the peculiarity of having all along its course villages distant from 1,000 to 1,500 meters, and separated by marshy meadows with difficult approaches. With some batteries in rear of the intervals which separated the villages, it would have been possible to hold them a certain time, and compel the enemy to execute a complete deployment. The Imperial Army had, it is true, on the Bistritz and beyond, detachments of considerable strength. But they played an insignificant part, by reason of the orders given, or modified their positions in the morning. As a result, the line of the Bistritz, its banks, the villages and the woods beyond, were occupied by the Prussians without great efforts, and they had from that moment defensive points d’appui on which it was possible to await events and sustain the fight.”
It is impossible to agree fully with Derrécagaix on this point. Speaking of defensible points in front of a position, Hamley says: “A feature of this kind will be especially valuable in front of what would otherwise be a weak part of the position. Strong in itself, and its garrison constantly reinforced from the line; while the ground in front is swept by batteries, such a point is difficult to attack directly; the enemy cannot attempt to surround it without exposing the flank and rear of the attacking troops; and to pass by it in order to reach the position, the assailants must expose their flank to its fire. If several such points exist, they support each other, isolate the parts of the enemy’s attack, and force him to expend his strength in costly attacks on them: in fact, they play the part of bastions in a line of fortification. But it is important that they should be within supporting distance and easy of covered access from the rear; failing these conditions, they had better be destroyed, if possible, as defenses, and abandoned to the enemy.”
Now, none of the advanced posts in question were in front of a weak part of the position (for the line adopted by Von Benedek was incomparably stronger than anything on the line of the Bistritz), and it would have been impossible to use artillery in them with anything like the murderous effect produced by the batteries on the line Lipa-Problus. They were more than a mile and a quarter in front of the position, and were not “easy of covered access from the rear.” They were, it is true, within supporting distance of each other; but, while attacking them, the Prussians would have been beyond the best effect of the powerful artillery in the main Austrian line. The preliminary combats would have largely fallen on the infantry; and, owing to the inferior arms and impaired morale of his infantry, it was, doubtless, the first aim of the Austrian commander to use his artillery to the fullest extent; for in that arm he knew that he was superior to the Prussians. Von Benedek’s plan was, apparently, to lure Frederick Charles into a position where he should have the Bistritz at his back; where he should be at the mercy of the Austrian artillery; and where he could be overwhelmed by the attack of superior numbers of infantry and cavalry, after he had been demoralized and shattered by a crushing cannonade. The Bistritz (above Lubno) is an insignificant obstacle; but it might have been a troublesome obstruction in the rear of a defeated army. Had the Crown Prince been delayed five or six hours, it is probable that Von Benedek’s plan would have succeeded. The terrible battering which Frederick Charles received, as it actually was, is shown by the fact that his losses exceeded those of the Second Army and the Army of the Elbe combined. In fact, the event proved that, so far as the repulse of a front attack was concerned, Von Benedek’s position fulfilled every condition that could be desired; and it does not seem that anything could have been gained by the occupation in force of the villages on the Bistritz above Lubno. They should rather have been abandoned and destroyed, and everything left to depend on the magnificent position in rear—a position scarcely inferior in strength to Marye’s Heights or St. Privat.
The only village on the Bistritz that had any real value was Nechanitz. Von Benedek’s weak points were his flanks. Had Nechanitz been occupied in strong force, the turning of the Austrian left by the Army of the Elbe would have been a matter of extreme difficulty, if not a downright impossibility. We have seen that the retreat of the Austrian brigade from Sadowa uncovered the flanks of the advanced posts, and compelled the withdrawal of the troops successively from Dohalitz, Dohalica and Mokrowous; and it might seem, at first, that the abandonment of Nechanitz might have been caused in a similar manner: but such is not the case. The heights in rear of that village, and between it and Hradek, should have been held by two corps, from which a strong detachment should have been placed in Nechanitz. This detachment could easily have been reinforced as occasion demanded. Any attempt to make a flank attack upon the village, from the direction of Popowitz, would have been made over unfavorable ground, and the attacking force could have been assailed in flank by Austrian troops from the heights. Attempts to cross at Kuncitz or Boharna could have been promptly met and repulsed; and attempts to cross further down would have extended the Prussian front to such a degree as to expose it to a dangerous counter-attack through Nechanitz. This occupation of Nechanitz would, it is true, have thrust Von Benedek’s left flank forward, towards the enemy; but that flank would have been strong in numbers and position; it would have been covered by the Bistritz (where that stream is swollen into a true obstacle); and it would have occupied a position commanding Nechanitz and Kuncitz, and within easy reinforcing distance of each. Nechanitz would have been to Von Benedek’s left what Hougomont was to Wellington’s right; and in the event of Austrian success, it would have given the same enveloping front that the British had at Waterloo. The neglect of Von Benedek to hold Nechanitz in force is surprising; for the position of his reserves indicates that he expected an attack upon his left—a not unsound calculation, as his main line of retreat lay in rear of his left wing.
On the right there were three positions, any one of which might have been so occupied as to check the attack of the Crown Prince; namely: 1. The line Trotina-Horenowes; 2. The line Trotina-Sendrasitz-Maslowed; 3. The line Lochenitz-Nedelist-Chlum. The first is regarded as the best by the Austrian Staff. The third is the one actually chosen by Von Benedek, but not taken up, owing to a misunderstanding of orders. Without undertaking to discuss in detail the dispositions that should have been made by the Austrian commander, or the relative merits of the three defensive positions available on the right, the assertion may be ventured that, in order to make them well suited to the ground and the circumstances of the battle, the Austrian dispositions actually made needed only to be modified so as to make the left strong in the vicinity of Nechanitz and the heights of Hradek, and to occupy any one of the three defensive positions on the right with two corps, with another corps in reserve within easy supporting distance. If then, profiting by American experience, Von Benedek had covered his position with hasty entrenchments (for the construction of which the battle field afforded every facility), he should have been able to repulse the combined Prussian armies; for the numerical odds against him were not great at any time; his reserves would have been in a position to push forward promptly to any point seriously endangered; and his entrenchments would have fully counterbalanced the superior firearms of the Prussian infantry. Though he could not, in all probability, have gained a decisive victory, he could have inflicted greater losses than he received, he could have given his adversaries a bloody check, and the mere possession of a hard-fought field would have raised the morale of his depressed army.
For a defensive battle, the formation on a salient angle would, in this case, have been deprived of its usual objections. Considering the nature of the country, and the enormous armies engaged, it is plain that the whole force of the assailant could not be brought to bear on one face of the angle; and the heights of Chlum would have served as a huge traverse to protect the lines from enfilade fire by the enemy’s artillery.
A serious defect of the Austrian position was its want of proper extent. As we have seen, the entire army occupied a position only six and three-quarters miles long. Including the reserves, there were, then, more than 30,000 men to a mile. The entire army was crowded, and the cavalry had no room for action. The latter should have operated across the Bistritz against the Prussian right; or (sacrificing itself if necessary) it should have operated against the Prussian left, opposing the advance of the Crown Prince, and gaining time for the infantry to take up the new position.
The “spectacle of wildest flight and utter rout” in the passage of the defeated army over the Elbe[15] would surely seem to support the views of Derrécagaix, rather than those of Hozier, in regard to a position with a river at its back, even though the river be spanned by many bridges. Yet Von Benedek undoubtedly derived considerable advantage from having the Elbe at his back; for the Prussian Staff History says: “The Elbe formed a considerable barrier to any further immediate pursuit. As soon as the bridges over the river were once reached by the enemy—to whom moreover the fortress of Königgrätz, which commands so large a tract of the surrounding country, afforded a perfectly secure place of crossing—the pursuers were obliged to make the detour by way of Pardubitz.” If Von Benedek had encountered only a front attack, and had been defeated, it is probable that the Elbe at his back would have been advantageous to him in the highest degree; for the superb behavior of his artillery and cavalry would have effectually covered the retreat of his infantry over the numerous bridges, and the Elbe would have played the same part in favor of the Austrians that the Mincio did after Solferino. But the direction of the Crown Prince’s attack destroyed the value of the bridges north of Königgrätz; and, but for the protection afforded by the fortress, the Elbe, instead of being of the slightest advantage, would have completely barred the retreat of a great part of the Austrian army.
Von Benedek’s selection of his individual station for watching the progress of the battle was unfortunate. From his station on the slope between Lipa and Chlum, his view of the field was limited by the Swiep Wald on the north, and Problus on the south; and his view of the entire northeastern portion of the field was cut off by the hill and village of Chlum. The hill of Chlum was his proper station, and the church tower in that hamlet should have been used as a lookout by some officer of his staff. From that point the Horica Berg, the heights of Horenowes, the Swiep Wald, the village and wood of Sadowa, the villages on the Bistritz (almost as far as Nechanitz), the villages of Langenhof and Problus—in brief, every important part of the field—can be plainly seen. Had this important lookout been utilized, Von Benedek could not have been taken by surprise by the advance of the Crown Prince. Even the rain, mist and low-hanging smoke could not have wholly obscured the advance of the Second Army from view; for the Crown Prince was able to trace the direction of the contending lines from the heights of Choteborek, a point much farther from the scene of action than Maslowed and Horenowes are from Chlum. Von Benedek’s neglect to make use of the church tower of Chlum probably had not a little to do with the extent of his defeat.[16]
Among the causes of Prussian success in this campaign, the needle gun has been given a high place by all writers; and Colonel Home, in his admirable “Précis of Modern Tactics,” says: “It is not a little remarkable that rapidity of fire has twice placed Prussia at the head of the military nations of Europe—in 1749 and 1866.” Nevertheless, the importance of the breech-loader in this campaign has probably been over-estimated. The moral and physical effects of the needle gun upon the Austrian soldiers were tremendous, and were felt from the very beginning of the campaign. All other things equal, the needle gun would have given the victory to the Prussians; but all other things were not equal. The strategy and tactics of the Prussians were as much superior to those of their opponents as the needle gun was to the Austrian muzzle-loader. In every case, the Prussian victory was due to greater numbers or better tactics, rather than to superior rapidity of fire; and when we consider the tactical features of each engagement, it is hard to see how the result could have been different, even if the Prussians had been no better armed than their adversaries. The needle gun, undoubtedly, enabled the Prussian Guards to repulse the attacks of the Austrian reserves at Chlum; but the battle had already gone irretrievably against the Austrians, and if they had driven back the Guards, the Ist and Vth Corps would have quickly recovered the lost ground, and the result would have been the same. Derrécagaix, too, overestimates the influence of the needle gun when he points, for proof of its value, to the great disparity of loss between the Prussians and Austrians at Königgrätz. The same enormous disproportion of loss existed in favor of the Germans at Sedan, though the needle gun was notoriously inferior to the Chassepot. This inequality of loss is to be attributed mainly to the superior strategical and tactical movements of the Prussians, by which, in both these battles, they crowded their opponents into a limited space, and crushed them with a concentric fire.
It is a remarkable fact, moreover, that the superiority of the needle gun over the muzzle-loader did not arise so much from the greater rapidity of fire, as from the greater rapidity and security of loading. Baron Stoffel says: “On the 29th of June, 1866, at Königinhof, the Prussians had a sharp action with the enemy. After the action, which took place in fields covered with high corn, Colonel Kessel went over the ground, and to his astonishment, found five or six Austrian bodies for every dead Prussian. The Austrians killed had been mostly hit in the head. His [Kessel’s] men, far from firing fast, had hardly fired as many rounds as the enemy. The Austrian officers who were made prisoners said to the Prussians: ‘Our men are demoralized, not by the rapidity of your fire, for we could find some means, perhaps, to counterbalance that, but because you are always ready to fire. This morning your men, like ours, were concealed in the corn; but, in this position, yours could, without being seen, load their rifles easily and rapidly: ours, on the other hand, were compelled to stand up and show themselves when they loaded, and you then took the opportunity of firing at them. Thus we had the greatest difficulty in getting our men to stand up at all; and such was their terror when they did stand up to load that their hands trembled, and they could hardly put the cartridge into the barrel. Our men fear the advantage the quick and easy loading of the needle gun gives you; it is this that demoralizes them. In action they feel themselves disarmed the greater part of the time, whereas you are always ready to fire.’”
As to rapidity of fire, it only remains to add that in the battle of Königgrätz the number of cartridges fired by the infantry averaged scarcely more than one round per man. This, however, is largely accounted for by the fact that during a great part of the battle the Austrian artillery kept most of Frederick Charles’ army beyond effective infantry fire, as well as by the circumstance that a large part of the Crown Prince’s army did not fire a shot—the Vth Corps not coming into action at all.
The needle gun was of inestimable value to the Prussians, but it was by no means the principal cause of their triumph. The great cause of the success of Prussia was, without doubt, the thorough military preparation which enabled her to take the field while her adversaries were yet unprepared, and to begin operations the minute war was declared. This, combined with the able strategy of Von Moltke, enabled the Prussians to seize the initiative; to throw the Austrians everywhere upon the defensive; and to strike them with superior numbers at every move, so that Von Benedek’s troops were demoralized before the decisive battle was fought.
The tactics of the Prussians can be best described in the words of Derrécagaix:
“In advancing to the attack, the Prussian divisions generally adopted, in this battle, a formation in three groups; the advanced-guard, the center and the reserve. In the 7th Division, for instance, the advanced-guard consisted of four battalions, four squadrons, one battery and one-half company of pioneers. The center, or main body, was composed of six battalions and one battery. In the reserve there were one and three-fourths battalions, two batteries and one and one-half companies of pioneers.
“These dispositions enabled them to launch against the first points assailed a succession of attacks, which soon gave a great numerical superiority to the assailants. This accounts for the rapidity with which the points of support fell into the hands of the Prussians. Their groups gained the first shelter by defiling behind the rising ground, and when a point was stubbornly defended, the artillery opened fire upon it, while the infantry sought to turn it by pushing forward on the flanks.”
On this point Hamley says: “When it is said that the Prussians are specially alive to the necessity of flank attacks, it is not to be supposed that the turning of the enemy’s line alone is meant; for that is a matter for the direction of the commanding general, and concerns only a fraction of the troops engaged. The common application lies in the attack of all occupied ground which is wholly or in part disconnected from the general line, such as advanced posts, hamlets, farm buildings, woods, or parts of a position which project bastion-like, and are weakly defended in flank.”
The Prussians seem, in almost every case, to have advanced to the attack in company columns, supported by half-battalion columns, or even by battalions formed in double column on the center. Though the columns were preceded by skirmishers, the latter seem to have played only the comparatively unimportant part of feeling and developing the enemy; and the present system by which a battle is begun, continued and ended, by a constantly reinforced skirmish line, was not yet dreamed of. It is remarkable that, after witnessing the destructive effects of the needle gun upon their adversaries, the Prussians should have retained their old attack formation, until, four years later, the thickly strewn corpses of the Prussian Guards at St. Privat gave a ghastly warning that the time had come for a change.
It is interesting to compare the tactical features of the campaign of 1866 with those of our own war. The necessity of launching upon the points assailed a succession of attacks was recognized in the tactical disposition frequently made, during the War of Secession, in which the assaulting divisions were drawn up in three lines of brigades, at distances of about 150 yards, the leading brigade being preceded by one, or sometimes two, lines of skirmishers.[17] The skirmishers being reinforced by, and absorbed in, the first line, the latter, if checked, being reinforced and pushed forward by the second, and the third line being similarly absorbed, the assaulting force, at the moment of collision, generally consisted of all the successive lines merged into one dense line. This formation was the outgrowth of bitter experience in attacking in column, though the attack with battalions ployed in close column had not altogether disappeared in 1864.[18] In comparison with the beautiful tactics by which the Germans now attack, with a firing line constantly reinforced from supports and reserves kept in small columns for the double purpose of obtaining the greatest possible combination of mobility and shelter, the attack formation used in the Civil War seems far from perfect; but it was certainly superior to the Prussian attack formation of 1866, for it recognized the hopelessness of attacks in column, and provided for the successive reinforcement of an attacking line. General Sherman, in describing the tactics in use in his campaigns, says: “The men generally fought in strong skirmish lines, taking advantage of the shape of the ground, and of every cover.” Dispositions being, of course, made for the constant reinforcement of these lines, we find Sherman’s army habitually using tactics embracing the essential features of the German tactics of the present day.[19]
The Austrian infantry tactics possessed the double attribute of antiquity and imbecility. Major Adams, of the Royal Military and Staff Colleges, says: “Since the Italian war, when Napoleon III. declared that ‘arms of precision were dangerous only at a distance,’ it had been the endeavor of Austria to imitate the tactics to which she attributed her own defeat. If the uniform success of the French in 1859 had established the trustworthiness of the Emperor’s theory, how much more necessary must it now be to arrive at close quarters, where precision was accompanied by unusual rapidity of fire? The more recent experiences of the American war would seem indeed to have excited but little interest in Austria. Could it really be reasonably expected that Austrian soldiers should effect what American generals had long discarded as no longer to be attained? The advocacy of the bayonet, so loudly proclaimed in Austrian circles, would surely have elicited a contemptuous smile from the veterans of the Army of the Potomac. During three years of war, but 143 cases of bayonet wounds were treated in the northern hospitals; of these, but two-thirds were received in action, and six only proved eventually fatal. How, then, could it be imagined that tactics, which had already failed against the common rifle, ... should now prevail against the Prussian breech-loaders? The manner in which these naked Austrian battalions were ignorantly flung against the murderous fire of the enemy soon produced results which every novice in the art of war will readily appreciate. Even under cover the dread of the Prussian weapon became such that, as the enemy approached, the Austrian infantry either broke or surrendered.”
The important aid that the Austrians might have derived from hasty entrenchments has already been pointed out.[20] In not one single instance did they make use of such shelter-trenches or breastworks as were habitually used by the American armies, though the theater of war offered the best of opportunities for the quick construction and valuable use of such works. Such attempts at the construction of entrenchments as were made, savor more of the days of Napoleon than of the era of arms of precision. But the Austrians were not alone in their neglect to profit by American experience in this respect. It was not until Osman Pasha showed on European soil the value of hasty entrenchments, that European military men generally took note of a lesson of war that they might have learned thirteen years earlier.[21]
The great value of hasty entrenchments, and the immeasurable superiority of fire action over “cold steel,” were not the only lessons taught by our war which were unheeded by Austrian soldiers steeped in conservatism and basking serenely in the sunshine of their own military traditions. Their use of cavalry showed either an ignorance of, or contempt for, the experience of the American armies; but, in this respect, the Austrians were not less perspicacious than their adversaries. The campaign produced some fine examples of combats between opposing forces of cavalry; but it also produced many instances in which the Austrians hurled their cavalry against intact infantry armed with breech-loaders, only to learn from their own defeat and an appalling list of killed and wounded, that they had applied the tactics of a past age to the conditions of a new era. Both armies seem to have been afraid to let their cavalry get out of sight, and to have reserved their mounted troops solely for use on the field of battle. If they had studied the great raids of the American cavalry leaders, they would have learned a lesson which there were excellent opportunities to apply.
It would, probably, have been impossible for the Austrian cavalry to cut the Prussian communications before the junction of the invading armies was effected. A cavalry column attempting to move around the left of Frederick Charles would almost certainly have been caught between the First Army and the impassable Isergebirge, and captured before doing any damage. A column moving around the Prussian right, into Saxony, would have encountered the cavalry division of Von Mülbe’s reserve corps, to say nothing of the infantry and artillery; and the movement would, doubtless, have come to naught. A movement against the communications of the Crown Prince could have been made only via the valley of the Oder, where it could have been effectually opposed. But it is certain that after the battle of Königgrätz the Austrians had it in their power to balk the advance of Von Moltke by operating with cavalry against his communications. In this case the raiders would have been operating in their own country, and among a friendly population; the railways could have been cut without difficulty, and the cavalry could have retreated without serious danger of being intercepted. The effect upon the invading army does not admit of doubt. We have seen that, with unobstructed communications, the Prussian army was subjected to no slight distress, after the battle of Münchengrätz, for want of rations. Even two days after peace had been agreed upon, the Austrian garrison of Theresienstadt, ignorant of the termination of the war, by a successful sally destroyed the railway bridge near Kralup. The line of communication of the Prussians with the secondary base of supplies at Turnau was thus broken; and, though hostilities were at an end, the invaders were subjected to much inconvenience. It is easy to imagine what would have been the effect upon the Prussians during their advance to the Danube, if a Stuart, a Forrest or a Grierson had operated against the railways upon which the supply of the invading army necessarily depended.
Nor were the raiding opportunities altogether on the side of the Austrians. The Prague-Olmütz line of railway, of the most vital importance to Von Benedek, ran parallel to the Silesian frontier, and in close proximity to it. This line of railway should have been a tempting object to a raiding column of cavalry. If it had been cut at any point near Böhmisch-Trübau, the Austrian army would have been in sore straits for supplies. Vigorous and determined cavalry raids against the railroad between Böhmisch-Trübau and Olmütz would surely have been productive of good results, even if the road had not been cut; for Von Benedek was extremely solicitous about his communications in this part of the theater (as is shown by his long detention of the IId Corps in this region), and an alert and enterprising raider might have found means of detaining from the main Austrian army a force much larger than his own.
But neither the Austrian nor the Prussian cavalry was so armed as to be able to make raiding movements with much hope of success. Cavalry without the power of using effective fire-action can never accomplish anything of importance on a raid; for a small force of hostile infantry can easily thwart its objects. The dragoon regiments were armed with the carbine, it is true, but they seem to have been studiously taught to feel a contempt for its use. At Tischnowitz (on the advance from Königgrätz to Brünn) a Prussian advanced-guard, consisting of dragoons, kept off a large force of Austrian cavalry by means of carbine fire, until the arrival of reinforcements enabled the dragoons to charge with the saber. According to Hozier, the Austrian cavalry pulled up sharply, “half surprised, half frightened, to find that a carbine could be of any use, except to make noise or smoke, in the hands of a mounted man.” Yet nothing seems to have been learned from this incident, and it was not until a brigade of German cavalry, consisting of three regiments, was stopped at the village of Vibray, in December, 1870, by a bare dozen of riflemen, and the Uhlans were everywhere forced to retire before the undisciplined Francs-tireurs, that the necessity of fire-action on the part of all cavalry was forced home to the Germans. Even yet the strategical value of the American cavalry raids seems to be under-estimated by European military critics, who seem also to regard anything like extensive fire-action on the part of cavalry as scarcely short of military heresy. Von der Goltz says: “Much has been spoken in modern times of far-reaching excursions of great masses of cavalry in the flank and rear of the enemy, which go beyond the object of intelligence, and have for their aim the destruction of railways, telegraph wires, bridges, magazines and depots. The American War of Secession made us familiar with many such ‘raids,’ on which the names of a Stuart, an Ashby, a Morgan and others, attained great renown. But, in attempting to transfer them to our theaters of war, we must primarily take into consideration the different nature, civilization and extent of the most European countries, but more especially those of the west. Then, regard must be paid to the different constitution of the forces. If a squadron of horse, improvised by a partisan, was defeated in such an enterprise, or if, when surrounded by the enemy, it broke itself up, that was of little consequence. It was only necessary that it was first paid for by some successes. Quite a different impression would be caused by the annihilation of one of our cavalry regiments, that by history and tradition is closely bound up with the whole army, and which, when once destroyed, cannot so easily rise again as can a volunteer association of adventurous farmers’ sons.
“The thorough organization of the defensive power of civilized nations is also a preventive to raids. Even when the armies have already marched away, squadrons of horse can, in thickly populated districts, with a little preparation, be successfully repulsed by levies. The French Francs-tireurs in the western departments attacked our cavalry, as soon as they saw it isolated.”
With all deference to the great military writer here quoted, it is impossible to concede that he has grasped the true idea of cavalry raids. The slight esteem in which he holds “a volunteer association of adventurous farmers’ sons” is not surprising, for Europeans have rarely formed a just idea of American volunteers, and the effective fire-action of the American cavalry seems to be taken by foreign critics as proof positive that those troops were not cavalry, but merely mounted infantry—a view not shared by those who participated in the saber charges of Merritt, Custer and Devin. As to the annihilation of a Prussian cavalry regiment, there should be no objection to the annihilation of any regiment, however rich it may be in glorious history and tradition, provided that the emergency demands it, and the results obtained be of sufficient value to justify the sacrifice. Von Bredow’s charge at Mars-la-Tour was deemed well worth the sacrifice of two superb cavalry regiments; yet the results obtained by that famous charge certainly were not greater than those achieved by Van Dorn in the capture of Holly Springs. The former is supposed to have stopped a dangerous French attack; the latter is known to have checked a Federal campaign at its outset. Even had Van Dorn’s entire force been captured or slain (instead of escaping without loss) the result would have justified the sacrifice. Nor is the danger of annihilation great, if the cavalry be properly armed and trained. That cavalry untrained in fire-action can be successfully repulsed by levies, in thickly populated districts, is undoubtedly true; but such cavalry as that which, under Wilson, dismounted and carried entrenchments by a charge on foot, would hardly be stopped by such troops as Francs-tireurs or any other hasty levies that could be raised in a country covered with villages. Superior mobility should enable cavalry to avoid large forces of infantry, and it should be able to hold its own against any equal force of opposing cavalry or infantry. The objections of Von der Goltz and Prince Hohenlohe to raids by large bodies of cavalry, lose their force if we consider the cavalry so armed and trained as to be capable of effective fire-action. When cavalry is so armed and organized as to make it possible for Prince Hohenlohe to state that a cavalry division of six regiments “could put only 1,400 carbines into the firing line,” and that “in a difficult country it could have no chance against even a battalion of infantry decently well posted,” we must acknowledge that a respectable raid is out of the question.
We do not find, in 1866, the cavalry pushed forward as a strategic veil covering the operations of the army. On the contrary we find the cavalry divisions kept well to the rear, and the divisional cavalry alone entrusted with reconnoissance duty, which it performed in anything but an efficient manner. At Trautenau, Von Bonin’s cavalry does not seem to have followed the retreat of Mondl, or to have discovered the approach of Von Gablentz. If it was of any use whatever, the fact is not made apparent in history. At Nachod, Steinmetz’s cavalry did better, and gave timely warning of the approach of the enemy; but generally, throughout the campaign, the Prussian cavalry did not play a part of much importance either in screening or reconnoitering. It profited greatly by its experience, however, and in the Franco-German war we find it active, alert, ubiquitous, and never repeating the drowsy blunder committed when it allowed Frederick Charles unwittingly to bivouac within four miles and a half of Von Benedek’s entire army, or the inertness shown when it permitted the Austrian army to escape from all touch, sight or hearing, for three days, after the battle of Königgrätz.
On the part of the Austrians, the cavalry was even more negligent and inefficient. Outpost and reconnoissance duties were carelessly performed; and Von Benedek was greatly hampered by a want of timely and correct information of the enemy’s movements. In only one instance does the Austrian cavalry seem to have been used profitably; namely, in covering the retreat of the defeated army at Königgrätz. In the words of Hozier: “Although operations had been conducted in its own country, where every information concerning the Prussian movements could have been readily obtained from the inhabitants, the Austrian cavalry had made no raids against the flank or rear of the advancing army, had cut off no ammunition or provision trains, had broken up no railway communications behind the marching columns, had destroyed no telegraph lines between the front and the base of supplies, had made no sudden or night attacks against the outposts so as to make the weary infantry stand to their arms and lose their night’s rest, and, instead of hovering around the front and flanks to irritate and annoy the pickets, had been rarely seen or fallen in with, except when it had been marched down upon and beaten up by the Prussian advanced-guards.” Surely it needed all the energy and valor shown in the last hours of Königgrätz to atone, in even a small degree, for such inefficiency.
The full offensive value of artillery was not yet understood in any army; and it is not surprising to notice in this campaign the utter absence of the tactics which, in the war with France, brought the German guns almost up to the skirmish line, and kept them actively engaged at close range until the end of the battle. It is, however, amazing to observe the slowness and general inefficiency of the Prussian artillery in every action. At Trautenau, though there were 96 guns belonging to Von Bonin’s corps, only 32 were brought into action, while 42 remained in the immediate vicinity without firing a shot. The remaining 22 guns do not seem to have reached the field at all. At Soor the Austrians brought 64 guns into action; but of the 72 guns of the Prussians, only 18 were brought into action from first to last. At Nachod, Skalitz and Gitschin it is the same story—plenty of Prussian artillery, but only a small portion of the guns brought into action, and those without appreciable effect.
Prince Hohenlohe says that in the entire campaign “the Prussian artillery, which numbered as many pieces as its adversary, had only once been able to obtain the numerical superiority. It had, on all occasions, fought against forces two, three, or even four times superior in number.” At Königgrätz the Prussian artillery was handled with surprising feebleness. The Crown Prince finally succeeded in bringing to bear on the Austrian right a force of artillery superior in numbers to that opposed to him; but, even in this case, his guns accomplished but little. As to the artillery of Frederick Charles, it practically accomplished nothing at all; and it was scarcely of more use on the Bistritz than it would have been in Berlin. From the beginning to the end of the battle, the Austrians had everywhere a decided superiority of artillery fire, except only in the one case on their right.
The Prussian Staff History says, in regard to the engagement south of the Sadowa wood: “A want of unity in the direction of the artillery was painfully evident on this part of the field. Two commandants of regiments were on the spot, but the eleven batteries then present belonged to five different artillery divisions, some of them to the divisional artillery and some to the reserve. This accounts for the want of unity of action at this spot; some batteries advanced perfectly isolated, whilst others retired behind the Bistritz at the same time.” To this Colonel Home adds: “A great deal of this was due to the fact that the guns came into action on one side of a small, muddy, stream, over which there were very few bridges, and across which bridges might have been thrown with ease, while the wagons remained on the other.” It may be further added, that the Prussian artillery seems to have been unduly afraid of encountering infantry fire, and to have had a bad habit of withdrawing to refit and to renew its ammunition. It is said of the Prussian artillery, that “they planted themselves here and there among the reserves, and never found places anywhere to engage.”[22] On the march the artillery was kept too far to the rear, and, owing to its inefficient action, the infantry, long before the close of the campaign, generally showed a disposition to despise its help, and to hurry into action without it, crowding the roads, and refusing to let the guns pass. Much had been expected of their artillery by the Prussians, and its feeble action was a severe disappointment to them. It is to the glory of the Prussians that they were quick to fathom the causes of the inefficiency of their artillery, and that they were able, in four years, to replace the impotence of Königgrätz with the annihilating “circle of fire” of Sedan.
The Austrians far surpassed their adversaries in the skill and effectiveness with which they used their artillery. The superiority of the French artillery had largely contributed to the Austrian disasters in Italy seven years before, and the lesson had not been forgotten. From the beginning of the Campaign of 1866, the Austrian artillery was an important factor in every engagement, and at Königgrätz it was handled superbly. But, in every case, it was used defensively, and the Austrian artillerists originated no new tactical features, and taught no lessons that could not have been learned from Gettysburg, Malvern Hill, Solferino, or even Wagram.
The concentration of the Prussian armies preparatory to hostilities was made partly by marching, and partly by railroad transportation. The work accomplished by the railroads may, perhaps, be best expressed in the words of the Prussian Staff History: “The whole of the marches and of the railway movements were so arranged by the General Staff, in harmony with the railway department, that in their execution, in which both the military and civil powers were concerned, no impediments or delays could occur. The result of these arrangements was, that in the twenty-one days allowed, 197,000 men, 55,000 horses, and 5,300 wagons were transported for distances varying between 120 and 300 miles, without any failure, and in such a manner that they attained the required spots at the very hour requisite.” Prussia was thus enabled, in the short space of three weeks, to place 325,000 men on the hostile frontiers, of which number 267,000 were ready for operations against Austria. Yet, great as this achievement was, it shows that the Prussian military system had not yet reached the perfection shown in 1870, when nineteen days sufficed for the mobilization of an army of 440,000 Germans, and its concentration on the frontier of France.
Further than in the matter of mobilization and concentration, the use of railways in the Austro-Prussian war presented no new features. In the matter of supplying armies in the field, the small area of the theater of war, and the inertness of the cavalry, were such that it is almost impossible to make a comparison of the use of railways in this campaign with the use of the same means of transport in the War of Secession. If we imagine a Prussian army pushing entirely through the Austrian Empire, to the vicinity of Belgrade, and dependent for its supplies on a single line of railway, back to a base on the Prussian frontier; and if we imagine, moreover, that the Austrian cavalry possessed vigilance, enterprise, good firearms and modern ideas, instead of being a mere military anachronism, we can picture a parallel to Sherman’s Atlanta campaign.
In regard to the use of the electric telegraph by the Prussians, Hamley says: “The telegraphic communication between the two Prussian armies invading Bohemia in 1866 was not maintained up to the battle of Königgrätz: had it been, and had the situation on both sides been fully appreciated, their joint attack might have been so timed as to obviate the risk of separate defeat which the premature onset of Prince Frederick Charles’ army entailed.” Yet Hozier describes in glowing terms the equipment of Frederick Charles’ telegraph train, and speaks with somewhat amusing admiration of the feat of placing the Prince’s headquarters, at the castle of Grafenstein, in direct telegraphic communication with Berlin, though the castle was five miles from the nearest permanent telegraph station. With each of the Prussian armies was a telegraph train, provided with the wire and other material requisite for the construction of forty miles of line. Yet, though communication was opened between the Crown Prince and Frederick Charles early on June 30th; though there were three days in which to construct a telegraph line; though the headquarters at Gitschin, Kamenitz and Königinhof could have been put in direct communication without exhausting much more than half the capacity of a single telegraph train, the Prussians neglected even to preserve telegraphic communications to the rear of their armies (and thus with each other via Berlin), and, as we have seen, staked their success upon the safe delivery of a message carried by a courier, over an unknown road, on a night of pitchy darkness. Here again a valuable lesson might have been learned from the Americans.[23]
Though the War of Secession was begun without military preparation on either side; though its earlier operations sometimes presented features that would have been ludicrous but for the earnestness and valor displayed, and the mournful loss of life which resulted; our armies and generals grew in excellence as the war continued; and before the close of the conflict, the art of war had reached a higher development in America than it attained in Europe in 1866, and, in some respects, higher than it reached in 1870.
Notwithstanding the excellent organization, the superior arms and thorough preparation of the Prussian armies; notwithstanding the genius of Von Moltke and the intelligence and energy of his subordinates, the prime cause of Austrian failure is found in the neglect of the Austrian generals to watch the development of the art of war on our side of the Atlantic. Had they profited by our experience, their infantry, on one side of the theater of operations, would have been able, behind entrenchments, to contain many more than their own numbers of the Prussians; and Von Benedek, profiting by his interior lines, could then have thrown superior numbers against the other armies of his adversary. Opposing the Prussian columns with heavy skirmish lines constantly reinforced from the rear, the men of the firing line availing themselves of the cover afforded by the ground, he would have neutralized, by superior tactics, the superior arms of his opponent. His cavalry, instead of using the tactics of a by-gone age, would have been used, in part, in cutting the Prussian communications, bringing their advance to a halt, gaining time for him, when time was of priceless value, and enabling him to seize the initiative.
Possibly the war might, nevertheless, have resulted in Prussian success; for Von Moltke has always shown a power to solve quickly, and in the most perfect manner, any problem of war with which he has been confronted, while Von Benedek had only the half-development of a general possessing tactical skill without strategical ability. But the great Prussian strategist would have failed in his first plan of campaign, and he could have been successful only when, like his opponent, he availed himself of the new developments in warfare illustrated by the American campaigns. The Seven Weeks’ War would have been at least a matter of months; Austria would not have been struck down at a single blow; other nations might have been drawn into the prolonged conflict, and the entire history of Europe might have been different.
KÖNIGGRÄTZ TO THE DANUBE
[APPENDIX I.]
THE PRUSSIAN ADVANCE FROM KÖNIGGRÄTZ TO THE DANUBE.
The day after the battle of Königgrätz was occupied by the Prussians in resting their fatigued troops, and in separating the mingled corps and detachments of the different armies. Late in the afternoon the first movements in advance began.
The fortresses of Josephstadt and Königgrätz were still in the hands of the Austrians. They were well garrisoned, and could only be taken by siege. Both were summoned to surrender, and both refused. These fortresses were of the greatest importance, as they commanded the line of railway on which the Prussians depended for supplies, and controlled the passage of the Elbe in the vicinity of the battle field. Strong detachments were, therefore, left to mask the fortresses, and on the 5th of July the Prussian armies marched to Pardubitz and Przelautsch, at which points they crossed the Elbe. A division of Landwehr was sent to Prague, which city surrendered, without resistance, on the 8th of July. The Prussians were thus able to open communications with the rear by rail, via Pardubitz, Prague, Turnau and Reichenberg, in spite of the fortresses of Theresienstadt, Königgrätz and Josephstadt.
After the battle of Königgrätz all touch with the Austrians had been lost, and for three days the Prussians were completely in the dark as to the direction taken by the retreating army. On July 6th it was learned that Von Benedek, with the greater portion of his army, had retreated upon Olmütz.
After the battle two lines of retreat were open to Von Benedek. It was desirable to retreat upon Vienna, for the double purpose of protecting the city, and effecting a junction with the victorious troops, withdrawn from Italy for the defense of the capital.[24] But Vienna was 135 miles distant; the army had been heavily defeated; and there was danger that a retreat of such a distance would degenerate into a demoralized rout. Olmütz was only half as far away; its fortress would afford the necessary protection for reorganizing and resting the army; and its position on the flank of the Prussians would be a serious menace to their communications, in case of their advance on Vienna. Von Benedek, therefore, retreated upon Olmütz, sending the Xth Corps by rail to Vienna, and the greater part of his cavalry by ordinary roads to the same point.
The situation was now favorable to Von Moltke. He had the advantage of interior lines, and he did not hesitate to make use of them. Yet the problem was by no means devoid of difficulties. The Austrian army at Olmütz was still formidable in numbers; the extent of its demoralization was not known; the Austrian troops had a high reputation for efficiency, and for a capacity to present an undaunted front after a defeat; and it was thought possible that Von Benedek might assume the offensive. To leave such a formidable army unopposed on his flank was not to be thought of; yet it was desirable to reach Vienna before the arrival at that city of the troops recalled from Italy, or, at any rate, before a considerable army could be concentrated for the defense of the capital. A division of the Prussian forces was, therefore, necessary. The Army of the Elbe and the First Army were directed upon Vienna: the former to move via Iglau and Znaym; the latter, via Brünn. The Crown Prince was directed upon Olmütz to watch Von Benedek. There were three courses open to the Austrian commander: 1. To attack the flank of the First Army, between Olmütz and Vienna; 2. To withdraw rapidly to the capital; 3. To attack the Crown Prince. In the first case, the First Army would be supported by the Army of the Elbe, and the combined forces would be able to take care of themselves. In the second case, the Crown Prince was to attack the retiring army and harass its march. In the third case, the Crown Prince, who, though inferior in numbers, was superior in morale, might be more than a match for the Austrians. In case of defeat, however, he was to retreat into Silesia, where he would have the support of the Prussian fortresses; while Von Moltke, freed from Von Benedek, could seize the Austrian capital and command peace.
On July 7th the cavalry of the Second Army recovered touch with the Austrians, and there was some skirmishing with their rear guards.
On July 8th the Austrian government made overtures for an armistice of not less than eight weeks, nor more than three months; as a condition to which the fortresses of Königgrätz and Josephstadt were to be surrendered. The proposition was rejected by the Prussians, who continued to advance.
Von Benedek was relieved from the chief command of the Austrian army, being superseded by Archduke Albrecht, who had won the victory of Custozza over the Italians. Von Benedek retained command, however, until the arrival of his army on the Danube. The Austrians were now straining every nerve to assemble an army at Vienna. Leaving only one corps and one division in Italy, the Archduke’s army had been recalled from Venetia, and was proceeding, by rail and by forced marches, to the Danube.
On the 11th of July Von Benedek’s army was ordered to Vienna. This army, after a continuous retreat of eight days duration, had just completed its concentration at Olmütz; but the movement to Vienna was begun without delay, the IIId Corps being sent on the day the order was received. The withdrawal of the army from Olmütz to Vienna was not an easy operation. The railway was, as yet, beyond the reach of the Prussians; but the aid that it could lend was not great. It was estimated that the withdrawal of the entire army by the single line of railway would require a full month. Part of the troops were, accordingly, hurried on by rail, and the bulk of the army was ordered to march by the valley of the March to Pressburg. This was the most direct route, and the one which offered the best roads for marching, though by taking this line the Austrian army would expose a flank to the attack of the Prussians. Above all things, celerity was necessary, in order that the march might be completed without fatal interruption. Von Benedek’s army marched in three echelons. The first, composed of the IId and IVth Corps, with the greater part of the Saxon cavalry, started on the 14th of July. The second, consisting of the VIIIth and Ist Corps, left the next day; and the third, made up of the VIth Corps and the Saxons, followed on the 16th.
The Austrian cavalry presented a bold front to the Prussian armies moving on Vienna, and a sharp action was fought at Tischnowitz, on the 11th of July, between the cavalry of Frederick Charles’ advanced-guard and a division of Austrian lancers, resulting in the defeat of the latter. On the 12th Frederick Charles took possession of Brünn without resistance. The next day, after some skirmishing with the Austrian cavalry, the Army of the Elbe occupied Znaym.
After a rest of two days, the Army of the Elbe and the First Army continued their march towards the Danube; the former being directed towards Krems, the latter moving via Nikolsburg.
The Austrian troops from Italy began to arrive at Vienna on the 14th of July. In the meantime, the Crown Prince, hearing of Von Benedek’s withdrawal from Olmütz, directed his march on Prerau, and, on the 14th, reached Prosnitz, about twelve miles south of Olmütz. The first Austrian echelon, marching by the right bank of the March, just escaped serious collision with the Crown Prince, the cavalry of the Second Army skirmishing with the Saxon cavalry, and becoming engaged with a battalion of infantry on the flank of the Austrian IId Corps.
On the following day Von Bonin, with the Ist Corps and Von Hartmann’s cavalry division, attacked the second echelon of Von Benedek’s army, and defeated it in the actions of Tobitschau and Rokienitz. As a result of these actions, the right bank of the March was no longer available for the Austrian retreat. Von Benedek had, however, succeeded in slipping away from the Crown Prince, though at the expense of losing his best and most direct road to Vienna.
Learning that large bodies of Austrians had been seen moving south from Olmütz for some days, Von Moltke saw at once that it would be impossible to bar Von Benedek’s path with the Second Army, and immediately ordered the First Army to Lundenburg. The railway and telegraph at Göding were cut by a detachment of Prussian cavalry, on the 15th, and Frederick Charles occupied Lundenburg the next day.
This was a severe blow to Von Benedek, for he thus lost his railway communication with Vienna, his march by the valley of the March was headed by the Prussians, and he was compelled to make a detour by crossing the Carpathian mountains and following the valley of the Waag. To compensate, as far as possible, for the loss of the shorter road, Von Benedek hastened his troops by forced marches. Von Moltke did not deem it prudent to send the Second Army after Von Benedek into the valley of the Waag, as communication between the Crown Prince and Frederick Charles would thus be lost, and it was now desirable to concentrate rather than separate. It was accordingly determined to push forward with all available troops to the Danube. The Crown Prince had already seen the impossibility of thwarting Von Benedek’s retreat, and, as early as the 15th, had left the Ist Corps to mask Olmütz, had directed the Vth Corps and a cavalry division to follow on the flank of Von Benedek, and had pushed forward with the rest of his army upon Brünn, where he arrived on the 17th. On the same day the Army of the Elbe and the First Army were in the neighborhood of Nikolsburg.
On the 19th the heads of the Prussian armies were within less than two days’ march of the Austrian capital, but part of the Prussian forces were as far back as Brünn. Von Moltke did not know, to a certainty, how much of Von Benedek’s army had been brought back from Olmütz before the obstruction of the railway. A large part of it might already be in his front; he knew that large bodies of troops had come in from Italy; the fortifications of Florisdorf were extensive; and it seemed possible that the Austrians might, by a last great effort, have assembled an army large enough to enable them to push forward from Florisdorf, to deliver battle on the Marchfeld for the defense of their capital. With the double object of preparing to attack and being in readiness to receive an attack, Von Moltke ordered the Army of the Elbe to Wolkersdorf, the First Army to Wagram, and the Second Army in reserve at Schönkirchen. The Prussian army was thus concentrated behind the Russbach, in position to meet an attack of 150,000 Austrians from Florisdorf; to reconnoiter and attack the Florisdorf entrenchments; or to leave a corps of observation in front of them and push to the left and seize Pressburg. The Second Army, with the exception of the Vth Corps, was to be in position to support the other two by the 21st. The Vth Corps was to be hurried up as rapidly as possible, in order that the entire army might be concentrated for a decisive battle.
The only troops of Von Benedek’s army which had reached Vienna by the 20th were the Xth and IIId Corps, part of the Saxons, and four cavalry divisions, numbering altogether from 55,000 to 60,000 men. The reinforcements from Italy which had arrived at the capital numbered about 50,000 men.
Although the occupation of Pressburg was absolutely necessary to secure the prompt junction of the divided Austrian armies, that important point was held by only a single brigade. As soon as the Austrian IId Corps had reached Tyrnau, its leading brigade was pushed forward rapidly, in country carts, to reinforce the brigade at Pressburg, and the rest of the corps hastened towards the same place by forced marches. If Pressburg fell into the hands of the Prussians, the force still with Von Benedek, constituting the bulk of his army, would not be able to reach Vienna, and form a junction with the Archduke Albrecht, except by making a long detour via Komorn, and would probably be delayed so long as to be helpless to prevent the capture of the capital.
On the 21st of July the Army of the Elbe and the First Army were in position behind the Russbach, and the Second Army was drawing near, its two advanced corps being not more than one day’s march distant. The situation of the Austrians was critical. Their IId Corps had not yet reached Pressburg, and that all-important point was still held by only two brigades. The Ist, VIth and VIIIth Corps, and a division of Saxons, had gotten no farther than Neustadtl and Trentschin, nearly sixty miles from Pressburg. On the same day Von Fransecky, with the Prussian IVth Corps and a cavalry division, crossed the March, in the vicinity of Marchegg, advancing upon Pressburg. Everything portended to the Austrians the loss of that valuable strategic point, and the consequent cutting off of Von Benedek from Vienna. The Prussian army, numbering, at least, 184,000 men, was concentrated and opposed to an army of not more than 110,000 men, at most, at Vienna. The capture of the capital seemed certain; and Von Moltke, with his forces augmented to 200,000 men, by the reinforcements that were pushing on to join him, could then turn upon Von Benedek, and give a coup de grace to the last remnant of Austria’s military power.
At this junction, however, diplomacy stepped in, and, through the mediation of France, a five days’ armistice, as a preliminary to peace, was agreed upon; the armistice to go into effect at noon on the 22d of July.
VALLEY of the MAINE.
On the 22d Von Fransecky struck the two Austrian brigades at Blumenau, just in front of Pressburg. While everything was going in favor of the Prussians, and they seemed to be not only on the point of defeating the Austrians, but of capturing their entire force, the hour of noon arrived; the armistice went into effect, the action was, with difficulty, broken off, and, after the sudden termination of the battle, both armies bivouacked on the field.
The preliminary terms of peace were signed at Nikolsburg on the 26th of July, and definitely ratified at Prague on the 30th of August. The orders for the withdrawal of the Prussian armies were issued on the 25th of August, and the Austrian territory was entirely evacuated by them by the 20th of September.
By the terms of the treaty of peace, Venetia was ceded to Italy; the old Germanic confederation was dissolved; Schleswig-Holstein became the property of Prussia; Austria consented to the formation of a North German Confederation, and a union of the South German States, from both of which confederations she was to be excluded; and the defeated power agreed to pay 40,000,000 Prussian thalers to the victor. From this sum, however, 15,000,000 thalers were deducted as the price of the Austrian claims to Schleswig-Holstein, and 5,000,000 thalers for the free maintenance of the Prussian army in the Austrian provinces from the preliminary truce to the final establishment of peace. Peace with the German allies of Austria was made at about the same time. As a result of the war, Prussia annexed the territories of Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau and the free city of Frankfort. The population of the victorious kingdom was increased by 4,285,700 people; and its area, by nearly 25,000 square miles of land.
[APPENDIX II.]
THE CAMPAIGN IN WESTERN GERMANY.
The surrender of the Hanoverian army at Langensalza, on June 29, 1866, left Von Falckenstein free to operate against the armies of the South German States. His army, now designated “The Army of the Maine,” numbered 45,000 men and 97 guns.
Opposed to him were the Bavarian Corps, numbering 40,000 men and 136 guns, and the VIIIth Federal Corps, numbering 46,000 men and 134 guns. The former, under the command of Prince Charles of Bavaria, had concentrated at Schweinfurt; the latter, under the command of Prince Alexander of Hesse, at Frankfort.
Having been informed that the Hanoverians were marching on Fulda, Prince Charles began a forward movement, to effect a junction with them at that point; but receiving later news to the effect that the occupation of Hesse-Cassel had caused the Hanoverians to turn off towards Mühlhausen, and that Prussian forces were concentrating at Eisenach, he decided to direct his march more to the right, so as to be able to operate either by way of Fulda or the Thuringian Forest [Thüringer Wald], as circumstances might decide. The march of the Bavarians was begun on June 22d; but much was wanting to complete their organization and equipment, and their progress was so slow that on the 26th their most advanced division had only reached Neustadt, on the Saale, scarcely twenty miles from Schweinfurt.
A prompt union of the separated forces of the allies was of the utmost importance. Yet the most precious time was aimlessly wasted, and it was not until June 26th that any definite steps were taken towards effecting a junction of the Bavarians and the VIIIth Corps. On that day Prince Charles and Prince Alexander held a conference, at which it was decided to move forward and effect the junction of the two corps at Hersfeld, about twenty-one miles north of Fulda. They overlooked the important fact that they were twice as far away from the designated point as the Prussians were.
Nothing but the most energetic action on the part of the allies could overcome the disadvantages of their strategical situation. Yet Prince Charles, learning that negotiations were being conducted between the Hanoverians and the Prussians, delayed his march, evidently losing confidence in the sincerity of his allies, and fearing that a surrender of the Hanoverians might leave him to contend alone with Von Falckenstein. For three days the Bavarians remained inactive; then, hearing of the battle of Langensalza, Prince Charles advanced towards Gotha. On June 30th the Bavarians had advanced to Meiningen, Schleusingen and Hildburghausen, where they received news of the surrender of the Hanoverian army. The VIIIth Corps, in the meantime, had continued its march towards Hersfeld.
The march of Prince Charles towards Gotha had been utterly fruitless. He had not only failed to assist the Hanoverians, but time had been lost, and the direction of his march had carried him away from, instead of towards, the VIIIth Corps. The latter corps was now at Friedburg, more than 80 miles from Meiningen, and the problem of effecting a junction now presented many difficulties. The union of the two corps could have been easily and safely effected by falling back to the line of the Maine; and this should have been done, though it was feared that a retreat, at the beginning of the campaign, and before the enemy had been seen, might have an injurious effect on the morale of the troops. To effect a junction without falling back would necessitate a flank march of more than 80 miles, over difficult mountain roads, in the immediate front of the enemy. Such a hazardous movement should not have been undertaken except as a last resort.
Nevertheless, Prince Charles decided to form line at Meiningen, facing Eisenach, hoping to join the VIIIth Corps via Hilders-Fulda and Geisa-Hünfeld, and requesting Prince Alexander to draw towards him with all available forces, partly via Hanau-Fulda-Hünfeld, and partly by rail from Frankfort to Gemünden, and thence via Hammelburg to Kissingen. The commander of the VIIIth Corps consented to move on Fulda, but did not see fit to send a force via Kissingen to the neighborhood of Schweinfurt, evidently for the military reason that he did not wish to divide his force while executing a dangerous movement, and for the political reason that the movement urged by Prince Charles, while it would cover Bavaria, would expose the territories of the contingents which composed the VIIIth Corps. Prince Charles showed a disposition to ignore the interests of his allies; Prince Alexander exhibited decided insubordination; both commanders displayed a lack of military ability; and the want of hearty coöperation between the two generals already portended disaster to the allied cause.
On July 1st the Bavarians concentrated at Meiningen, and began their march to Fulda. Prince Alexander, marching east, occupied Lauterbach and Alsfeld on July 3d. His force had been diminished by detachments left on the Lahn, both to cover Frankfort from a possible attack from the direction of Cassel, and to protect the flank and rear of the army marching towards Fulda.
On July 3d a Bavarian advanced-guard found Dermbach in possession of the Prussians, and was driven back with some loss. On the other hand, a Prussian detachment was driven out of Wiesenthal. Von Falckenstein had advanced from Eisenach on July 1st, and he was now in the immediate front of the Bavarians; Von Beyer’s division in and around Geisa; Von Goeben’s division at Dermbach, and Von Manteuffel’s division following in reserve.
On July 4th one of Von Goeben’s brigades struck a Bavarian division at Zella [about 3 miles south of Dermbach], and an indecisive action followed. With his other brigade, Von Goeben attacked another Bavarian division at Wiesenthal. Encountering considerable resistance, and having no immediate supports at hand, Von Goeben gave orders for the withdrawal of his troops, after an action of some hours’ duration. At the same time the Bavarians retreated, and the field was abandoned by both armies.
During this time the other Prussian divisions continued their march on Fulda, Von Beyer reaching Hünfeld, near which place his advanced-guard had a remarkable combat with the Bavarian reserve cavalry, which had been sent from Schweinfurt towards Vacha, to open communications with the VIIIth Corps. The Bavarian advanced-guard consisted of two regiments of cuirassiers and a detachment of horse artillery. On meeting the Prussians the Bavarians opened on them with grape. The artillery with Von Beyer’s advanced-guard quickly came into action, and opened fire with astonishing results; for the first shot from the Prussian guns sent the Bavarians back in a wild panic, the confusion being rapidly conveyed from the advanced-guard to the main body, until the entire force (consisting of three brigades) broke into a headlong stampede. Several regiments retreated as far as Brückenau and Hammelburg, and many troopers did not draw rein until they arrived at the Maine, many miles from the scene of action. Several days elapsed before the cavalry could be rallied at Brückenau. In this case the Bavarians could neither plead surprise nor heavy loss. They saw their enemy in time to open fire on him first; and their total loss was only 28 men. Only a few shots, from two guns, were fired by the Prussians before the Bavarian cavalry had scampered beyond reach of harm.
The simultaneous retreat of both armies from Wiesenthal reminds one of the fiasco at Big Bethel in 1861; and had the Bavarians remained on the field at Hünfeld long enough to dot the ground thickly with dead and wounded, their action there might be worthy of comparison with that of our undisciplined levies at Bull Run.
After the combat at Wiesenthal, Von Falckenstein seems to have felt considerable anxiety; for the next day he withdrew Von Goeben through Dermbach, recalled Von Beyer to Geisa, and brought up Von Manteuffel in close support. This concentration was evidently made with a view to fighting a defensive battle; but, on the 6th of July, the Prussians discovered that they had won a victory on the 4th, the Bavarians being in retreat. Von Falckenstein at once pushed forward towards Fulda.
After the actions of Zella and Wiesenthal Prince Charles saw that the intended junction of the separated corps at Fulda could not be made, unless he could open the road by defeating the Prussians. This now seemed out of the question; and he, consequently, fell back on Neustadt, and requested Prince Alexander to open communications with him via Brückenau and Kissingen. Prince Alexander, however, does not seem to have been over-anxious either to comply with requests or to obey orders. On July 5th he had advanced to within seven miles of Fulda. Hearing of the Bavarian reverses, he fell back to Schlüchtern, where he occupied an exceptionally favorable position at the entrance of the Kinzig valley. The ground offered every facility for defense; he could offer a stubborn resistance to the advance of Von Falckenstein; his line of retreat to Frankfort was secure; and he might either wait for the Bavarians to join him, or effect a junction with them on the line Hammelburg-Gemünden.
While at Schlüchtern, Prince Alexander learned of the Austrian defeat at Königgrätz; and, without considering his allies, his only thought seems to have been to gain the line of the Maine, between Hanau and Mayence, where he might protect the territories of Southwest Germany. How far he was influenced by his own judgment, and how far by the Diet at Frankfort, is not known; but he abandoned his strong position at Schlüchtern, and fell back to Frankfort, where he was joined by the detachments which had been left on the Lahn. Instead of concentrating to oppose the Prussians, the allies thus voluntarily widened the gap between their forces, and willfully invited destruction.
The Prussians entered Fulda on the 7th of July, and rested there one day. From Fulda, Von Falckenstein directed Von Goeben on Brückenau, and sent Von Beyer out on the Frankfort road to Schlüchtern, Von Manteuffel occupying Fulda. The movement to Schlüchtern was for the double purpose of making a feint towards Frankfort, and gaining a separate road for the advance of the division. From Schlüchtern Von Beyer marched direct to the suburbs of Brückenau. Von Goeben marched through and beyond Brückenau, and Von Manteuffel, following, occupied the town. The Army of the Maine was now closely concentrated within nine miles of the Bavarians, who were extended along the Saale, from Neustadt to Hammelburg, occupying a line 22 1/2 miles long.
On July 10th Von Falckenstein directed Von Beyer on Hammelburg and Von Goeben on Kissingen. Von Manteuffel was ordered to move on Waldaschach, and then to follow Von Goeben. The Bavarians were encountered at Hammelburg and Kissingen, and defeated with some loss. Minor actions, with similar results, were fought on the same day at Friedrichshall, Hausen and Waldaschach, up the river from Kissingen. The Bavarians retreated to Schweinfurt and Würzburg, and the passes of the Saale remained in the hands of the Prussians.
All military principles now dictated an advance against Schweinfurt, for the purpose of giving the Bavarians a crushing defeat, and disposing of them altogether. Such a move would, doubtless, have been made by Von Falckenstein, had not political considerations been at this time paramount. The Prussian victories in Austria rendered it probable that peace conferences would soon be held; and, at the request of Bismarck, Von Falckenstein was notified that it was of political importance to be in actual possession of the country north of the Maine, as negotiations would probably soon take place on the statu quo basis. Von Falckenstein, therefore, decided to move against the VIIIth Corps, for the purpose of clearing the right bank of the Maine entirely of the hostile forces.
Prince Alexander, thoroughly alarmed at the condition of affairs, now sought to form a junction with the Bavarians at Würzburg, via Aschaffenburg and Gemünden. As a preliminary to this movement, a Hessian brigade was sent to Aschaffenburg, to secure the passage of the Maine at that point, and to reconnoiter the Prussians. The contemplated movement was hopeless from the start, unless the Bavarians could render assistance by advancing to Gemünden; and, after the actions on the Saale, they were not in a condition to do so. As it was, Prince Alexander was endeavoring to cross the difficult mountain region between Aschaffenburg and Gemünden, in the face of a victorious army, superior to his own in numbers and morale, to effect a junction with an ally who was unable to lend him a helping hand. It was the height of folly; for the junction could have been easily and safely made south of the Maine. True, this would have necessitated the sacrifice of Frankfort; but defeat north of the Maine would compel the evacuation of the city, and defeat was now practically invited.
Turning away from the Bavarians, Von Falckenstein moved down the Maine; Von Goeben in advance, followed by Von Manteuffel, while Von Beyer moved, by way of the Kinzig valley, on Hanau. On July 13th the Hessian brigade was defeated by Von Goeben at Laufach, and fell back on Aschaffenburg, to which place reinforcements were hurried by Prince Alexander. On the following day the VIIIth Corps was defeated by Von Goeben at Aschaffenburg. The brunt of the battle was borne by an Austrian brigade attached to the Federal Corps; but few troops of the Hessian contingents being engaged, and the Würtemberg and Baden troops arriving too late. Had Prince Alexander concentrated his entire force at Aschaffenburg, the result might have been bad for the Prussians, for their march was so unskillfully conducted that Von Goeben was without support; the other detachments of Von Falckenstein’s army being more than thirty miles in rear. The Prussians did not pursue the enemy, but contented themselves with remaining in possession of the field.
Prince Alexander was now convinced of the impossibility of effecting a junction at Würzburg via Aschaffenburg. He accordingly abandoned the line of the Lower Maine and concentrated his force at Dieburg. Frankfort was thus left defenseless, and the remnants of the German Diet fled to Augsburg. Prince Charles now proposed a junction of the allies in the vicinity of Würzburg, the VIIIth Corps to move via Miltenberg and Tauberbischofsheim, and the concentration to be effected on the 20th of July. This movement necessitated a march of some ninety miles for the VIIIth Corps, and the uncovering of Southwest Germany, while the Bavarians had to march only a few miles, and continued to cover their own territories; but the imminent danger which now threatened the VIIIth Corps caused Prince Alexander to forget local and personal jealousies, and strive to effect the junction which the military situation imperatively demanded.
On the 16th of July the Prussians entered Frankfort, where they remained until the 21st: Von Goeben’s division occupying the city, Von Beyer’s division being stationed at Hanau, and Von Manteuffel’s division holding Aschaffenburg. The entire region north of the Maine was in the possession of the Prussians. Frankfort had been especially antagonistic to Prussia, and it now felt the full force of the severity of the conquerors. Von Falckenstein levied a contribution of $3,000,000 on the city, and soon followed this heavy exaction by a demand for a second enormous contribution of $10,000,000. The King of Prussia, however, remitted the second contribution after hearing the appeal and protest of the citizens.
On the 16th of July Von Falckenstein was relieved from the command of the Army of the Maine, and appointed military governor of Bohemia. He was succeeded by Von Manteuffel, whose division was placed under command of Von Flies. Reinforcements now raised the Army of the Maine to a strength of 50,000 men and 121 guns.
The capture of Frankfort and the possession of the country north of the Maine had been obtained at the sacrifice of the great strategic advantage enjoyed by the Prussians. It was no longer possible to prevent the concentration of the VIIIth Corps and the Bavarians, and on the 22d of July this junction was completed; the former corps holding the line of the Tauber, and the latter occupying a position between that river and Würzburg.
Although the allied forces now numbered 80,000 men and 286 guns, Von Manteuffel decided to move against them from Frankfort. The advantage of the allies was in numbers alone; in morale, and in the strategic situation, the advantage was with the Prussians. Von Manteuffel now had a line of communication through Frankfort and Cassel. Though he could no longer keep the allies asunder, he could, by marching to the Tauber, compel them to “form front to a flank,” while his own front securely covered his communications. His communications could be intercepted only by a movement of the allies north of the Maine, which would reciprocally expose their own.
The allies had hardly effected their junction, when a want of harmony in the views of their commanders again became evident. An offensive movement against the Prussians was agreed upon; but Prince Charles wished to move by the left bank of the Maine on Frankfort, while Prince Alexander preferred a movement by the right bank on Aschaffenburg. The former was, doubtless, the better move—at all events it was the safer; for the allies would have covered their communications better, and a junction might, perhaps, have been effected with the large garrison of Mayence—but, after two days of discussion and deliberation, the latter movement was agreed upon. In the meantime, while the allies were deliberating, Von Manteuffel was acting; and he was now moving rapidly towards the Tauber.
On July 23d the Prussians touched the enemy. A slight and indecisive action was fought by a Prussian advanced-guard with the Baden division at Hundheim, and the advanced troops of the VIIIth Corps were pressed back along their whole line. While the Prussians were thus closing upon the Federal Corps, the Bavarians began the contemplated movement by the right bank of the Maine; one division being sent by rail to Gemünden, another to Lohr (on the right bank, farther down), and part of a third to Wertheim. Thus the junction of the allies, which had been effected with such difficulty, was voluntarily broken at the very moment of contact with the enemy. The line of the allied forces, on the evening of July 23d, was 36 miles in extent; while Von Manteuffel’s army was closely concentrated in their immediate front. Prince Alexander, finding himself beyond the immediate assistance of the Bavarians, withdrew all his detachments behind the Tauber, where his corps was spread over a space seven miles in breadth and nine in depth, in a country full of deep ravines, which rendered prompt movements, especially of cavalry and artillery, quite out of the question.
On the 24th Von Goeben defeated the Würtembergers at Tauberbischofsheim, and the Baden division at Werbach. The retreat of the Baden troops uncovered Prince Alexander’s right flank, and there was now imminent danger of the Prussians again pushing in and separating the VIIIth Corps from the Bavarians. Prince Alexander, therefore, fell back to Gerchsheim, and the Bavarians withdrew to Helmstadt. Prince Charles ordered the VIIIth Corps back to the line of the Tauber, though the Bavarians could render no immediate assistance. Prince Alexander, doubtless appreciating the folly of attempting, without reinforcements, to dislodge the victorious Prussians from a position which he had been unable to hold against them, seems to have paid no attention to the order, for he proceeded at once to concentrate his scattered divisions at Gerchsheim.
On July 25th Von Goeben formed the right of the Prussian line, Von Beyer the center and Von Flies the left. Von Goeben was to attack the VIIIth Corps in front, while Von Beyer turned its right and cut it off from Würzburg. Von Flies was to keep his division concentrated on the left; for nothing was known of the whereabouts of the Bavarians, and it was surmised that they might be somewhere in that direction.
Von Beyer, moving against the VIIIth Corps, unexpectedly encountered a Bavarian division at Helmstadt, and defeated it, after an engagement which lasted some hours. While the Prussians were resting on the field, after the action, a second Bavarian division suddenly appeared on the crest of a hill in the rear of Von Beyer’s left wing. So completely was Von Beyer without information as to the position of the Bavarians, that he was in doubt whether these troops were friend or foe. The Bavarians were in a similar quandary. In fact, they had accidentally stumbled upon the Prussians, and the surprise was mutual. As soon as he discovered that he was in the presence of a hostile force, Von Beyer executed a change of front to the left, and succeeded in gaining another victory.
While Von Beyer was engaged with the Bavarians, Von Goeben was battling with the VIIIth Corps at Gerchsheim. Prince Alexander was again defeated, and driven in rout on Würzburg.
The night after these actions Prince Charles held a council of war, and finally decided to attack Von Flies, who, having advanced, was now on the Prussian left. Learning, however, that his own left had been uncovered by the defeat of the VIIIth Corps, the Bavarian commander resolved to stand on the defensive on the plateau of Waldbüttelbrünn (in rear of Rossbrünn[25]), and ordered Prince Alexander to take up a position immediately in front of Würzburg, to cover the retreat of the army across the Maine, should such a movement be necessary.
About 3 o’clock on the morning of July 26th, a simultaneous attempt of the Bavarians and Von Flies to occupy some commanding ground which lay between the outposts, brought on an action at Rossbrünn. While Von Flies was engaged with the Bavarians, Von Beyer struck them heavily on the flank, and by 10 o’clock the Bavarians were in full retreat. The Prussians did not attempt a pursuit, and by 1 o’clock, P. M., Prince Charles had rallied and concentrated his corps on the plateau of Waldbüttelbrünn. In the meantime the VIIIth Corps had crossed the Maine.
The position of the Bavarians was now full of peril. Their allies had been defeated, and were glad to place a river between themselves and the Prussians. The Bavarians were, consequently, alone on the left bank of the Maine; their losses had been considerable; their morale was shattered; their retreat across the defiles of the Maine was insecure; and a defeat in their present position meant absolute ruin. The Prussian Official History says: “A renewed attack on the part of the Prussian main forces would necessarily have forced it [the Bavarian Corps] to a struggle for life or death. The political situation of affairs showed no reason for bringing on so desperate a combat. The only object henceforth was to occupy as much territory of the allies as possible, in order to facilitate peace negotiations with them, and maneuvering against the enemy’s left flank would oblige him to retreat without any hard struggle.” This apology for a failure to complete the defeat of a shattered and unsupported hostile force seems somewhat disingenuous. A complete defeat and surrender of the Bavarians would have been quickly followed by the capture or dispersion of the VIIIth Corps, and the entire South-German territory would have been at the mercy of the Prussians. Certainly such a condition of affairs would have “facilitated peace negotiations” by rendering further resistance hopeless. Moreover, the same history states that the retreat of the VIIIth Corps behind the Maine was not known at the Prussian headquarters; and it seems probable that inefficient performance of outpost and reconnoissance duties on the part of the Prussians, rather than any considerations of politics or magnanimity, saved the Bavarians from destruction. Late in the day, Prince Charles withdrew across the Maine.
On July 27th the Prussians moved on Würzburg. Their artillery exchanged shots with the citadel of Marienberg (on the left bank of the Maine, opposite Würzburg), and succeeded in setting fire to the arsenal, but withdrew without effecting anything of moment.
The contending armies now faced each other, each in an almost impregnable position. The situation was, however, altogether in favor of the Prussians. Their communications were secure, while the communications of the allies with Hesse, Baden and Würtemburg were intercepted, and those with Bavaria were endangered, by the position of the Army of the Maine. Moreover, the Prussian IId Reserve Corps had moved from Saxony via Leipsic, Plauen and Hof, and was now approaching Baireuth. In the language of the Prussian Official History: “The position of the Bavarian army at Würzburg had now become untenable. It could only extricate itself from its present position either by assuming the offensive against the Prussian army—which was scarcely possible at this point—or by a retrograde movement up the Maine, so as to face the army to the north and re-establish its base on the Bavarian territory in its rear.”
But the bitterness of extreme defeat was not pushed home to the allies; for on July 28th news of the peace preliminaries between Prussia and Austria, and of an armistice with Bavaria, was received. Though the truce with Bavaria was not to go into effect until August 2d, hostilities were suspended, the only movement of importance being the occupation of Nuremberg by the Prussian IId Reserve Corps.
Peace was concluded on August 13th with Würtemberg, on the 17th with Baden, and on the 22d with Bavaria.
It is hardly possible to contemplate the operations of the armies in Western Germany, in 1866, with any feeling of admiration. In the strategical operations of Von Falckenstein and Von Manteuffel are found the only redeeming features of the campaign. Von Falckenstein especially, in pushing in between the two armies of the allies, and defeating them in succession, displayed generalship of no mean order; but the want of harmony between the allied leaders removed every obstacle from the path of Prussian success. The Prussians seem to have been often completely in the dark as to the designs, and even in regard to the positions, of the allies. We find the Army of the Maine waiting, in a defensive position, nearly two days, in ignorance of its own victory at Wiesenthal. We find the Prussians winning a victory at Aschaffenburg, when their own unskillful march invited a defeat, and their success was due solely to the greater blunders of their opponents. Before, and even during, the battle of Helmstadt the Prussians seem to have been in complete ignorance of the position and movements of Prince Charles, and Von Beyer’s escape from disaster when surprised by the Bavarians, was due solely to the fact that the surprise was accidental and mutual. Advanced-guard, outpost and reconnoissance duties seem to have been performed with the grossest inefficiency. In almost every action the Prussians seem to have been unaware of the extent of their victory, or to have shown an incapacity to organize a pursuit. Gneisenau and his famous order to “pursue to the last breath of horse and man” seem to have been forgotten in the Army of the Maine; and we find Prince Charles, after the battle of Rossbrünn, quietly slipping back, without molestation, to an almost impregnable position, when a simple frontal attack by the Prussians would have completed the discomfiture and insured the destruction of the Bavarian army.
As to the allies, every adverse criticism that can be made on their opponents, applies to them in a still higher degree. Their leaders rarely rose to the level of respectable mediocrity. The junction of the allied corps, which was imperative from the first, was made only when they were practically herded together by the movements of the Prussians. As soon as they had been forced into the long-desired junction, they voluntarily undertook an ill-advised movement which separated them again, at the very moment of their contact with the enemy. Incapacity and jealousy were characteristics of both the allied commanders; and to these defects Prince Alexander added the greater fault of insubordination. It would be hard to find among the improvised “political generals” who appeared on the stage of war in the earlier part of the American conflict, a single one who possessed in a greater degree than Prince Charles or Prince Alexander a genius for blundering—an eminent capacity for invariably doing the wrong thing. It may be said of the two generals of the allied armies, that their operations afford a fine demonstration of the principles of war by the method of reductio ad absurdum.
[APPENDIX III.]
THE OPERATIONS IN ITALY.
Only a brief mention of the operations in Italy is here necessary. On the night of the 23d of June, 1866, the Italian army crossed the Mincio, and encountered the Austrians at Custozza on the next day. The Italian army, numbering about 120,000 men, was under the nominal command of King Victor Emmanuel, the real commander being General La Marmora. The Austrians, numbering about 72,000, were commanded by Archduke Albrecht. The battle resulted in the defeat of the Italians, who withdrew across the Mincio. The Austrian commander remained on the defensive.
Garibaldi, with about 6,000 volunteers, invaded the Tyrol, but was defeated in two small actions. Though he finally succeeded in gaining a foothold on Austrian soil, his operations were of no importance.
On the 20th of July the Austrian fleet, under Tegethoff, defeated the Italian fleet in the great naval battle of Lissa, in which the Italians lost three iron clads.
Immediately after the battle of Königgrätz, Venetia was offered by Austria to the French Emperor, and the Vth and IXth Corps were recalled to the Danube. The Italians, under the command of Cialdini, again advanced, and the Austrians (now numbering scarcely 30,000) fell back to the neighborhood of Venice. On the 25th of July all military operations were stopped by the conclusion of an armistice.
The Italians had everywhere suffered defeat. Yet their alliance was of the utmost advantage to Prussia; for they neutralized three army corps, which would have been of priceless value to the Austrians in Bohemia.
[BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.]
In the preparation of this work the following books have been consulted:
“The Campaign of 1866 in Germany,” by the Prussian Staff.
Hozier’s “Seven Weeks’ War.”
Derrécagaix’s “La Guerre Moderne.”
Adams’ “Great Campaigns in Europe.”
Lewis’ “History of Germany.”
Jomini’s “Art of War.”
Hamley’s “Operations of War.”
Von der Goltz’s “The Nation in Arms.”
Chesney’s “Essays in Military Biography.”
Brackenbury’s “Field Works.”
Home’s “Précis of Modern Tactics.”
Clery’s “Minor Tactics.”
Maude’s “Tactics and Organization.”
Prince Hohenlohe’s “Letters on Cavalry.”
Prince Hohenlohe’s “Letters on Artillery.”
Trench’s “Cavalry in Modern War.”
Scribner’s “Army and Navy in the Civil War.”
“Battles and Leaders of the Civil War.”
Swinton’s “Army of the Potomac.”
Memoirs of Gen. U. S. Grant.
Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman.
Capt. F. V. Greene’s Essay on “The Important Improvements in the Art of War, etc.”
Capt. J. R. Lumly’s Essay on “Mounted Riflemen.”
The quotations from Baron Stoffel and Capt. May are taken from Home’s “Précis of Modern Tactics.”