The Campaign of Königgrätz

It is not necessary, for the present, even to sketch the retreat of the Austrian army upon Olmütz and Vienna; the masterly march of Von Moltke to the Danube; the Italian disasters of Custozza and Lissa; and the campaign in which the Army of the Maine defeated the Bavarians and the VIIIth Federal Corps.13 Königgrätz was the decisive battle of the war. Austria could not rally from her disaster, and twenty-three days after the battle the truce of Nikolsburg virtually ended the contest.

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 Elbe15 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.