Nagy-L István szerk.: Pápai Múzeumi Értesítő 11. (Pápa, 2006)

Haderő és hadviselés 1809-ben - DAVID HOLLINS: Ausztria vezérleti rendszere - a modern szervezet eredete

spies, and his trusted immediate subordinates - the Aides de Camp, who would be dispatched off to senior field commanders to direct them as the Emperor wished. The French system had thus not evolved significantly since the early 18

th century, when Marshal Turenne directed small professional armies. The difference was army size and to some extent Napoleon's own energy could make up for this - but in the end, it was a key weakness that would lead to his defeat. Napoleon's best campaigns of 1796 and 1814 were fought with small armies over which he could exercise direct control, while most of his errors occur in the larger campaigns from 1806-13. At Wagram in July 1809, the French army of about 180,000 was only slightly smaller than the army Napoleon directed at Leipzig four years later. In between, the allies had been able to assemble and coordinate an army, which at Leipzig numbered 295,000 from four major nations. It is often claimed that this man, Marshal Berthier, was the first modern chief of staff - perhaps this really means "the first Chief of Staff that most people have heard of. So what did Napoleon say about him; "In my campaigns Berthier was always to be found in my carriage. During the journey I used to study plans of the situation and the reports sent in, sketch out my plans for battle from them, and arrange the necessary moves. Berthier would watch me at work, and at the first stopping-place or rest, whether it was day or night, he made out the orders and arrangements with a method and exactness that was truly admirable ... That was Berthier's special merit" Napoleon is really saying: "I worked it out, he wrote it down and sent it out". This is a function of the Chief of Staff, but not the entire job. The constant changes of personnel have actually confused the matter further. The French staff organisation not only saw new men arriving, but the Revolutionaries allowed each army to form its own structure. The chief of staff directed a few Adjutants General, who were assisted by Adjoints, many of them civilians, and tasks were divided up as required. Being the chief clerk described by Jomini, in 1795, Berthier wrote a manual for these men - it is suggested that this was the first staff organisation and hence, the origin of modern staffs. However, it was actually addressing the problem that the French staff were not being trained and so, required quite a detailed instruction book to find out what their "job description" was! Napoleon recommended it to the French government and it was only a few years later, when he could make it official himself - in the form of Thiebault'

s revised version of 1800/03. The Army Chief of Staff had four Adjutants General under him, heading up various functions. Berthier in 1796 divided these into: Army records and justice; Official journal and specialist branches including supply; Reconnaissance and communications; and Headquarters Adminstration. Thiebault'

s 1800 handbook then provided a manual for the direction of the junior officers in their tasks. In reality, the staff were performing the administrative tasks, while the French continued to rely on the Commander-in-Chief as the "great brain", who would plan and conduct operations. Even the much heralded corps system was simply designed to move some administrative tasks away from the center, although control was still exercised in detail from there. The first French near-calamity at Jena-Auerstadt in 1806 resulted from Napoleon dictating his orders to Berthier, who distributed them as single orders, which told the commanders in detail where they would go and often in what formations. None of these senior corps commanders would be aware of the overall