Combat at Reichenberg 1757

[olicana]

This week's fair will be based on the combat at Reichenberg 1757. I don't have a lot of information about this battle so I may be in error on some of the set up but, its probably close enough not to be called something else: If the shoe fits, Reichenbrogue?

Anyway, this link will take you to the set up and more pics:

http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2024/09/combat-at-reichenerg-1757.html

[Jemima Fawr]

Excellent (as always)! 

I've had a 75%-written scenario and a half-drawn map sitting on my hard-drive for the last two years and it's one I've been meaning to play, so thanks for the inspiration!

[olicana]

Hi JF, do you understand / know the origin, of the 'computer image' map on Kronoskaf? It doesn't correspond at all to the OOB, and bears little resemblance to the written description of the battle or the German 'Staff' map.

BTW, although I appreciate that the German 'Staff' maps are not contemporary (they were made much later and in the interim towns got bigger, woods were planted or cut down, etc.) they are reliable for the general properly surveyed topography providing you know the contour heights (they vary map to map) - E.g. The map for Kay/Paltzig looks like the battle was fought over mountains until you grasp that the contour graduation is exceptionally small (2m from memory) and the ground is actually a low rolling countryside (see google earth) - so I think, for hill shapes, they are the way to go in most cases.

[Jemima Fawr]

No, that one had me scratching my head as well.  I was already building my map from the Grossergeneralstab map when that appeared, which is probably what stalled it.  There are also strange differences between the Sanderhausen maps.

Yes, you have to be VERY careful with those contour lines! 

The trouble with only seeing a section of a particular map is that you've frequently got no clue what the vertical scale is, as there's nothing on the map-extract to tell you!  I forget which one it was, but I had to scour the written account until I found one throwaway comment that a particular hill stood 400 feet higher than the river.  With some you just have to guess. 

Paintings are no bloody use either, thanks to the 'Picturesque' school of art, which exaggerates mere hills into mountains! 

[olicana]

The artwork thing reminds me of an acquaintance who, using purpose made terrain tiles, built the terrain for a very famous battle. I didn't recognise the wargame terrain at first. It was dominated centrally by a huge high hill with massive cliffs and rocky bluffs everywhere. Turned out, it was supposed to be Austerlitz and the Pratzen Heights. I've been to Austerlitz and the Heights, though a very dominant feature, are an easily traversed fairly low hill (with panoramic views all around - a bit like hill 112 in Normandy - you can see why the Heights were important but, it's a pretty ordinary, though expansive, hill). When I asked him about the many cliffs and bluffs he showed me a piece of 'heroic' contemporary artwork from which he had taken his inspiration. Very funny, to this day. In his defence, it was probably pre-google earth.

At Reichenberg (Liberec, Czech Repulic) the google earth street view from the dual carriageway looking south shows the hills here are quite impressive and you can see why they are depicted as separate rises on the St. Paul maps - I don't think they are but, from some angles, the various spurs make them look like a range of hills rather than a single hill (presuming I'm looking at the right hills  ).

[Jemima Fawr]

Well at least he didn't use the Scotty Bowden map of Austerlitz; with streams running up and over hills...