The Dining Table Napoleon

Matthew Green’s Hobby Blog

Log in

Month: January 2026

  • Hobby update: January 2026

    At last I have had more time to spend in the studio to work on painting my little men. In the remaining days of December since my last update, the 10mm 1866 Italians were finished. In the new year I started my next project: 6 battalions of 1815 French infantry. I’m on course to finish these by month end! Alas the early January club game had to be cancelled because my wife wasn’t well.

    10mm 1866 Italians

    This relatively modest batch has taken me months of elapsed time as I have not been able to spend much time in the studio across October to Christmas. There are nine bases of line infantry, three of Bersaglieri , four of cavalry, a more impressive seven of artillery, plus two limbers and five generals.

    A closer look at the infantry

    10mm is a new scale for me, and I’m starting to understand that they are small. And as my efforts show, difficult o photograph! You can’t see much in these pictures. There isn’t actually a huge amount to see. The 1866 uniform meant that the men were in grey greatcoats (as were the Austrians), notwithstanding the heat. No regimental distinctions are visible. The red pompon on the shako is about the only feature to lighten the dull appearance. The greatcoats are described as blue-grey, and illustrations show variations from almost French-style dark blue, to neutral mid-grey. A went for a paler blue-grey (reminiscent of French WWI troops) – as I want to there be a clear difference with the mid-grey Austrians. The Bersaglieri are only slightly more interesting in their dark blue uniforms. My original plan was to put them on 30mm by 20mm bases, but when basing I started using the pile of 30mm by 25mm bases (my new standard for 18mm troops), and all but two are on this deeper bases. They look fine, but I prefer things to be a bit more compact.

    A closer look at the cavalry – not that there is much to see!

    Th cavalry are a bit more interesting – each regiment has a distinguishing colour for facings and kepi. I painted up four bases from two regiments. I had to make and paint my own flag using foil – not too hard to do fortunately. Foil is nicer than the printed paper I use mainly, though I struggled a bit with paint adhesion, as my usual gesso primer didn’t fully stick at first pass.

    Artillery -four smoothbore 8-pdrs on the left, and French rifled 4-pdrs on the right.

    Artillery is proving a bit of a headache for this project. The main Italian piece was the 8-pdr. In this era the use of pounds to denote calibre had lost all comparability between nations. But this ordnance was heavier than the main Austrian piece, the 4-pdr. The models in the Pendraken 8-pdr pack look like smoothbores, though, which would be suitable for 1869, but not 1866, when the Italians had rearmed with rifled weapons. Apparently these were based on the French 4-pdr RML guns – so I bought a pack of these (complete with French crew). I painted these up to use with my Italian crews, but they look a bit small! If I get to 1859, I will have a use for the French crews anyway. The limbers are French – the uniforms are slightly different, but I don’t think that matters too much.

    I will write more about this army when I finish it. This will require as many as 40 more bases of infantry, which is quite a daunting prospect. I am going to finish the Austrians first.

    1815 French

    My Napoleonic French infantry are mid-war (1807-1812) and have been working very hard. GDA2 uses a lot of miniatures, and it’s been clear that the troops need reinforcements. Since their main opponents these days are my late war (1812-1815) Prussians, clearly these should also be from the late war period. AB have a relatively new range of late-war French, and I wanted to use these. My New Year’s resolution for 2025 was to get 6 battalions into action. But I decided to prioritise six battalions of Prussians, and then got distracted by WW2 and 1866. As my painting schedule became dislocated in the late part of 2025, the resolution went unfulfilled. But I had bought the miniatures and I have been at it with a will this month. They should be ready in time my club game on 1 February, just a month behind schedule.

    The picture shows where I’ve got to: five of the six battalions are ready for finishing (bases and a wash). The remaining battalion will take another couple of sessions to do – so I’m on track!

    I will post more about these when I’m finished. The AB castings are a joy! These are much more fun to paint than the small 10mm figures I’m doing for 1866. I might need to rethink things in future. I am now hatching a scheme to do another six French late-war battalions.

    January isn’t over – but I will report on the last week in my next monthly update. I hope to do a post specifically on my new French battalions too.

  • Italy 1848/49 – Radetsky’s campaign

    Current edition – mine has a slightly different cover

    I have recently read Michael Embree’s Radetzky’s Marches – the campaigns of 1848 and 1849 in Upper Italy. I bought it at last year’s Salute show – the hard back version, a limited edition and signed, bought for the same price as the current paperback edition (£35). I finally got around to reading it last month. It proved to be an interesting read – will it open up a new period for me?

    This book piqued my attention for three reasons. First, Radetzky is a familiar name from the Napoleonic wars, but his achievements in the 1848/49 were what made him famous – inspiring the Radetsky March from Johann Strauss the Elder, his most famous work; I wanted to know more. I am increasingly interested in the Italian wars of unification, with plans to refight the second (1859) and third (1866) wars: what about the first? As a regular visitor to Italy on holiday, I’d like to know more. And finally I am interested in the evolution of warfare in the 19th Century. I know a lot about Napoleonics, and I’m gathering more knowledge of the wars from 1859-1866 (encompassing the American Civil War). The wars of 1848-49 (also including the Hungarian uprising) are a way marker in that evolution.

    I found the book itself a bit on the dry side. There is all the detail you would want as a wargamer, with the forces involved in each engagement, right down to many minor skirmishes, listed meticulously, with casualties as far as they were known. In this it recalls George Nafziger’s works. The detail of what happened in each battle is a little vaguer: he follows the popular route of using verbatim quotations from eye witnesses to do quite a bit of heavy lifting. For historians to attempt more than this requires an enormous amount of work though: this is as good as it usually gets. What’s missing is atmosphere, and descriptions of the personalities and how many of the decisions were taken – and especially from the Austrian side. I have no better feel for Radetzky’s personality that I started with. There is almost nothing on the political background, especially from the Austrian side. I also missed a narrative on the balance of forces through the various phases of the campaign, or rather campaigns – the actions of 1848 and 1859 were separated by an armistice, and the rise and fall of the Venetian rebellion is separate again. This is in complete contrast to Lieven’s book on the Russians in 1812-1814 – and its strong grasp of the strategic and personalities. Still, it clear why people have suggested that Radetzky’s grasp resembled that of Napoleon in the same theatre in 1795-97.

    What about the wargaming possibilities? By this I mean refighting the battles – rather than strategic conflict, which would be very promising for a boardgame or kriegsspiel. There are four biggish battles, but none are particularly easy to wargame. The battles of Santa Lucia and Goito were a bit tentative, without a clear objective for either side – though they could be turned into more decisive scenarios. The critical battle of Custoza is a three-day sprawling affair with none of each day’s actions being lop-sided (first day to Austria, second to Italy; last day to Austria); the grand-tactical level is interesting enough, but this plays out over too big an area for a wargames table, and the whole point is that each side doesn’t know where the other is or where it is moving. Of course, scenarios where one side is badly outnumbered and making the best of things can work, but this is not classic wargames play. The final large battle, Novarra, in 1849 is maybe more promising. The Austrians are outnumbered but have substantial reinforcements on the way – but the difficult terrain could pose a challenge. Overall, if restricted to historical battles, the 1859 and 1866 wars are better. There are lots of skirmish level possibilities though, which this books documents thoroughly.

    What about the evolution of warfare? Technologically, this is very close to the Napoleonic period. The muskets were fitted with percussion locks rather than flint locks, which would make them more reliable. The Austrians made extensive use of rockets (which also make an appearance in 1859, but not 1866 as far as I know). Napoleonic rulesets don’t take rockets very seriously and would need attention. The main point of them, as far as I can see, is that they were lightweight and much more mobile than conventional artillery – but much less lethal, although they had their moments.

    Tactics seem to be strongly Napoleonic, but the regular forces would be better drilled than was usual in Napoleonic times, and I suspect tactical doctrines a bit more rigid. Both sides made use of specialist light troops, unlike French Napoleonics, though line troops could skirmish if required. There were quite a few irregulars on the Italian side, which were often given light infantry tasks. On the Austrian side, Grenz infantry were still used as light troops alongside the jagers. The quality of the Austrian troops is generally good, including their commanders – these are not the Bruce Quarrie Austrians! The Piedmontese regulars were generally good too in 1848, but seem less well-led, and perhaps cracked under pressure a bit earlier. In 1849 their quality was diluted by massive conscription, and doubtless the confidence of their leaders had been dented.

    One striking feature, though, is that casualties seem quite low, when compared both to many of the Napoleonic bloodbaths, or many of the battles of 1859 (Solferino led to the founding of the Red Cross). The casualties in 1866 were also high, but aggressive Austrian tactics can explain that. The terrain was generally quite cluttered, and probably the tactical leadership more conservative when it came to exposing their men. There weren’t many glorious artillery targets, as there were at Waterloo, Borodino, etc., or classic volley moments against dense targets.

    After an initial bout of enthusiasm, I don’t think I will be pursuing this. At a pinch I could reuse many miniatures from 1859/66 or even Napoleonics (for the Austrians – though the shakos wouldn’t be right). And terrain pieces would be reusable too. But I have to many other irons in the fire!

    However, for a detailed understanding of this interesting and historically consequential campaign, I recommend Mr Embree’s book, though you might want to skip through some of the lists of units and leaders.