Talk:Johann von Klenau

Napoleonic Wars-Battle of Wagram
I'll have a close look at the content of the part regarding the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. So far, I've had a closer look at the battle of Wagram and I think some major rewriting of this part is necessary:
 * von Hiller actually left his post because he had become disgusted with the strategy adopted by Charlers after Essling. He motivated his gesture by saying that he was ill, but actually wasn't.
 * this is not really relevant to Klenau's biography. It, and most of what you've written here, belong in an improved article on the Battle of Wagram.  Why don't you do that, and if you can provide me with citations for some of the info on Klenau, I'll update the bio?Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what happened on the 5th, in the morning and early afternoon, when Klenau's forces saw their main action of the day. Klenau's VIth Corps, together with Nordmann's Advance Guard, in all about 26,000 men were ordered to delay the French advance. Klenau's Corps was initially (up until 10 am) placed between Aspern and Essling and after 10 am began to be pushed back with some difficulty by Legrand's Division from Masséna's IVth Corps. Nordmann's Advance Guard was further east and southeast and by 10 am was already being pushed back violently by Masséna, Oudinot and Davout. Part of the problem was that Klenau and Nordmann were left in an advanced and isolated position, with the order to slow down the French advance, but then the rest of the Austrian army did not move forward towards the river line but manned the earthworks of the Russbach line. A few regiments of Liechtensein's cavalry reserve were indeed sent forward to support Nordmann but remained inactive and then retreated under heavy French bombardment. Klenau was able to fall back northwestwards and extricate his men with relatively few casualties but Nordmann, retreating nortwards and facing the onslaught of the main French thrust, was mauled and faced horrendous casualties of up to 50%. By mid-afternoon both Klenau and Nordmann had retreated behing the main Austrian line and would not see significant action during the French night attack.


 * some incorporated into article, but I need a citation for this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the 6th. Klenau received Charles' orders with more than 3 hours of delay. These orders provided for a general offensive of the Austrian army, which was supposed to take the shorter French line in double envelopment. Klenau, whose forced had pulled back to Stammersdorf during the night, was ordered to advance southeast towards Aspern. Klenau did and arrived in position at around 8 am (perhaps 7:30), at the same time as Kollowrat, who was deployed further north. They were both more than 3 hours late, as the Austrian offensive was due to begin between 4 and 5 am. Indeed Rosenberg and Bellegarde had advanced and attacked on time and by the time Klenau arrived in position, the Austrian offensive on the left had been repulsed by Davout and there was heavy fighting going on around Aderklaa. Klenau nevertheless attacked Aspern, which was defended by Jean Boudet's division only (Masséna's Corps). Boudet was isolated from the rest of the Corps and desperately sent his guns forward to try and stop Klenau from coming through. However, Austrian cavalry captured the guns and then Boudet was pushed out of Aspern by Klenau's advance guard, commanded by general Vincent. Klenau then set up his artillery and began bombarding the French position, while deploying his men between Aspern and Breintlee. He halted his advance as the fire from the French batteries and heavy mortar from the island of Lobau had become too intense. He then took Essling too, despite some stiff French resistance. Klenau had now pushed the French left back and was able to either attach the essential bridges towards the island of Lobau or strike in the back of the French force. Klenau did none of these: his orders did not provide for such actions, the fire from the French batteries on Lobau had become too intense and his force was probably too weak for such an action. Crucially, Klenau was not in contact with Kollowrat's line and the Austrian system discouraged commanders from taking the initiative. By mid day, Klenau became aware of the fact that Masséna was moving his three other divisions, together with huge cavalry support towards him. He risked being cut off, as he was in a very advanced position and by the begining of the afternoon Ledru's brigade from Legrand's division from Masséna's Corps had retaked Essling. Klenau began to pull back but the French kept themselves in close contact, with the cavalry of Lasalle and Marulaz menacing the Austrians, who had to form squares or masses to fend them off. It was during this action that Lasalle was shot in the head by an Austrian infantryman and Marulaz was wounded. Masséna continued his pursuit and Klenau continued his retreat but could only reach relative safety by late afternoon, retreating northwest towards Stammersdorf.

I will be happy to modify if you can provide citations for the above. Some of this will be relevant, but much of it should instead go into the article on Wagram. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a somewhat detailed summary of Klenau's action during the two days at Wagram. In my opinion, the main improvement that needs to be done is to distinguish and clarify between the actions of the two days. The current versions seems to be mixing them up.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read your edits and I think it looks fine now, detailed enough and accurate. Just a couple of suggestions:
 * First, I believe that, for the second day, you need not speak about Nordmann any more, as it tends to suggest that he was still close to Klenau's position or still cooperating in some way just like the day before (e.g. "Charles watched from his command post at Wagram as Nordmann and Klenau's forces stubbornly clung to their positions, but they were overwhelmed"), while actually, on the 6th, Klenau formed the extreme right of the Austrian army, while Nordmann's Advance Guard had been interated in Orsini-Rosenberg's IVth Corps and formed the extreme left of the army, more than 10 km away from Klenau.
 * Second, you should mention the fact that Klenau managed to take Essling as well as Aspern but lost both and began a hasty retreat when Massena's main force attacked him, towards midday. As a source for this, I quote Naulet, Frédéric - „Wagram, 5-6 juillet 1809, Une victoire chèrement acquise”, Collections Grandes Batailles, Napoléon Ier Éditions, p. 70.
 * Thanks for all your hard work, I will read through the rest of the Napoleonic Wars part and give some more feedback.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks for clarifying that. Also, need a date on that issue.  was it 2001? Perhaps you could update, expand, improve the articles on Battle of Aspern-Essling and Battle of Wagram.  This would be very helpful! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is 2009. I do intend to translate the detailed article I've written on ro.wiki about Wagram, just can't give you any date for that unfortunately. But I will definetly do it. Aspern-Essling is on my priority list too, for expansion.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

need for a legacy section bought up at FAC process
Comment re legacy section from Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish! That was the gist of a sentence in a 19th century German biography.  Even Petre, who studied these things, has little say about Klenau except he went somewhere, fought a battle, and then went someone else. This highlights an historiographic problem: most study of Napoleonic generaliship has focused, first, on the French generals, indeed, primarily on Napoleon, and on the English generals, primarily on Wellington.  Understandable, given the events of 1815. However, even now, there is little contemporary work on the Austrian generals, or if there is, it is largely encyclopedic, not analytical. The work done on the Ulm campaign, for example, has focused largely on Mack's inability to accomplish much, but it relies largely on Ferdinand's letters and his own memoirs of the campaign, written in 1806, and Ferdinand was heavily into shifting responsibility for the debacle on to Mack.  Mack had some serious problems (indeed, one of them was Ferdinand), including his age, mental health, and over all acuity, but in terms of a critical analysis of the Austrian Generalship, this doesn't seem to have happened yet.  There is quite a bit of first this happened, and then that happened, but unlike the Peninsular Campaigns, the critical analysis is only now emerging. And Klenau hasn't been included yet.


 * Clearly, Archduke Charles thought highly of him: the creation of the Korps Klenau&mdash;the naming of a Corps after him&mdash;was an indication of that, but I cannot provide a direct citation of this. However, the Austrians had a tradition of naming units after successful or wealthy/important nobles (Proprietors, they were called). Klenau essentially became the proprietor of the Corps. Klenau was also thrust into several situations in which he had to negotiate something, and, in the case of Haslach, in one campaign he was the only guy to win a battle.  The battle-winning charge at Handschuhsheim and the action at Brescia also indicate he was quick to take advantage of a situation and he had a great presence of mind.  I can source the facts, but not what their overall meaning. As an historian I would do this without hesitation: his previous actions at such and such and such and such else indicate this and that.  But that is my assessment, based on these facts.  Ebert says: "General der Kavallerie Graf von Klenau war einer der besten österreichischen Korpskommandeure seiner Epoche. Er war sehr aggressiv, umsichtig und talentiert. "  General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau was one of the best Austrian Corp Commanders of his epoch.  He was very aggressive, confident and talented.  (translation mine).  But Ebert doesn't source this either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that assessment could be included in the lead. If there isn't enough for a legacy section, that statement in the first or second sentence with a citation could be beneficial to the article IMHO. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Portrait in infobox
Hello, I think the article needs to have a portrait of Klenau in the infobox rather than a battle scene. After all, the article is a biography of the man.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the portrait that had been there did not pass the image inspection. Do you have a portrait of him that can be documented as to publication date? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look in my books and magazines about the 1809 and see if I can find anything which I can upload legally. I'll get back to you on this very page.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Johann Graf von Klenau Freiherr von Janowitz.jpg is the only one I can find, and it doesn't have a sufficient provenance. There is another online that is this one's reverse, but it also has the same problem. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find anything in my books, after a first look. I'll have a look again tomorrow.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on Being A Featured Article 2013/04/12

 * Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristineBushMV (talk • contribs)

link refers to non-existent section
I'm surprised that a featured article has dodgy link in it's second paragraph. Handschuhsheim refers to a section "City_districts" that does not exist, and would better be Handschuhsheim, though if there isn't a separate page for the Battle of Handschuhsheim the link would better go to the article on the campaign for which the battle was a part.

Jlittlenz (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johann von Klenau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020202040926/http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp to http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020202040926/http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp to http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)