Book: The Army of James II 1685--1688. The Birth of the British Army

This new book in the Century of the Soldier 1618-1721 series by Helion & Co was announced already in late 2016. However, those with an interest in the post-Restoration British army had to wait until August 2017 before the title finally became available. The (long) wait was well worth it! With The Army of James II 1685--1688, that has as sub-title The Birth of the British Army, mr Stephen Ede-Borrett delivered a fine monograph and very useful contribution to the available literature on the armed forces of the later Stuart monarchs.

In just over 200 pages, including all front and back matter, the author gives an overwhelming amount of detail on the regiments of James II during his short reign. The regiments and troops of guards, horse, dragoons and foot are dealt with in neatly written separate chapters, each detailing the composition, uniforms, equipment, flags, and other bits considered of interest. This is supported by almost a dozen of appendices that give more fine-grained details, like a succession of colonels, independents troops and companies raised in 1685 and 1688 and a very interesting overview of deserter notices compiled from the London Gazette. A good selection of illustrations complements the text.

Adding everything up, mr Ede-Borrett goes a long way in showing James II's efforts to improve the effectiveness of the regiments forming his army, in particular those that were on the English Establishment (in 1685 there was no single British Army. All three kingdoms enjoyed their own military establishments (``armies''), each with its own characteristics). This fine book should be welcomed, with the author congratulated by its completion, and will  form a useful addition to the library of anyone with an interest in early modern military history who want to form an idea of how the regiments under James II were organised, how they were uniformed and what armament they carried.

There are, however, a number of comments to be made on this work.

As with other works in this series by Helion, it is surprising that some, I think, basic book layout rules have not been observed: page numbering of the front matter is usually done in Roman numerals; new chapters usually start on the right-hand (odd) page; the page where a new chapter started does usually not bear a page number.

Secondly, there are several loose ends in the author's narrative, in particular in the introductory chapter. For example on page 13, there is mention of Charles II's attitude towards the army (a `necessary evil') that goes without any references. So this point remains somewhat in the void. Though Charles may have preferred the lady's dress over the battle dress, he was also short of funds to allow for a larger military establishment army. (Until William III, the army (the Guards & Garrisons) was the king's, who (had to) paid for it and not Parliament.) 
Another example is on page 16, where it is mentioned that in 1685 the army had `little logistical support' and could not have functioned as an army in a Continental sense. The improvement on the logistical support is, unfortunately, not mentioned further. (On the back of the book we read 'a fully-fledged Army with all of its necessary supporting arms and services', but none of these statements are proved inside.) As to the functioning of the army in a Continental sense, that is of course a hypothetical question that can never be answered (nunc pro tunc). Under Charles II, in case of an emergency, new regiments were raised to form a field army. This happened in 1667, in 1673 and again in 1678. Only in 1678-79, a corps went over to Flanders, but this did not see any combat.
On page 17, the author narrates on the continuation of the army after the Dutch invasion of late 1688 and removal of James II. Here the phrase `perhaps reflects on how the new king saw the quality ...' ignores that William III needed the men as he had to fight in Flanders, Scotland and Ireland. As to William's resistance to disbanding the army after 1697, that had all to do with the looming conflict over the Spanish inheritance. Actually, much of James' army was legally disbanded from the English Establishment in 1697 and 1698, when most of the regiments were transferred to the Irish Establishment.
These loose ends somewhat blur the argument the author wants to make.

Thirdly, with the amount of details gathered, it is unavoidable for some facts and details to remain unclear or unmentioned. For example:
In Chapter 2, on the Horse Guards, the Royal Regiment of Horse Guards is mentioned. Though that designation was used to denote the three, later four, English troops of guards between 1660 and 1688, with an adjutant appointed in 1685, it was a not a regimented regiment, i.e., with a colonel on top, etc, since the troops remained distinct. This becomes not entirely clear.
Also, with the reference to the company (troop) of horse grenadiers added to the Scots troop in 1702, a reference to the grouping of the English horse grenadiers into a single troop in 1693 would have made the narrative clearer.
Likewise, in Chapter 5 on the Foot Guards, the use of 'Royal Regiments' seems strange. The regiments of guards formed part of the Royal army, and were Royal regiments in the that sense, but only the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards was at times designated as Royal.
As to the formation of regiments of dragoons in 1685, John Berkeley, the future 3rd Baron Berkeley Stratton never was colonel of regiment in 1685. Also, the regiment of dragoons that was transferred to Ireland, under the command of Richard Hamilton, was raised specifically for Ireland (see CSPD James 2, 1685, 20 June).
On the foot regiments, the summary of Prince George of Denmark's Regiment on page 78 would have benefited from a remark that it was constituted as a normal foot regiment already in 1667: both this regiment and the Holland Regiment were initially on the Naval Establishment, until September 1667 when transferred to the Military Establishment. A grenadier company was added to the regiment already in 1678 (albeit for a short period only).
As to the Royal Regiment of Fuzileers, Lord Dartmouth already commanded a regiment in 1678 that  had this additional gunsmith -- an indication that a regiment for the purpose of guarding, maybe even serving, the guns was not new? Though unconfirmed, since the regiment was also called 'the Ordnance Regiment', and had miners attached, it could very well have been an embryonic Royal Regiment of Artillery?
Table 5, page 136ff, stated that the Holland Regiment dates from 1572, which is a somewhat loose interpretation of the regiment's lineage. See, for example, by blog post on the origin of this regiment for details. The assumption that the Royal Regiment of Foot (future Royal Scots) was formed from ex-Scots in Swedish service could have been nuanced: the 1633 regiment was a new entity (a few years later, Scots in Swedish service were absorbed into the regiment). The regiment had been on the English Establishment in 1661 and 1666, and finally in 1678 (not 1679). The regiment takes it's precedence from 1661.

That brings me to the last category: the 'it would have been nice if'.
In this distant era precedence (rank) between (gentle)men was observed very closely. With regiments being the property of the proprietor, precedence between regiments was also something that was looked upon very seriously. A few words on this subject would have been nice.
The author provides a succession of regimental titles in Appendix III. Strangely, only the 1985 successor regiment is given, many of which disappeared in the reforms afterwards.
With support arms and services (engineers, artillery, logistics) belonging to the concept of an army, these topics are, unfortunately, barely touched -- the garrisons in England and Scotland are mentioned (table 6, page 139-40), those in Ireland are lacking.
Also, the publication would have benefited from short biographies of some of the more influential officers under James II: who were these men, Catholics or Anglicans? what was their career path?

Finally, the sub-title, the birth, is somewhat misleading. If the British Army was born at some point, it was (officially) in January 1661. Rightfully, under James II the army grew very fast from a toddler into an promising and aspiring adolescent. But, this army was never tested in the field. It can be said that under William III, under the umbrella of the Confederate Army in Flanders, it learned the trade of continental warfare (and got a legal status through the Bill of Rights) and finally achieved maturity under the Duke of Marlborough.

Though the above list of comments seems long, it is well understood that 200 pages is simply not enough to cover such a detail-rich subject -- it may also very well be beyond the intended scope of the monograph (like, for example, biographical information).

When it comes to the regiments of James II between 1685 and 1688, this book provides the essential details on organisation, equipment, uniforms and flags. And for that reason this book is highly recommended to anyone with an interest in those aspects. Regarding the army of James II, as it covers not all aspects that constitute and define an army, I consider this book still valuable but with some reservations.

I rate this book 8.5 out of 10.

Book: Marlborough's other army. The British Army and the Campaigns of the First Peninsular War, 1702-1712

When this book was first announced on the publisher's site, I was pleased to see a book in this subject being written and published. It is needless to say that I was very keen on giving this book a good reading, and see how and where it could fit in my own research in the period.

The book I will be discussing is Marlborough's Other Army. The British Army and the Campaigns of the First Peninsular War, 1702-1712 by Nicholas Dorrell. Dorrell wrote Marlborough's Last Chance in Spain a couple of years ago.

In his book, Dorrell describes the campaigns on the Iberian Peninsula in chronological order. Thus he begins with the Anglo-Dutch raid against Cadiz and Vigo and Portugal's entry into the war and describes each year's campaign right through the evacuation of the region in 1713. Lists of regiments for the various campaigns and battles, and some uniform details, are provided. The book is adorned by over thirty illustrations, and maps are included to show troop movements, etc.

Given the scarcity of books on the Peninsular theatre during the War of the Spanish Succession, this book should be welcomed for providing a neat and concise survey.

There are, however, several aspects of this book that could have been improved or avoided.

1. A first are several remarks on the general layout, typesetting and 'look and feel' of the text:
a) Though highly subjective of course, the book just doesn't look attractive by browsing through it. This is mainly caused the by the lack of indentation where orders of battle are provided, which gives the text a solid and massive appearance. Here using a tabular way of formatting, and avoiding left-alignment, would have helped. 
b) Furthermore, it is custom for books (other than novels of course) that new chapters start on an odd (i.e. right-handed) page, even though this may create a blank page preceding the new chapter.
c) Another point of criticism is that the page numbering of the main matter (in Arabic numbers) continues that of the front matter (in Roman). Page numbering usually (re)starts at 1 for the main matter.
d) The painting of the Battle of Almansa is wrongly attributed to Ricardo Balaca, a nineteenth century artist. He indeed made a painting with the battle of Almansa as subject in 1862. The painting reproduced in the book is by Buonaventura Ligli, who made this painting in 1709.
e) The maps are not scaled uniformly, i.e., the map-scale is of course different depending on what is shown, but it is good practise that the text in the maps is in the same format regardless of map scale.
These aspects give the book a somewhat unfinished appearance, and could have been avoided in my opinion.
f) The text reads as if it was compiled sequentially from sources given in the bibliography, without giving it a second thought. This results in a somewhat uneven introduction to general concepts, and the text lacks a certain smoothness. This could have been avoided by putting that kind of details into an introduction or earlier chapter.

Next, there are several aspects of the contents itself that could have been improved. I will address a few:

2. The ``British Army'' was one of main stakeholders, and the first chapter gives a basic introduction (pages 15-17) . Though the author rightly states that there was no ``British Army'' at this period, he seems to have overlooked completely the concept of establishment. Instead of an army, there were three establishments: an English, a Scots and an Irish, one for each of the three kingdoms. Ireland is not mentioned at all in this part. The concept of a ``British Army'', as an institution, was however something for the future. On his discussion of the regimental organisation, the author overlooked the fact there were many more establishments (i.e. authorised organisation and strength) for regiments than he states, and (British) regiments serving in Spain were organised according to several establishments, all depending on where they came from. This is a confusing topic, but the short-cut taken by the author is simply to simplistic. In his discussion of the cavalry (page 17), the troop as building block for regiments and owned by a captain is omitted in favour of the more popular squadron.

3. Dorrell rightfully mentions the Dutch (chapter 3, page 29ff.) as an important stakeholder. According to Dorrell, the Dutch contribution to the Iberian Peninsula was not as large as it could have been. However, Here the author should have been aware that the English and Dutch forces sent to Portugal and Spain, even the complete effort regarding that region, was settled according to quotas: 2/3 English and 1/3 Dutch, giving a more objective and nuanced interpretation of why there were relatively few Dutch troops. Though Dorrell uses some German language sources, it is a pity he didn't consult the Dutch "Het Staatsche Leger".

4. Another important player was Portugal, and the contributions of the Portuguese army have somewhat been neglected in the literature on the War of the Spanish Succession. Here Dorrell mentions that the obscurity of information is in part caused by the custom of naming the regiments after its colonel, whereas other states used a more clearer (e.g. numerical) method of naming. This, however, it not entirely correct. Regiments of other nations were still named after their colonel, or had some other designation when named after, e.g., a member of the Royal family. The concept of precedence added some ordering, but the habit of adding a numerical addition to a regimental title was something of a later date.

5. The capture of Minorca is dealt with very shortly, and unfortunately the details on the invasion force are not according to the latest insights. Furthermore, it is a pity the author omitted the garrison on the island between 1708 and 1713. The same can be said for Gibraltar.


Because of the above remarks the final evaluation of this book is more elaborate than usual.

Given the subject, I would rate the book as recommended and I am convinced it will find its way to the libraries of (amateur) historians and students of the battles of the War of the Spanish Succession

Unfortunately, the book's appearance is not up to standards, and some serious editing would have been useful. Furthermore, though the author is no doubt complete in providing orders of battle and narrating on the many battles and campaigns, and for this achievement the author deserves full credits, there seems to be a lack of completeness and consistency (as in ``big picture'') in his story.

These two points combined give the book the appearance of a manual for those wishing to re-create battles, and those looking for orders of battle. And for that purpose I feel this book will be useful.
However, the book would have benefited from a more out-of-the-box thinking, to get the big picture and conceptual understanding of an early eighteenth-century army more clear.

So I would rate the book as recommended and certainly as very relevant because of the lack of literature on this topic and the amount of work put into it by the author. However, this is with reservations depending on what the reader is looking for.

new book: Marlborough: Soldier and Diplomat

The author was recently notified on a new publication on the Duke of Marlborough: Marlborough: Soldier and Diplomat. Other than previous publications, in which Marlborough is typically seen by, through and for British perspective, this publication places Marlborough in a much wider, European, context. A dozen specialists have written on the Duke, each from a different perspective.

The book is edited by John B. Hattendorf, Augustus J. Veenendaal, and Rolof van Hövell tot Westerflier. Contributing authors include David Onnekink from the Netherlands, John Hattendorf, Jamel Ostwald, and John Stapleton from the United States, and Alan Guy and Tony Claydon from the United Kingdom.

The book is published by Karwansaray Publishers, and more information on the book is found here. Judging from the topics covered, the book looks like a 'must-read' and one will eventually find its way to the author's library.

Book: Bloodline. the origins and development of the regular formations of the British Army

Due to the summer season yet another book review. This time Bloodline, on the origins of the regular regiments and corps of the British Army. It was written by Iain Gordon, founder of Method Publishing and author of several other books on the British armed forces.

At first sight, and compared to the books by Goff Lumley and Gerry Murphy, this book looks not bad at all and may stand the test of trial.

This is partly due to the fact that the book's title does not pretend the books covers anything from the origin of the (modern) of the British Army in 1661 until present day. As such, it is pretty obvious to the reader that this book is intended for those interested in tracing, within limits, the forebears of the present day regiments and corps of the British Army. Nothing more, nothing less.

The regiments and corps are presented in the almost obligatory order of precedence. For each regiment and corps the author give basic lineage information (no full dates nor colonels (except present day)), battle honours, badges and overview of alliances, regimental marches. A nice addition is the inclusion of contact details of the regiments and corps, and regimental museums. So anyone interested in contacting a regiment directly has ample means.

The presentation and layout of the book's content is compact and clear, and the short narratives provide sufficient information to give the reader a basic understanding. A chronological list of battle honours gives this book some additional value.

No good news without bad news, but fortunately I can be brief on this. A very bad first it that this book has no list of references (except for the contact details of the regiments and corps). For me this means this book is not suited very much as a start for further reading into the subject of British regimental lineages. Simply because the author does not guide me into any direction. Secondly, the post-Restoration period is treated too briefly in the narratives in my opinion. This seems to be a recurring thing with many authors. Thirdly, Gordon gives sometimes wrong and strange bits of information in the already short notes on regiments. For example, under the Grenadier Guards, he mentions a Cromwellion invasion of the Netherlands. Elsewhere he states the Scots, or Green Brigade was in Dutch service (later he places them correctly in Swedish service).

Gives the books (limited) scope to present day regiments and their ancestors, it would be unfair of me to make a remark on the neglect of disbanded regiments of the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

The final verdict for this book will be a 7/7.5 out of 10.
Positive: not pretentious regarding the scope of the work, clear and compact information, address/internet details of regiments and corps added value.
Negative: no references given, sloppiness regarding information in notes and narratives resulting in strange and wrong details.

Book: The genealogy of the Regiments of the British Army, volume 1: the cavalry

The book subject of this post is titled The Genealogy of the Regiments of the British Army : Cavalry, and is written by Anthony Baker. It was published in 1999 by The Military Press, and available in both paperback and hardcover editions. This book is the first in a series on the genealogy of the British Regiments.

Looking at the title and the year of publication (1999) one might think that this will be a great book, correcting mistakes and omissions made by earlier writers and presenting some new information. The format is impressive (A4) with several fold-out tables.

However, this book is a bit of a disappointment unfortunately.

First of all, there is no list of references used by the author! With such a complicated area, and so many contradicting sources I think this is unforgivable. This way a reader is not able to check details, of consult sources for further research.

The fold-out tables have been mentioned, and at a glance they look like a nice addition. However, the tabels' composition and contents is a bit uneven. The past 350 years have been divided in strange chunks. In particular, the periods 'before 1691' and '1691-1750' are at least a little odd. Why 1691, and not 1697 (because of army reductions) or 1714 (again because of reductions, and succession of the Hanoverians)?

A positive point is that Baker didn't cut on space for presenting regiments. For example, the Royal Dragoons get four pages, until their amalgamation in 1968. Information details service of the regiment, nicknames, battle honors, mottos, music, etc. I have not enough knowledge of most of those subject to comment. However, an important omission is the absence of a succession of regimental colonels! Why spending so much space on service details, honours and clothing, but not on regimental colonels, as the latter were and are an important part of the regiment and its history. In the few instances that a colonel is mentioned, he seldom uses the full name of the colonel. The index on named regiments therefore contains a reference to the Duke of Albemarle, and to Albemarle. The latter refers to a regiment commended by the 2nd Duke of Albemarle, the son of the 1st Duke who was of course George Monck. Suffice to say this is rather sloppy.

Furthermore Baker introduces a number of ghost regiments: the 9th - 14th Regiments of Dragoons, raised apparently in 1697 and disbanded in 1713. He probably copied this from someone. These regiments didn't exist. First of all, in 1697 the army was subject to reductions so it is hardly likely that six regiments would have been formed. Secondly, regiments were in general not known by a number in those days, but by the name of their colonel or some honorary name; only the troops of horse guards were numbered as were the regiments of foot guards on occasion. As a third point one can find no reference of these regiments in contemporary accounts.

To summarize, I would rate this book a 6 out of 10. The book contains many details other than regimental lineage, and Baker can be praised for that part. However, on the lineage part itself Baker has been really sloppy and inconsistent. This makes me also doubt the correctness of the non-lineage details. The lack of a literature list is not helping much in a positive way as well.

All in all, a book that may appeal the novice, and will be of some value regarding the non-lineage details. But it should be consulted with care.

Book: Ancestry and Amalgamations in the British Army 1660-2008

About a year ago an earlier book by Goff Lumley was discussed on this blog. As the author really liked that book, given the limited scope and the presentation of regimental information by means of badges, he was happy to see a new book had hit the shelves: Ancestry and Amalgamations in the British Army 1660 - 2008. The hardcover edition is published by Partizan Press, the paperback edition by the Military Library Research Service Ltd.

However, though the book may be nice one way or another, the review given at www.arrse.co.uk is certainly too much praise.

First of all, the book has a strong tendency in interpreting the past with the knowledge of the present time. The present day regiments are taken as starting point, and predecessors are dealt with under that header. Though not terribly bad, a more chronological treatment might have given the reader a better understanding of the growth and life of the British Army.

Secondly, Lumley does not address disbanded regiments of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. That is common with such works, unfortunately. By omitting the regiments that played such an important role in the Nine Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession, and in bringing the British Army to maturity, the picture of the British Army is incomplete.

As a third point of comment Lumley seems to have been sloppy on a number of details (probably copied mistakes from others). For example, the lineage of the 3rd Regiment of Foot is not correct: the four English regiments in Dutch service did not merge in 1648, and were strictly speaking not disbanded in 1665. Another example is the ranking of the 1st Regiment of Dragoons as 1st as early as 1674! What was to become the Royal Regiment of Dragoons in 1683 was surviving in 1674 in Tangier as horse. And it was in 1674 probably by no means sure that this regiment would survive Tangier, or that it would become dragoons.

A further remark is the lack of a proper introduction. The introduction given informs the reader about the greatness of regiments (the cameraderie, the espirit the corps) and how welcome this book is. It does not tell anything about the origin of the British Army, except that it started in 1660/61. As to dates, the author only gives the year for mergers/amalgamations. Since more detailed information on dates is known, it is a pity Lumley did not put that in.

Finally it should be remarked that the author could have done better with respect to names of colonels. It should be praised that he included the names of colonels of regiments prior to 1751 (a thing often omitted by other authors), but it would have been better had he given full names and titles. As they are presented now it will only confuse people. Also, Lumley exhibits too much an insular English-only attitude towards the history of the British Army, an attitude witnessed by too many other authors of books on the British Army.

To summarize, the book is somewhat a disappointment. With respect to badges, the book is full with pictures of badges which is indeed nice. With respect to (new) information the book is not so new and seems more like a repetition of facts, including some mistakes, compiled in other books. As a positive point the facts on amalgamations after say the 1750 seem to be ok, and Lumley's use of badges to show merges and regimental history is nice.

Those with some interest in the British Army would certainly like the book, and would be easily overwhelmed by it. However, for the more serious student of military history and the British Army the book does not present new information or new insights.

Magazine: Geo Epoche "Der Sonnekönig"

In Germany I found a rather nice series of magazines: Geo Epoche. Amongst these an issue on the Sun King, Louis XIV of France. I browsed it a little, before buying, and noted that the articles are not related to the palaces of Louis, to the grandeur of Louis, or to the mistresses of Louis only.

Besides an article on Versailles, other articles includes on on the Franco-Dutch War of 1672-78, on the persecution of Huguenots, and on the War of the Spanish Succession.


All articles are illustrated with nice images and illustrations. For example on the battle of Malplaquet


I could not identify 'who is who' in this image, but perhaps someone more into colours and uniforms can help here?

Lastly an image from the chapter on the Franco-Dutch War showing French atrocities. War never was, nor is, a nice business. But during this war, it was deliberate French policy to terrorize the civilians in order to subdue them and break resistance in unconquered parts the Dutch Republic.

Quite contrasting to the grandeur and civilized manners displayed at court.

The articles seem well researched. For example, the article on the Franco-Dutch War gives a more than decent narrative of the years before the war (War of Devolution, popularity of house of Orange, etc).

So, when you happen to travel through Germany, check out this magazine.

Unofficial lists of the army

Nowadays it may seem that almost anything is being put into print, this was also the case in the late 17th century. Of particular interest are the several almanack type of books, published periodically and giving all sorts of information regarding countries, nobility, geography, clergy, and, of the army. Most will be available via Google Books, and two will be discussed here.

Angliae Notitia: or The Present State of England, written by Edward Chamberlain, doctor of laws. The 12th edition of 1684 is considered here, and the 2nd Volume is of particular interest. From page 131 the author gives a description of the present state of the military government of England. Neatly listed are the regiments with their officers, and, not seen before, their quarters and where they were doing duty. For example, the Royal Regiment of Dragoons was moving up and down near London. Also of interest is a description of the military government of the city (that means London) from page 208 onward.

The New State of England under their majesties King William and Queen Mary. Written by Guy Milege in 1691 it is a big work in three parts. The third part has some lists of officers related to the Household, and the various regiments of guards are found there as well. This starts are page 152 of the third part, being page 808 of the downloadable pdf-file. Unfortunately, it is not complete. In part II, from page 168 (550 in the pdf) there is information on the strength, composition and payment of the guards. Noteworthy to read it that two units of Dutch Guards (the Life Guards and Foot Guards) are explicitly mentioned as forming part of the Household troops.

Book: Regiments and Mergers in the British Army 1907-2007

This time a short diversion to the 20th and 21st centuries. This book, titled Regiments and Mergers in the British Army 1907-2007 is written by Goff Lumly. Interestingly, the book's secondary title is A Cap Badge based Guide, the author's argument being that the cap badge

has always been an emotive and eye-catching regimental identifier.

Thus said, the book presents the mergers of regiments visualised by the respective cap badges, and not by text. All regiments and corps from 1907 are presented. Where necessary the Lumly has provided notes or some introductory text. The book starts with the cavalry, followed by the regular infantry, corps and services, yeomanry, territorial infantry. Then a separate chapter on the London Regiment, and chapters on Training Establishments and OTC and on designs of crowns and emblems.

The reproductions of the cap badges are very clear, though a few seem to be of insufficient resolution and appear a little grainy. With respect to the mergers, Lumly has provided only the year of merger, and not a full date. For such a guide this is perfectly ok.

The text given with the respective chapter is well written, and gives the reader the essential background information for guiding him of her through the web of regimental mergers and title changes.

So, overall a very nice book. The level of detail may not be that great (only years for mergers) but the author did not intend to write a lineage book. His way of dealing with mergers of regiments from a cap badge point of view is fascinating and refreshing in some sense. As a (quick) reference guide this book will be useful for both badge collectors and lineage addicts like me. Recommended.

Full book information:
Regiments and Mergers in the British Army 1907-2007 by Goff Lumly. Published by Military Library Research Service Ltd in Smalldale, England.

Book on Scottish Lowland Regiments

Found at archive.org, a book on the Lowland regiments from Scotland. The book appeared in 1918, but the editor has chosen to devote the services of the regiments in the Great War to a separate volume.

A quick examination gives the impression of a well documented and detailed book. Each chapter is written by another author, so quality may differ obviously. Furthermore, a great deal of attention is paid on disbanded regiments, also for the period until 1714, which is good of course.

Book: Where did that regiment go?

First the author's apologies for the delay in adding articles. Initially I hoped to publish two to three articles a week, but due to other commitments I am happy to reach that number each month.

This time the topic will not be an obscure piece of lineage. Instead, a fairly new book will be subject of discussion:
Where did that regiment go? The lineage of British infantry and cavalry regiments at a glance by Gerry Murphy, and published in 2009 by Spellmount.

The title is promising, and the front cover looks impressive with the Household Cavalry. The main reason for buying this book was the author's interest in reading a recent lineage book, and seeing how it was dealt with. And perhaps something new might pop-up of course. The discussion relates of course only to the early part of the British Army, i.e., the period until 1714.

However, the book proved to be a minor disappointment at least. Whereas the title is boasting about the book's contents, and the back covers reads '... one indispensable volume.', the book is certainly not for those who are studying British regimental lineages seriously. (The comment by the regimental secretary of the Royal Irish Regiments make the author think he didn't read the book at all...)

To start with, the serious works are missing from the list of literature! There is no reference to the lineage bible written by Frederick in 1984; other books seem to be of the coffee table variety. They can be nice, no doubt about that, and full of details and anecdotes. But omitting Frederick is very serious.

Then to the contents. First there is the mistake that the future 19th and 20th Foot (Green Howards and Lancashire Fusiliers, respectively) were raised by James II. This mistake is seen often unfortunately. Next the author (Murphy) is wrong about the countries that made up the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV in 1689. Why listing Russia, but omitting such important members as the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the Elector of Brandenburg?

Further the author writes that the British were defeated at Landen, where it was the Allied Army that was defeated, consisting of an amalgam of regiments. Here the author implicitly blames William III for not having Marlborough in command. That Marlborough's loyalties were at least debatable is omitted. Also, there were far more experiences continental generals.

And it goes on. In 1697 Louis XIV accepted William and Mary as rulers of Britain. Didn't Mary die earlier in 1694? About the disbandment of the army after the Treaty of Rijswijk, Murphy omits the debates on the standing army. Also the events surrounding the death of James II, the self-proclamation by James III as king and the support Louis XIV gave the latter is blurred. The Act of Settlement for ensuring a protestant line of succession to the British throne is also forgotten. Finally, the Treaty of Utrecht is apparently from 1715, and not from 1713 as I always thought ...

So, while I only read the parts related to the Stuarts, I cannot feel but irritated because of the many (small) errors made by the author. Errors that were not necessary with a little bit of research. Now, because of these errors the book made a very conservative and insular impression. Must in the same manner other British historians wrote about the War of the Spanish Succession for example, fought by Marlborough himself and British regiments (almost) only. In 2010, I think that this is not how a military historian should treat events. It is perfectly correct to write about a single army alone, but it is very sad that the same insular view is maintained witnessed in so many other books.

As a final judgment, the book might be nice for those with little knowledge about the British Army and its regiments, and the book it quite full of anecdotes and little details. The author certainly deserved credits for that!

But given the pretentious title of the book, and the mistakes I found while reading a small part, I would not recommend this book to anyone studying the British regiments seriously and looking for context, perspective and nuance. On the coffee table the book would do fine, and the tables the author compiled can be very handy. But for the serious library the book is just not good enough in my opinion.