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.

the Marlborough historiography

For those with an interest in the life and times of the Duke of Marlborough, please check out this rather good read at Jamel Ostwald's blog: What's the matter with the Marlborough historiography

A musical intermezzo

On this joyful 30th April 2013 some musical entertainment from the early modern period.

One is called 'Marlbrough ne revient pas', and written after the battle of Malplaquet of September 1709. It tells how Sarah Churchill is told that her husband found his death on the fields of Malplaquet.

Le roi et mort, vive le roi: The funeral march for Louis XIV.

And finally, William Croft's ode for the peace of Utrecht, now 200 years ago.

(Please ignore any commercials)

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.

Putting Marlborough into perspective

From English language literature on the War of the Spanish Succession, written by Englishmen using English sources, one might get the impression that the Duke of Marlborough was the gift of the British islands to mankind, who defeated the French single-handed. The Dutch were merely a nuisance, an unwilling ally constantly avoiding combat and obstructing the Duke's ambitions and lust for glory.

Luckily, some historians are trying hard to counter this somewhat one-sided interpretation. Please see the excellent blog of of Jamel Ostwald where a new post stresses the importance of reading between the lines.

Marlborough and the Field Deputies

In 1702, the first year of the War of the Spanish Succession, Allied and French forces were maneuvering in the modern day province of North Brabant in the Netherlands during July and August. The Allies under Marlborough, and the French under Boufflers. Mid July the Allied army was encamped near Nijmegen, the French were lying near Gennep on the Maas. The Allies crossed the Maas river at Grave, in an attempt to block the lines of communications for the French army. As a consequence, the French broke up and headed south via Goch, Cevelaer, Venlo, and reaching Roermond in the last days of July. The Allies had marched via de line Zeeland, Lieshout, Mierlo-Geldrop, and were at Achel - Lille St Hubert on 31 July.

On 2 August, the Allied and French armies passed each other so closely the Marlborough was tempted to engage the French. The Allied army was a bit larger than the French. However, the earl of Athlone (and probably several subordinate generals) was against this plan, and hence a chance to defeat the French was lost.

In his book Marlborough as military commander, David Chandler, the propagandist of Marlborough, states that it was the fault of the Field Deputies of the States-General that frustrated the attempted battle. This, however, it not correct (see for example van Nimwegen in his De subsistentie van het leger p. 108, or Wijn in Het Staatsche Leger, deel VIII p. 125). Only the Duke of Berwick wrote in his memoirs that the field deputies did not allow Marlborough to start the battle, but he has to be misinformed (Wijn).

However, because Chandler is accusing the field deputies of obstructing Marlborough, they have got a very bad treatment in English literature on the War of the Spanish Succession. In reality the contrary was ofter the case (see also the blog Rampjaar), and these field deputies were capable men well versed in the art of war, and how to run an army.

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.

Marlborough redressed

On the Rampjaar blog an interesting post on an article related to the battle of Ramillies putting Marlborough's greatness into perspective.