Capture of Dixmuide en Deinze 1695, pt. II

This blog reported earlier on the capture of Dixmuide and Deinze by the French in July 1695. In July 1695, in order to divert the Confederates from their siege of Namur, the French undertook operations against the towns of Dixmuide and Deinze. They did not succeed in raising the siege, but captured both towns nevertheless. With the capture of these town, the complete garrisons of 10 battalions (regiments) of infantry and one regiment of dragoons went into captivity.

The identity of most of these eleven regiments can be established without too much effort: the English and Scots regiments, and one Dutch at Deinze, are mentioned as such in several sources. The problem lies with the other regiments at Dixmuide. Besides the two English and two Scots regiments, there were four more regiments. Some sources make reference to two each of Dutch and German regiments, others mention Dutch and Danish. Two of these four can be found without too much work as well: one Dutch regiment in English pay, and a Danish regiment in English pay. The colonel of this last regiment, Elnberger, was also governor of Dixmuide and was beheaded for surrendering to the French without any serious attempt to defend the town.

Of the remaining two regiments, the previous blog report makes mention of one Dutch regiment and a regiment from Wolfenbüttel. Though the latter is correct, the former was actually a Brandenburg regiment in Dutch service. We are talking here about the regiment Jung-Holstein. The Wolfenbüttel regiment, in the previous blog said to be Regiment Holle. Holle died in 1693, however, and contemporary sources referred to the regiment as Regiment Schack; Schack may have been the successor.

This missing piece of information comes from a letter from the Duke of Württemberg to Antonie Heinsius, the Dutch Raadspensionaris, dated 17 August 1695. This letter details the 'l'infame reduction' of Deinze and Dixmuide, and loss of ten battalions and one regiment of dragoons. It also informs us on the French bombardment of Brussels: 4000 bombs in 36 hours.
The letter can be found in the second part of Het Archief van den Raadspensionaris Antonie Heinsius, page 101, found in full on Google Books.

So, taken into captivity were two English regiments of foot, three Scots regiments, two Dutch regiments, one Danish, one Brandenburg, and one Wolfenbüttel, and one English regiment of dragoons.

The Scottish brigade in the service of the Dutch Republic, 1689 to 1782

A rather wild search on the WWW returned a rather nice article from the hand of professor John Childs on the Scots (Scottish) brigade in service of the Dutch Republic during the 18th Century. The article is of additional interest as it gives sufficient introductory and contextual details on the genesis of the brigade.
The article can be found under the following link: 
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_doc003198401_01/_doc003198401_01_0004.php

The Royal Scots ~~ some thoughts

Everybody knows The Royal Scots, the first regiment of the line, known in earlier times as the Royal Regiment of Foot and nicknamed Pontius Pilatus' bodyguard. Most sources state, correctly, that the regiment was raised in 1633 for French service as Hepburn's Regiment of Foot. The same sources mention, again correctly, that the regiment was raised by a warrant from the Privy Council of Scotland, by authority of the king. Because of this latter aspect, they claim that the regiment was raised for the Scots Establishment (and/or that it was a regiment of the British Army, a royal regiment, etc.). And that because it was a British regiment, it could be recalled by Charles II in 1661 after the Restoration.

These latter qualifications of the regiment are perhaps not fully correct.

First of all, in 1633 there was no such thing as a Scots Establishment. The whole idea of a British Army was still something for the future as well.
Secondly, all regiments for foreign service were raised under a warrant issued by the Privy Council. This way the government had, at least on paper, a little bit of control on recruitment for foreign states (on the numbers and for whom they were recruiting).
Furthermore, at the time of the Restoration the regiment was part of the French Army and its colonel owed his loyalty to the French king. It was the regimental colonel who had a contract with France, not the king of Scotland.

Looking at these considerations the following can be concluded:

Upon the raising of Hepburn's regiment in 1633, its status and position differed not much from that of other (Scots) regiments in foreign service as all were raised by a warrant that allowed recruiting. It was certainly not part of the Scots Establishment or British Army as these did not exist at that time.
The fact that the regiment survived to see the Restoration in 1660-61, that it was placed on the English Establishment and that it would eventually become the first regiment of foot, had more to do with coincidence and luck, than with anything else. That the Restoration proved be a test for the colonel's loyalty (at that time the (future) Earl of Dumbarton, who had to manage the egos of both Charles or Louis, next to looking after his own interests) (and flexibility of his loyalty), it does not imply that the regiment was a British one hired out to France. Next to this, the (positive) attitude of Charles II towards Roman Catholics (Dumbarton was Roman Catholic) at the Restoration was no doubt helpful as well. But this is different from assuming that the regiment was British and henceforth could be recalled by Charles II at will.

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.