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.

Some regimental establishments

Following the earlier post on the size of the regiment of foot, and the various (official) establishment listed, this post will actually detail some of these establishments. This post will look at the regiments in the Low Countries.

As stated previously, regiments in the Low Countries numbered 867, 876 (no typo) or 938 men. How does these numbers translate in companies, sergeants and privates.

Let's start with the largest. This establishment was authorised already in the conflict for regiments serving in the Low Countries. The regiments were composed of thirteen companies: twelve battalion companies and one of grenadiers. Besides the private men, each company consisted of three officers - captain, lieutenant and ensign, or a captain and two lieutenants for the grenadiers, three sergeants, three corporals, and two drummers. The battalion companies had 60 private men, the grenadier companies were slightly larger with 70 men. Together with 5 staff officers - chaplain, adjutant, quarter-master, and the surgeon and his mate - this adds up to 938 men.

The smallest is a big odd, but it existed. This regiment had only twelve companies, 11 battalion and one of grenadiers, at the same establishment as the large regiments, with also five staff officers. This was the regiment of William Evans. It was raised in April 1703, and went to the Low Countries the same year. Though at first established with 938 men, and thirteen companies, part of the regiment was drafted in 1704 to regiment that went to Portugal. The result was this 12 company establishment.

The middle sized regiments, there were four of them in the Low Countries, were all part of the augmentation of 20,000 men to the Confederate forces agreed upon in 1703. Four of the regiments of this augmentation were English, and established with 876 men. These regiments also had thirteen companies, and five staff, and had the same number of officers, non-commissioned officers and drummers. However, the difference was in a somewhat lower establishment of the companies: each company had 56 men.

The estimates for the forces show these establishment until the end of the conflict, and it is interesting to know why the regiments of the augmentation were somewhat smaller than those of the earlier British contingent.

What was the size of a regiment of foot?

After a couple of months of research for other projects, I returned to the reductions after the War of the Spanish Succession (see also my Half-Pay officers for 1714). Here I looked into the question on the size of a regiment. More in particular, and do keep it simple, the size of a regiment of foot.

Anyone, including me, with some knowledge of the British army, and the Marlburian period, would probably answer that a regiment numbered 13 companies with one of grenadiers.

However, a careful look at the establishment lists of the armies between 1701 and 1712 reveals a variation that must have given contemporary quartermasters severe headaches. And it gives some nice number-crunching.

Let's use the estimate for the armed forces for 1711 as an example (see the Calendar of Treasury Books):
In the Guard & Garrisons, i.e., the regiments serving in England or in garrison on the colonies we have regiments of 760, 809, 834, 876, and 951 men. Judging from the reductions, the regiments were all established with 12 companies.

In the army in Flanders we find regiments of 938 and 876 men. The ones with 938 men were definitely established with 13 companies, the ones with 876 men most likely.

When we move to the Iberian Peninsula, the situation was as worse as at home: regiments of 725, 785, 834, 845 and 876 men. All regiments appear to have been established with 12 companies.

After the reductions of 1712-14 we find the following establishments:
at Dunkirk, 669 men to a regiment of foot with 12 companies
in Flanders 613 to a regiment with 12 companies
at Minorca 625 men with 12 companies
at Gibraltar 500 with 12 companies
In England/Scotland, including the West Indies, 445 men with 10 companies
in Ireland,  444 men, also in 10 companies
(the one man difference between England and Scotland was the Quarter-Master, for whom was no room on the Irish Establishment).

Podcast on the War of the Spanish Succession

Andrew Tumath contributed a nice article in the latest issue of the Journal of the Society of Army Historical Research on the British army in Spain after the Brihuega disaster. In the note about the author, it was mentioned that mr Tumath hosts a history podcast called A New History Podcast.

One of the series (or should this be podcasts?) is on the War of the Spanish Succession, neatly divided into yearly or half-yearly episodes. Well worth checking out, and listening to. Mr Tumath has a pleasant voice, and narrates eloquently and packs a lot of detail in his lectures. Yet, whilst taking the listeners from Northern Italy to London and then to Portugal, it remains clear and comprehensive.

Highly recommended, though his appreciation of the dreaded and evil Dutch Deputies keeping the Duke from picking his fruits from his victories seems a bit influenced by Chandler et al .......

A Regimental list of the half-pay officers for the year 1714

Fresh from the press, and ready for immediate shipment:

A regimental list of the half-pay officers for the year 1714 

Please see an earlier post on for more details, or visit the publisher's site.

Half-pay list for the year 1714 ~~ republication

Humbly, I wish to announce the forthcoming republication of A regimental list of the half-pay officers for the year 1714. This list, the original, was subject of an earlier post on this blog. This current republication is an annotated and edited version of the original version of 1714. It will be a limited reprint of 50 copies only. The publication is expected to be printed in the second half of May. Pre-orders are already welcomed and accepted.

Please see the publisher's site for more information and contact details.

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.

Half-pay list of 1714

One of those scarce contemporary publications: A Regimental list of the half-pay officers for the year, 1714. According to the English Short Title Catalogue only less than a dozen copies are known in libraries in Britain and the United States.

This list, published by order of the House of Commons, shows all officers that were reduced, i.e. placed on half-pay, after the War of the Spanish Succession. And, as such, is a good source for tracing the careers of officers and, of course, the reduction of the army after the war in general. The list gives also an impression of officers available for the military. Not surprisingly, many of the officers are found in the regiments raised under George I after 1715.

Below an example page showing several of the regiments of marines that were disbanded in 1713.

Neutrality Corps of 1710

In the first decade of the 18th Century two great wars were raging over Europe. The war over the Spanish inheritance was fought in the Spanish-Netherlands, the Rhineland, the Iberian Peninsula and several other regions. In the northern and eastern parts of Europa a conflict was fought, The Great Northern War, with Sweden, Denmark, Russia and Saxony (- Poland) being the main belligerents.

As the Great Northern War was fought in parts of the Holy Roman Empire fear existed that the war might mix with the war over the Spanish succession. The two treaties of Altranstädt of 1706 and 1707 (peace between Sweden and Saxony, and treaty between Sweden and the Emperor) took away the tension for some time. Of interest is to note that in 1707 part of the Saxon army was taken into pay of the Maritime powers.

However, in 1709 the Swedish king Karl XII was defeated by the Russians at Poltava, leading to the former's voluntary exile into Ottoman territory. This created some sort of a void in the Baltic area with Russia, Denmark and Saxony looking with much interest at Swedish territories in the region. The expected return of Karl XII and renewal of the war in the Holy Roman Empire was feared. Moreover, with the war spreading into these Swedish possessions of the Empire it was feared that Brandenburg-Prussia and Hanover might be involved as well. Which would obviously influence their part in the war against France.

On 31 March 1710 the Maritime Powers and the Emperor signed the convention of the Hague. This convention declared for the neutrality of the Swedish possessions in the Empire. In order to enforce this neutrality the signers of the convention, together with several other German powers, agreed to contribute to a corps of Neutrality. The size of the corps was set at 15,400 foot and 3,000 horse. England and the Dutch Republic would contribute six battalions each, in total 8,400 men. Other contributors were the Emperor, Prussia, Hanover, the Palatinate, Mainz, Hessen-Kassel, Münster, Mecklenburg and Wolfenbüttel.

Though the situation remained strained throughout 1710, and several contingents had already marched into Silezia, the Neutrality Corps did not have to come into action. Not because of the corps' deterrent effect, but because the events in the region, and return of the Swedish king, did not proceed as fast as expected.

 

(above image from Feldzüge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen XII. Band.)

Hostilities were resumed in 1711 anyway and the Great Northern War would continue until 1721. It also remains to be questioned how effective the corps would have been in case it should have to come into action.

Portuguese regiments in British pay

English, Scots and Irish regiments of the British Army can provide for a great deal of research pleasure for the student of British military history and the lineage addict aficionado. Foreign regiments in British service provide an additional challenge when it comes to finding proper details of the regiments in question. When found, details are often sketchy, incomplete and they may even be contradicting. Adding to the confusion is the broad range of regiments that can be called foreign.

As could be read on this blog before a large number of German troops were in English pay during the Nine Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession. Such troops entered English pay and service through contracts signed between England and the German state in question. Terms of service and pay were laid down in the contract. Huguenot regiments are also found in English service, and they can be considered foreign as well. Their origin, and reasons for existence differed from that of, for example, the German regiments. In 1708-09 we find a number of Portuguese regiments entering English pay, with yet another background. (The need for more men and bayonets is in most cases probably the ultimate reason why a regiment came into being anyway.) 

By late 1708, as various English regiments had been disbanded, reduced or merged in 1707 and 1708, five new regiments were to be formed in Portugal as replacements: one regiment of dragoons and one of foot. These regiments were to be formed from Portuguese [soldiers], but officered by English and, mostly, French Huguenots. The British treasury paid for the regiments. Commissions were given without date, to be filled in Portugal, and did not exceed the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Though information was not found, the colonelcies were most likely bestowed on Portuguese. Because the regiments were Portuguese, the king of Portugal objected against the idea of having French Protestants commanding his regiments. This delayed the completion of the regiments, which did not happen before summer 1709. By the time the regiments were fully embodied, it was also decided to reorganize the four regiments of foot into five additional regiments of dragoons.

The History of the Reign of Queen Anne for 1709 gives a list of colonels, lieutenant-colonels and majors:

Since the regiments appear in precedence lists compiled after the war it seems likely that the regiments were considered native some time afterwards. In 1712 the following colonels are listed (in order of precedence of their regiment):

• Balthasar de Foissac
• Hunt Withers
• Jean Desbordes
• Constantine de Magny
• Paul de Gually
• Joseph de Sarlande

Five of the six colonels are clearly French Huguenots. To add to be confusion, another regiment of dragoons commanded Charles de la Bouchetière, also a Hueguenot, is often mentioned together with the regiments discussed above.

All six regiments of dragoons mentioned above were disbanded by 1712 and its officers were placed on half-pay. This seems also an indication that at some point the regiments were no longer foreign.

Höchstädt and Blindheim

While en route to another destination in Germany, the author made a short stop at Höchstädt and Blindheim. These places are of course known for the (second) battle of Höchstädt fought on 13 August 1704 between French/Bavarian and English/Dutch/Imperial forces. In the English speaking world this battle is commonly referred to as the battle of Blenheim (Blindheim), as the English troops were mostly committed around that vilage.

In Höchstädt is a nice Heimatmuseum (image above). This museum has several dioramas with tin figures showing several episodes of the battle. One diorama shows the surrounding (Einkesselung) of the village of Blindheim, occupied by large part of the French army, by English troops. Below two images of this diorama.





Another diorama depicts the action towards to the north near the village of Lutzingen. A third diorama shows the battle near Höchstädt fought in 1800 between French and Austrian forces. Though this was a very minor engagement, it was heralded in France and by Napoleon as revenge for the defeat suffered in 1704.

After Höchstädt the village of Blindheim was visited. Near the church there is a monument commemorating the battle. The last image is taken from a lookout tower outside of Blindheim enabling to survey the battlefield. The picture was taken towards the east, with Blindheim on the far right.

Prussian troops in Anglo-Dutch pay 1709

Here a list of Prussian troops that were (partially) in pay of the Maritime Powers in 1709. We see the original corps of 1702, the Alte Korps of 1706, for which the Maritime Powers provided subsistence (i.e. bread and fodder, consuming large parts of annual budgets), and the Neues Korps that was in pay of the Maritime Powers from 1709 on, similar to the 1702 corps.

The list is taken from the work Die alte Armee von 1655 bis 1740 written by Curt Jany and part of the larger series Urkundliche Beiträge und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Preußischen Heeres published in the early 1900s.It can be found at the reknown archive.org!

Prints from the Anne S.K. Brown Collection

A collection of nice prints, drawings and watercolors at the Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, part of the Brown University: Link!

For example, this nice hand colored print from the battle of Ramillies of 23 May 1706:

War of the Spanish Succession website

A very nice and visual website dedicated to the War of the Spanish Succession, more in particular to the conflict as fought in Catalonia, with lots and loads of nice pictures.
Link found at http://desperta-ferro-ed.blogspot.com/ but would not harm to repeat it here. It is Spanish language only, but it should not be too much of a problem to get a basic impression and understanding.

http://www.guerradesuccessio.cat/

English intervention in Catalonia

Thanks to Rampjaar, who pointed me at the following publication:

God save Catalonia

See also this link for more details (which points to the
http://desperta-ferro-ed.blogspot.com/ blog). It is good to have more publications on this somewhat forgotten theater of the War of the Spanish Succession.

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.

Carolus II and Philipus V of Spain

In Salamanca one of the main sights is the Plaza Mayor with its shaded arcade (very pleasant in the midst of the afternoon). Above the arcade one will see the portraits of famous and/or notable Spaniards. Amongst them Charles II and Philip V, of interest of course for the period of War of the Spanish Succession. (The above pictures are a bit crappy because of the late afternoon sun in combination with harsh shadows.)

On the opposite side of the plaza a very famous British general who successfully did fight the French in Spain a century later.

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.