A Regimental list of the Reduced officers for the year 1699

Fresh from the press and ready for shipment:

A Regimental list of the reduced officers for the year 1699 

on the English, Scots and Irish Establishments

Please see the publisher's website for more details and ordering information.

This book is the companion volume to the Half-Pay list 1714, that was published in May 2012. Both volumes provide, as the titles indicate, information on the officers that were reduced after the Nine Years' War and War of the Spanish Succession, respectively. But there is more to that. All regiments that were part of the British army, during the respective periods, are detailed (except the subsidy troops), with information on the regimental lineage and a succession of colonels. Moreover, orders of battle are given for a variety of battles, sieges, descents (executed or aborted), expeditions, et cetera.

Reduced officers in 1699 ~~ preview

A sneak preview of what is currently under preparation. Please check the site of Drenth Publishing for more information.

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

Glorious Revolution

Today, some 323 years ago England was invaded by a sizable Dutch Army. Within several weeks the English army had dissolved itself and the Dutch troops under William III of Orange entered London by late December. It can be argued that by this event England lost its innocence as bystander and was forced to enter the European arena of dynastic struggle. Instead of putting forward theories and humble thoughts, let a nice plate mark this occasion (found at the digital archive at Marburg)

William III and the European balance of power

In the Dutch history magazine Historisch Nieuwsblad as very nice article on William III and his role in establishing the balance of power in Europe by contesting the ambitions of Louis XIV of France: De grote bruggenbouwer

Written in a very pleasant style by Luc Panhuysen, who earlier wrote a book on the Disasteryear 1672. It is in Dutch only, unfortunately. A real pity for the non-Dutch readers, as this article puts several things of the period into a broader (European) perspective.

Dixmuide and Deinze 1695

In early July 1695 the (2nd) siege of Namur started. This time the confederate forces under William III were the besiegers, and the French under the Duc de Boufflers were those under siege.

When all this took place, a French army under the Duc de Villeroi proceeded to Flanders with some 80,000 men. The capture of Nieuport failed, but Villeroi was successful in capturing the towns of Dixmuide and Deinze. Both within a few days, and without much resistance from the side of the garrisons. After this Villeroi proceeded towards Brussels, which he subjected to a destructive, and senseless, bombardment.

Despite agreements regarding the exchange of prisoners of war (or a subjective interpretation of them), the prisoners from Dixmuide and Deinze were moved to France. In reaction to this, the Duc de Boufflers was kept as prisoner (hostage) by William when the fortress of Namur surrendered late August 1695. He was exchanged later that year for the Dixmuide and Deinze prisoners.

As expected, William III was 'not amused' by the quick and easy surrender of the garrisons. The commander of the Dixmuide garrison, Johan Anton Ellenberg (also spelled as Ellenberger or Elnberger), who served in the Danish army and commanded a Danish regiments in English pay, was therefor sentenced to death in November. Other regimental commanders were cashiered or temporarily suspended for their part in the quick surrender.

The garrisons consisted of British, Dutch, Danish and German regiments. Literature is, however, a bit unclear on the non-British components; d'Auvergne seems to be most clear and informative. This resulted in the following overview of regiments.

Dixmuide:
William Lloyd's Regiment of Dragoons; Lloyd was no in Dixmuide
Richard Brewer's Foot (future 12th Foot); Brewer was suspended
Sir James Leslie's Foot (future 15th Foot); Leslie was cashiered
Lord Lorne's Foot (disbanded 1698); Lord Lorne was not present in Dixmuide
Sir Charles Graham's Foot (Of the Scots Brigade); Graham was cashiered
Regiment Auer (Dutch regiment in English pay); Auer was cashiered
Regiment Soutelande or Regiment Saint Amant (Dutch regiment; at present unknown which one was part of the garrison)
Regiment Ellenberg (a battalion detached from the Danish Prinds Christians (later Carls) Regiment, in English pay); Ellenberg was executed
Regiment Holle (a regiment from Brunswick in Dutch pay)

Deinze:
Francis Fergus O'Farrell's Foot (future 21st Foot); O'Farrell was cashiered
Regiment Scheltinga (Dutch regiment); Scheltinga was suspended

John Childs on the invasion of 1688

Though the thought that the Glorious Revolution was de facto an invasion of one state by an army of another state becomes more generally accepted, the idea that it was glorious, and above all for safeguarding Protestantism in England is not entirely weeded out.

However, already in 1680 John Childs, the chronicler of the British army between 1660 and 1702, writes in the last chapter of his book The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution

William did not gamble with the whole of his political and military future in both the United Provinces and Europe to rescue the protestant religion in England out of philanthropic considerations.

Charles II -- the power and the passion

Staying on the more cultural side, a very nice movie, actually miniserie, just ended: Charles II: the power and the passion. The author was at first sceptical about it, as his latest experience with historical drama was The Tudors, about Henry VIII and his wives. This latter drama seems to more about pretty actors and actresses saying one-liners at a steady rate and being constantly angry or upset for some silly reason.

No, the author was happily and pleasantly surprised by the historical drama subject of this blog on king Charles II. The movie starts about 1658 in Spanish Flanders were Charles II is having his court in exile. Following his restoration, general Monck is portrayed really convincingly as being instrumental in this, we see a young king enjoying being king. He is of course married to Catherine of Braganza, but most time is spend with his mistresses (Barbara Palmer (born Villiers), Nell Gwyn, Louise de Kérouaille, etc.). Also the several, often ambitious, young men around him are present: Buckingham, York (future James II), Danby, Shaftesbury, Arlington, etc etc.

Besides the more frivolous part of court life, the viewer gets a decent portion of post restoration history. The 2nd Anglo-Dutch War is mentioned, including the Dutch raid on the Medway, the plague and great fire of London. Later the intrigues with Louis XIV enter the screen: the Treaty of Dover. The final part of the series is mostly devoted to Charles' struggle with Parliament, mostly related to who is to succeed him: the Catholic James or poor pretty Monmouth. The latter is depicted very well as the spoiled first-born son of a king, who has everything except a claim to his father's crown. John Churchill (future Marlborough) is also in scene, in bed with Barbara Palmer whose one time lover he was; like many of the other male characters in the drama.

Towards the end Charles is a tired old man, but still a friendly one spending time with his wife, mistresses and numerous children.

William III of Orange enters the scene also twice, but failed to convince somehow. He looked more like a rowdy Frisian farmer's son than the cunning, though brittle and sickly, diplomat and statesman. Few years before Charles dies he warns William to prepare for the throne of England. This because Charles knowns already his brother James will not be king long. At least in the motion picture ...

Recommended! Be sure to get the original 4 hour BBC version. The US release is shorter, and omits some important historical parts. Only drawback is that the number of characters is large, and look similar because of the huge wigs popular in that period. So a little knowledge on who-was-who will help.