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.

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.

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.

Treaty of Utrecht 1713

Last week, on April 11th, it was 298 years ago that the Treaty of Utrecht was signed, marking the official end of the War of Spanish Succession. The treaty provided in the division of the Spanish empire between the Habsburg and Bourbon contestants, England gained some new possessions like Gibraltar and Newfoundland, and the United Provinces were happy enough with the right to garrison several towns in the Austrian Netherlands (formerly Spanish), the so-called barrier towns.

The war between France and the Holy Roman Empire would continue for an extra year, however. This war was ended by signing of the treaty of Rastatt and the treaty of Baden.

Apparently, this event will be given a lot of attention in Utrecht in 2013: Vrede van Utrecht in 2013. Looking at that website it looks more like a cultural event and somehow the organiser came up with the "Utrecht principles".

It is hard to find a reference to the War of the Spanish Succession, and it is a pity that the organisers did not put more effort in the historical context. Now it is presented as if the Treaty of Utrecht

brought an end to a series of devastating wars that had claimed many millions of lives over a period of almost two centuries. This was the first time that peace had been achieved through diplomacy and dialogue.

(quoted from the website)

In my opinion the historical knowledge of the organisers is insufficient, certainly given the very immodest and pretentious presentation on the events in 2013. Possibly it is simply another excuse to organise a festival, and are they using some hollow sounding, but easily accepted, phrases to attract a large audience and give it some self-importance and self-justification.

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

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: