Thomas Erle's regiments

Students of the British army of the late 17th and early 18th centuries will know that in those days regiments were usually single battalion organizations. That means that the strength of a regiment matches that of a battalion: somewhere between 600 and 800 men divided into about a dozen companies.

There were, of course, exceptions. Most prominent are the regiments of foot guards. These regiments had a larger number of companies, with a somewhat larger establishment, and could, probably therefor, spawn several battalions to serve somewhere.

(Here I explicitly void using the phrasing 'split into several battalions'. From literature it seems that the battalion was foremost an ad-hoc tactical formation. The concept of a battalion as a permanent administrative entity was something for the future. Thus, a regiment of foot guards, say the Coldstreams with 14 companies, could be divided into two battalions in the field or for manoeuvres. But this does not apply that something existed as a 1st and 2nd Battalion.)


One famous general of the Nine Years' War and War of the Spanish Succession was Thomas Erle. In the spring of 1689, when the English army was increased in size, Erle was given a colonelcy of one of the newly raised regiments. It was quite exceptional that he would obtain the colonelcy of yet another regiment in January 1691, namely the regiment of the late Francis Luttrell (the future Green Howards of North Yorkshire). This regiment was raised in November 1688, immediately after the Dutch invasion and in support of William III.

(Erle's first regiment served in Ireland until 1691, and was in garrison in Plymouth(?) afterwards. It also took part in the abortive action against Brest in 1694. His second regiment, Luttrell's, was in Plymouth until 1692 when it proceeded to Flanders for the rest of the war.)

Now is becomes a little tricky how these regiments were related to each other. Some sources state that Erle's first regiment was sometimes known as the 2nd Battalion of his (larger) regiment (because is was junior to his second regiment). Probably this is a modern day interpretation (imposing modern concepts on the past).

From the Calendar of State Papers Domestic a few things become (more or less) clear:
1. Commissions in the regiment of Erle do not differentiate between one of the two regiments. So it seems that both regiments were combined as a new regiment, or that is was treated as one.
2. There is no reference to a 1st or 2nd battalion. However, there is sometimes reference to 'his other regiment'.

A few snippets:
On 22 March 1692 we find

  John Pitt, clerk, to be chaplain of the Irish battalion belonging to Col. Thomas Earle's regiment of foot.

and on 12 April 1692, related to the weak garrison of Plymouth

There now are only ten companies of Colonel Earle's regiment in garrison at Plymouth, which by reason of the great drafts for his other regiment lately gone to Flanders, which was recruited out of this, are very weak, and most of them newly raised men.

Finally, on 28 April 1694, probably in preparation of the Camaret Bay operation

Whereas the following several battalions and regiments of foot are to encamp near Portsmouth, viz.: one battalion detached out of our first, second, and Dutch regiments of foot guards; thirteen companies of Colonel Earle's regiment, Lord Cutts' whole regiment, and Colonel Venner's whole regiment; the said battalions and regiments [...]

This last quote illustrates, in my opinion, that Erle's regiment was larger than the usual 13 companies to a regiment. In the yearly estimates for the army presented to Parliament both regiments/battalions of Erle are listed separately, however. One with the additional 'formerly Luttrell's', and the other with 'from Ireland'.

Campement de L'Armee de Sa Maiesté Le Roy de La Grande Bretagne A Houndslaucheats

While on army summer camps, the Wilhelmshöher Kriegskarten at the Marburg Digital Archives contains a nice print of the army at Hounslow Heath in the summer of 1687. The title is in French. The original appears to be huge: 2.5 meters by 71 centimeters! Now, that would make a nice decoration in ones office!

Details on the regiments will be for a future post, and let several screenshots be sufficient for now. Above one sees the complete print. Two regiments of horse are shown below. On the left the future 3rd Dragoon Guards, and on the right The Princess Anne of Denmark's Regiment of Horse. This regiment was decimated at Steenkerke in 1692 and disbanded afterward.

Some foot: a battalion of Guards.

And the epicenter of the camp: the King's quarters. 

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)

A Description of the camp on Black-Heath, July 1697

A nice print found at EEBO, depicting seven regiments of foot of the English army at camp at Black-Heath in July 1697. The camp was formed to counter any possible French thread from the other side of the Channel. It was broken up by the end of July.

The accompanying text gives details on how the camp was set up: distance between soldiers' and lieutenants' tents 15 paces, between captains and lieutenants 20 paces, etc. Furthermore details on the exercise of muskets (still matchlock judging from the text) and pikes. Sutlers (derived from Dutch zoetelaars) were in the rear at 40 paces.

The regiments are neatly ordered by their relative seniority: the most senior on the flanks and the most junior in the middle. From left to right the regiments are identified as follows, with their rank in camp in square brackets:

[1] The King's Battalion ~~ formed from the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards. Its commander, lieutenant colonel Withers, was commander in chief of the camp.
[3] Tidcomb's Regiment ~~ raised in 1685, the future 14th Regiment of Foot.
[5] Coote's Regiment ~~ raised in 1689, and disbanded in 1698.
[7] Farrington's Regiment ~~ raised in 1694, and disbanded in 1698. Re-raised in 1702 and became became the future 29th Foot.
[6] Northcote's Regiment ~~ raised in 1694 and disbanded in 1698.
[4] Sir Henry Bellasis's Regiment ~~ raised in 1689 and became the future 22nd Foot.
[2] Major General's Steuart's Regiment ~~ raised in 1685 and became the future 9th Regiment of Foot. Note that this regiment is dubbed as Fusiliers.

A neat ordering by the book!

Skulking in Holes and Corners ~ by Jamel Ostwald

A new blog has been added for the pleasure, entertainment and interest of early modern warfare specialist and enthusiasts. This blog, named Skulking in Holes and Corners is maintained by Jamel Ostwald, who is known for his work on Ramillies and decisive battles and Vauban.

Enjoy!

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.

Digital Microfilms at the National Archives

The National Archives made a huge lot of their microfilms available digitally: digital microfilm!

Of particular interest is WO 65. Here you will find army lists covering the period between 1754 and 1885.