Dutch Garde du Corps in 1692

This time a nice uniform plate from the The Vinkhuijzen Collection of Military Costume showing the guidon of the Dutch Garde du Corps in 1692 (see also this previous posting). This corps served as the nominal 4th Troop of Life Guards on the English Establishment between 1689 and 1699.

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.

The Battle of the Dunes

Fought 14 June 1658 as part of the Franco-Spanish War, with Royalists fighting in the Spanish army, and a Parliamentarian corps fighting with the French. So, probably this battle can be considered as the last battle of the English Civil War.

In the Digitales Archiv Marburg a nice copper engraving of the battle. The Spanish army is at the top, and the French army at the bottom of the engraving. The English Royalist regiments are on the Spanish right wing in the first line of battle (near 2, who is the Duke of York). Several of the Parliamentarian regiments are on the French left (F, who is Sir William Lockhart), thus facing the Royalists.



Several English regiments fought in this battle, on both sides, which would form the basis of the Restoration Army of 1660-61.

Marlborough redressed

On the Rampjaar blog an interesting post on an article related to the battle of Ramillies putting Marlborough's greatness into perspective.

The battle of Aughrim

This battle was fought on July 12th, 1691 and marked the end of Jacobite resistance in Ireland. Which, eventually, led to the Treaty of Limerick of September 3rd, 1691.

This order of battle is found in the Digitales Archiv Marburg, and shows neatly the English, Dutch and Danish regiments. The author thought the infantry and cavalry were usually separated, and it is interesting to see several battalions of foot in between the cavalry squadrons.



Looking carefully at the bottom row, and the second infantry unit from the left, one will find it is identified as Finlandois. This is one of the mistakes often made with respect to the Danish regiments in English pay, namely suggesting that the Danish contingent contained a Finnish unit! This battalion was actually drawn from the Fynske Regiment, from the island of Funen and had nothing to do with Finland.

Huguenot regiments in Savoyan service ...

but paid by the Maritime Powers ...

While reading through Die Regimenter der europäischen Staaten im Ancien R&égime des XVI. bis XVIII. Jahrhunderts by Georg Tessin, and of course being pedantic with respect to the chapter on English regiments, the author noted something new to him. These were a number of regiments raised in 1689 and 1690 in Switzerland, formed from French Huguenot refugees, that were in service of the Duke of Savoy but paid for by both the Dutch Republic and England. The regiment of dragoons under Miremont mentioned earlier was also part of this force. (As both powers financed a variety of princes together, they are simply referred to as the Maritime Powers.)

Information is not widely available unfortunately. Some bits can be found in the aforementioned book by Tessin. Also War, Religion and Service. Huguenot Soldiering, 1685 - 1713 by Glozier and Onnekink, and The Army of the Duke of Savoy 1688 - 1713 by Gian Carlo Boeri give some details on this subject. Furthermore, there is a website dedicated to the Army of the Duke of Savoy at the battle of Marsaglia in 1693 in which these regiments took part.

Some more digging in literature will probably result in a future article on this subject with names of colonels.

Standing Army 1685

The university library of Utrecht appears to have the Manuscripts of the House of Lords for the 17th century. In the volumes for 1689-90 and 1695-97 some information about army estimates and regiments to be raised is given (as per references found elsewhere). However, these two volumes appear to have gone AWOL during some reorganization ....

Nevertheless, the volume for 1697-99 has one page showing the state of the army as it was in November 1685. This was delivered to the House of Lords 24 January 1699. Probably this list has to do with the debates going on at that time about the disbandment of the army, and the future size of the standing army.