Spotlight on: Kabinettskriege continuity

Dear Reader,

Today, societal change occurs at a breakneck pace. Society is radically different today than it was 50 years agao, much less 150 years ago.  Thus, it might seem ridiculous to say that the Kabinettskriege period could encompass such a wide time span. If the Kabinettskriege period lacks continuity, the Kabinettskriege model of looking at warfare from 1648-1789 falls apart. With that in mind, look at soldiers from 150 years ago: 

150 years ago (The American Civil War)

compared with current soldiers:

Modern Abrams Tank with Crew

So, the change is apparent, yes?




Now, compare soldiers from the beginning and end of the Kabinettskriege period, encompassing roughly the same length of time. First we have the 1640s-1650s:

 

Soldiers from the beginning of the Kabinettskriege period (Scanian War)

Compared with soldiers from the 1770s-1780s:

Soldiers from the end of the Kabinettskriege period (American War of Independence)

While there are important changes, the soldiers seem much more similar than modern times compared with 150 years ago, don't they? 

Continuity in Combat Experience

There is a great deal of continuity in combat experience from the beginning to the end of the Kabinettskriege period.  From the 1670's to the 1780's, theorists debated whether or not you should drive the enemy from the field with use of firepower or attacks with cold steel. In the 1630's, Gustav II Adolf, King of Sweden, developed tactics based on infantry and artillery firepower and decisive sword attacks with the mounted arm. These reforms were closely connected with the Dutch school of military reform. 

At the turn of the 18th century, Swedish king Karl XII switched the primary method of engagement to swift infantry and cavalry attacks with cold steel, often not even bothering to support his forces with firepower. While the Swedes under Karl XII were wildly effective if they could break their enemies lines, the Karoliner army met its match at Poltava in 1709, where they were destroyed by Russian firepower. 

Cavalry Tactics
The goal of cavalry was to break into enemy formations and cause havoc and terror with sword strokes. The  prospect of being hit with a cavalry sword was much more terrifying than having to stand in line while being shot at, according to the research of Dr. Christopher Duffy. Thus, if the cavalry could get in among the more numerous infantry soldiers, they would often panic and flee, allowing the cavalry to chase them down at their leisure.

The best way to resist cavalry was to not allow them to enter a formation. Infantry would form a square if isolated, or simply deter the oncoming cavalry with firepower if the flanks of the formation were covered. If the infantry could resist the approach of enemy cavalry, than the cavalry would usually have to withdraw. The best example of this is the battle of Minden in 1759, where an English and German infantry brigade withstood the charge of the French  cavalry.

The 37th Foot at the Battle of Minden

In most of the battles of the Great Northern War, (1700-1721) the Swedish cavalry were able to break the enemy line and cause massive casualties during the rout. A prime example of this is the Battle of Fraustadt, fought on February 13th, 1706.  During the War of Austrian Succession, the Prussian Ansbach-Dragoon regiment was able to generate similar success at the battle of Hohenfriedberg in 1745. Finally, during the American War of Independence Tarleton's Legion caused similar mayhem at Camden and Waxhaws. Thus, while the technology of warfare changed throughout the period, theories of warfare remained relatively unchanged. 

Infantry Tactics

For the entirety of the Kabinettskriege period, authorities debated whether an attack with pikes and bayonets was more effective than using infantry firepower. During the Nine Years' War, military theorists began to note that infantry with muskets (either matchlocks or flintlocks) were more effective at driving off cavalry attacks than infantry armed with pikes. Coupled with the development of the bayonet, this led to a steady decrease of the number of pikes in armies, with the pike being almost totally abandoned by the 1710's. During the early Kabinettskriege period (roughly 1660s-1710s), various armies relied alternately on shock attacks and firepower to win battles. The British and Dutch relied on infantry firepower, while French and Swedish theorists relied more on shock tactics.

 During the middle Kabinettskriege period (roughly 1710's-1750s) theorists such as Jean Charles, Chevalier Folard, argued that armies should incorporate large masses of men in a close formation, the relatively thin, musket armed battle line remained the primary military formation of the period. Folard attempted to revive the pike, and use it in the context of a large column supported by skirmishers. While some authors believe that his ideas presage Napoleonic tactics, Folard was completely ineffective in spreading his ideas.  During the Seven Years' War, at the battle of Rossbach in 1757, Frederick II of Prussia disparaged Folard's ideas when the French attempted to employ a column attack slightly similar to Folard's concept.

Throughout the vast majority of the Kabinettskriege period, infantry fought in long lines, three to four men deep, and used firepower in an effort to convince the enemy to flee. Under more specific circumstances, based on the policies of a particular nation or general, the tactics could change into something based more on shock warfare.

Artillery Tactics
Of the three arms, artillery went through the most change during the Kabinettskriege period. During this period, guns were employed more and more frequently, and generals began to view them with more respect. Many nations, such as the Austrians in the years before the Seven Years' War, systematically updated their artillery forces, and gave them a massive boost of modernization. Frederick II of Prussia had great respect for the power of cannons, stating that artillery "adds dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl." This point was likely driven home at the battle of Torgau, where a massive concentration of Austrian artillery slaughtered the best forces in Frederick's army.

So, while important changes occurred in military technology and theory,warfare remained similar from 1648-1789. This justifies the use of the Kabinettskriege model when approaching the 17th and 18th centuries.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns
2/11/2013


(Portions of the above are part of an academic paper by the author, his intellectual property, and have copyright pending. Do not copy without permission.)

THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR IS OVER!!

(Hubertusburg: Where the peace treaty between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony was signed)

Well...........two hundred and fifty years ago, this Sunday, and next Friday.

Dear Reader,


After a long and costly war, the belligerent powers of the Seven Years' War signed the treaty of Paris on February 10th 1763, and the Treaty of Hubertusburg on February 15th 1763. (Confused as to the why or when of the Seven Years' War? Check out the links.) Great, you say, another war from history is over. Why should you care?

The Seven Years' War gives us the modern world. Most of the major conflicts and events of the 19th and 20th centuries have their roots in this pivotal war. If you live in Canada and speak English, that is a result of the Treaty of Paris. The fact that India became a British colony comes out of the Seven Years' War. The idea that the British Navy should police the world is confirmed in the Seven Years' War.

The fact that America moves out of the British sphere in 1775 comes from the Seven Years' War. Whether you believe, like historian Fred Anderson, that the Seven Years' War directly caused the American War of Independence, or like Gordon S. Wood, see it as only a catalyst of a change that was already occurring in the hearts and minds of the people; the importance of this war to world politics, and culture cannot be overstated. 

In North America, the loss of the French left Native Americans without a second major European power to slow down European expansion. The monopoly of power created by British control of North America made the Native American struggle against European expansion even more difficult. 
In Germany, some historians see the roots of German militarism in this period, which would only end in 1945. While I don't necessarily agree with this view, I can definitely see the that this argument contains elements of truth. In Russia, the Seven Years' War was another effort of expansion towards Europe, which would culminate in the events of 1945-6 and the beginning of the cold war.

In fact, we can easily see that many chapters of world history which begin in 1763 don't end until 1945. In the historical tradition today, military history is viewed with disdain, and seen as unimportant. Well, this VITAL event is the Seven Years' WAR. Armies fought, men and women died, and peoples lives were vitally effected, people of every race, age, gender and creed.

People like Rafaela Herrera, the bi-racial, illegitimate daughter of a Spanish garrison commander in Nicaragua. She would use the opportunities created by the war to rise to a position of wealth and fame.

People like Prinz Johann Casmir von Isenburg, who would die on the battlefield, after facing incredible odds, caught by a stray bullet.

People like Maria Theresa of Austria, who would try to process the experience of the war and failure through a template of religion.

People like Jakob Cogniazzo, who would write of their experiences, and how the war affected their lives.

Because at the end of the day, the Seven Years' War was a part of human experience, that touched many lives, over the course of, well, seven years. And that is yet another reason why the war is important, and worthy of serious scholarly study.

As a fun aside, here is the full text of the Treaty of Paris.

Thanks for reading,

Alexander Burns
Muncie Indiana
2/7/2013

(Portions of the above are part of an academic paper by the author, his intellectual property, and have copyright pending. Do not copy without permission.)

Kabinettskriege Warfare: An Introduciton to Weapons

Picture by Joanne Rathe/Boston Globe

Dear Reader,

So, having addressed, why you should care about Kabinettskriege period, and roughly when it occurred, lets move on to what type of weaponry soldiers employed in these wars.

Infantry Weapons

The primary infantry weapon of the Kabinettskriege period was the musket. Muskets were used by infantry  to fire walls of lead in order to kill opposing infantry forces, who were attempting to do the same thing to them. An eighteenth century battle might look something like this:

Félix Henri Emmanuel Philippoteaux, The Battle of Fontenoy, 1745: The French and the Allies Confronting Each Other

While this view of the Kabinettskriege period might be a bit too "pretty" or simplistic, it gives an excellent picture of what some battles during this period was like. The infantry in lines with officers on horseback, preparing to fire walls of lead towards the enemy. The drummers behind the men provided auditory orders, and inspiration on the battle. The spear-like weapons leveled at the backs of men are called Spontoons. They officers used them to keep panicked soldiers from running away.

The firing would continue until on or other of the lines of men withdrew, and the victors would take the position previous occupied by their enemies.

Gunpowder Small Arms

During the early modern period, their were four varieties of musket used:

1) The Matchlock.
The oldest, and least reliable of the musket family, the matchlock used a burning cord ( a "match") to explode the gunpowder charge, propelling the musket ball towards the enemy. The matchlock was wide used by European infantry from roughly 1500 to 1700, with less developed nations leaving it in use towards the end of that date range.

2) The Wheel-lock.
The second oldest type of musket firing mechanism, the Wheel-lock was primarily used in cavalry pistols, and was to complicated to be mass produced easily for infantry use. In use roughly 1550-1680.

3) The Snaphance.
The Snaphance used a piece of flint to strike a metal bar suspended above the powder charge. While used for infantry muskets,  the Snaphance fell out of favor just before the Nine Years' War, and was still being used by some units at the time of the war. In use roughly 1560-1680

4) Flintlock (Fusil, Firelock).
The French developed the Flintlock in the 1610s-1620s, and this love-able system had wormed its way into the hands of most European armies by 1660-1670. While some older muskets persisted, the majority of soldiers in modern European armies (ie, not the Russians) had Flintlocks by 1690-1700. Of all the muskets the Flintlock proved the most reliable, and would remain in use by most European armies until after the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815.

Melee Weapons

Pikes
Infantry used pikes up through the end of the 17th century, although except in the case of Sweden, infantry firepower attained more and more primacy from the end of the 1650 to 1700. Infantry used pikes (long spears) to deter cavalry attacks, and as a means of terrifying the enemy.

The pikes of the Swedish Karoliner can be seen in the background. (Poltava 1709, Angus Konstam, Osprey Publishing) 

Swords
In the above picture, you can see the Swedish soldier on the right holding a sword in his right hand. While most armies in this period attacked with bayonets, some armies, such as the Swedish Karoliner, attacked with sword in hand. These swords, known as "hanger" swords, were primarily decorative, and view as a mark of honor by the soldiers. After performing poorly, the swords could be taken away to punish a regiment. If the regiment performed well, they would have the swords returned.

Cavalry 

Cavalry during these period took on two primary roles. Horseman could either perform a Caracole attack, in which they would ride up to the enemy forces, discharge both of the pistols they carried, and then retire to the back of their formation to reload. Military theorists designed this formation for use in conjunction with attacking cavalry, and it was used successfully to disrupt infantry formations on several occasions.

The second school of though, promoted by Gustav II Adolf, Karl XII of Sweden, and Frederick II of Prussia, encouraged an all out cavalry attack, in which the cavalry would move forward swiftly, and discharge its pistols a few seconds before impacting the enemy lines. The following depicts a Swedish cavalry charge during the Great Northern War. This picture represents the all out cavalry attack theory.

Box Art from Zvezda Miniature Company

Artillery

During the Kabinettskriege period, the artillery performed the necessary job of crowd control.  While the cannons fired single cannon balls referred to as roundshot, it was most effective while using cannister shot, which turned the cannon into a giant shotgun. Dan Snow gives an excellent introduction to cannister shot in the BBC production of "Battle for North America." You can watch it here. 

Conclusion

The Kabinettskriege period contains an incredible amount of change in military technology, enough that many books have been written on the subject. This blog provides a simplified, non-academic approach to this story. I spend my days writing academic papers, where this type of history is out-of style. This blog is an attempt to explain a vital part of military history in simple steps. I will become more complex later on, fear not.

Thanks for reading,

Alex

Timeline

Dear Reader,

Alas, this post isn't about a 2003 sci-fi action flick starring Gerard Butler. Rather, I hope to contextualize the conflict which occurred in the Kabinettskriege period by walking you through the various major wars during this pivotal period. For a discussion of why on earth you might want to learn this seemingly pointless info, click here.

As I believe I may have mentioned early, the Kabinettskriege period occurs between 1648 and 1789, or, for those of you fluent in history lingo: between the Thirty Years' War and the French Revolution. For those of you who have no idea what I just referred to, don't worry. The quick reference sheet is down the page a bit.

So, the Kabinettskriege period begins with the Treaty of Westphalia: the treaty which ended the Thirty Years' War. In a 2011 monograph on German history Dr. Sam Mustafa estimates that roughly 1 out of 5 German speaking people died during the Thirty Years' War. This devastation marks a turning point in the history of European warfare.

While warfare became neither safe, nor pleasant, there was a distinct difference in the level of violence waged against civilian populations, and the level of intensity that armies waged war against one another. For the best modern book on the Thirty Years' War, check out Peter H. Wilson's Europe's Tragedy, available here. Wilson focuses on previously neglected areas of the war, and argues that historians have previously overplayed the role of religion in the war.

But, I digress. You want a timeline about the Kabinettskriege period, not a discussion of the events which bracket the period. Here is a relevant timeline. I will continue to add to the timeline as the year progresses. If any of you have something you would like added to the timeline, please let me know in the comments.



Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

Greetings!

Don Troiani's: Breymann's Redoubt Battle of Saratoga, Oct 7th 1777

Dear reader,

This is it! You have finally spent enough time on the internet to discover a blog written about warfare in early modern Europe and America. Whether you are a reenactor, wargamer, enthusiast, or historian, I welcome you. I am dedicating this blog to discovering more about warfare during the Kabinettskriege period. In Europe, this period of warfare lasted (roughly) between 1648-1789. Kabinettskriege is a German word, which loosely translated, means "warfare waged by a ministry." If you wish to hear tales of these dark times: read on. 

Historians generally argue that limited warfare reigned supreme in this period. While recent historians such as Franz Szabo (Sah-bow) have challenged this thesis, the vast majority of scholars still agree that this period was a trough between to crests of violence. (The Thirty Years War on the one side, the French Revolutionary Wars on the other.)  

Before I proceed any further, let me answer the most important historical question: why? Why should you, Blog Reader, waste another moment of your life reading about warfare which occurred 300 years ago? The ability to connect historical events to historical significance is what separates enthusiasts from historians.  

Here's why: The Kabinettskriege period gives us the world we live in today. Canada provides a perfect example. On September 13th, 1759, the British army under General James Wolfe defeated the French army under Louis-Joseph de Montecalm at the Plains of Abraham outside the city of Quebec. The resulting shift in political allegiance created a discontented French Catholic majority, which are still trying to be recognized over two hundred and fifty years later.  Last year, on September 5th, a man attempted to assassinate the leader of the current Quebec successionist party.  

Another example is the battle of Breymann's Redoubt, beautifully depicted at the top of the page by military artist Don Tronani. The painting is available for purchase here. This beautiful painting shows the moment when the American rebels overran the Breymann Redoubt at the battle of Bemis Heights on Oct. 7th 1777. This single action spelled disaster for the hopes of Burgoyne's army during the American War of Independence, and would go great lengths to securing the eventual independence of the American people. 

Thus, far from being the exclusive domain of hobbyists and enthusiasts, warfare in this period remains a vital part of understanding our past. In this blog, which will be written in conjunction with my post-graduate education, I will examine the major people, events, cultures and ideas in this pivotal period in world history. 

Thanks for reading, 

Alexander Burns 

Muncie IN, 

2/4/2013 

If you enjoyed this post, or like the blog, please become a follower! Let me know what you think in the comments below.