View from the Dürrenberg to the southeast, where the vast majority of the
Reichsarmee remained as a fixing force.
Today is the 260th anniversary of the Battle of Strehla (Gefect bei Oschatz), during the Seven Years War in German Central Europe. A small battle by the standards of the European Seven Years War, with perhaps just under 40,000 men on the battlefield, it is larger than any of the battles of the American War of Independence. Fought in the electorate of Saxony, allied forces attempted to use their large numerical superiority to force the occupying Prussian army to abandon a good defensive position on the river Elbe. I had the good fortune to be able to walk this battlefield in 2018, in the summer just a few weeks before the battle's anniversary.
A (not breath-takingly accuarte) period map of Strehla
In this battle, the 67 year-old Prussian Lt. General, Johann Dietrich von Hülsen was attacked by an Austrian and Reichsarmee force under the command of Karl Friedrich Graf von Pfalz Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld.[1] At this battle, the allied Austrians and Reichsarmee numbered between 25,000 to 30,000 men, and faced a Prussian Army of 10,000 to 12,000 men.[2]
Hülsen deployed his soldiers on two sets of rising ground near the small town of Strehla, with his main army in a defensive camp by the town, and a detached force of grenadiers and artillery further west from the river on the high ground north of the village of Clanzschwitz. In this battle, the Austrians would ignore Hülsen's main camp, and focus their efforts on the relatively isolated grenadiers.
The view from Prussian positions at the Dürrenberg, towards Gausco's Austrian
Grenadiers. The village of Clanzschwitz is in shadow
Attempting an attack by multiple columns, the allies surrounded Hülsen's isolated advanced post at the Dürrenberg, where Major General Braun stood with 4-5 battalions of Prussian Grenadiers. Tying up the Austrian Grenadiers from the south with an artillery duel, Braun shifted his forces move towards a large hill with a windmill to the west, just as FML. Kleefeld's detachment of five battalions broke out of woods directly to Braun's north. Shifting his battalions to meet this more immediate threat, Braun benefited from the relative inactivity of Austrian forces to his west and south, who continued to engage his forces in an artillery duel, but did not launch heavy attacks. FML Kreefeld's force engaged the Prussian grenadiers in a close range firefight.
Looking north from the Dürrenberg, to where the Austrians under Kleefeld would
have emerged.
At this point, Hülsen, realizing the danger, immediately moved the Schorlemer Dragoons across the battlefield, riding between the dueling Austrian and Prussian artillery, to attack the flank of Kleefeld's corps. Eventually, these troops were bailed out by Austrian cuirassier, but not before the dragoons had broken up the attack, with the support of the grenadiers already engaged. The battle ended with a cavalry fight on the north end of the battlefield above the village of Laas, where Colonel Kleist, having redeployed to face a large body of allied cavalry, pushed these forces back, ending the battle.
A view of the northern cavalry battlefield on the flat ground northwest of the
village of Laas
In a sharp fight lasting only two hours, the Prussians had defeated an enemy force that outnumbered them over two to one. The Prussians suffered approximately 1,000 killed and wounded, the allies suffered 1,800 killed and wounded, and 1,200 prisoners lost to the Prussians.[3] Realizing that discretion was the better part of valor, Hülsenwithdrew to the stronger defensive position at Torgau the same day, delaying the allied advance for a month from that position.
The battle shows fighting typical of the middle stages of the Seven Years War. The Austrians, impressed by their success at Hochkirch, continue to employ the method of moving independent columns to partially surround the enemy before attacking. Likewise, Austrian and higher quality Reichsarmee troops are used for actual combat operations, while the majority of the Reichsarmee is used to fix the enemy in place. In the actual battle, the difficulties in coordinating simultaneous independent assaults because evident, as the Prussians manage to fix enemy columns in place with long-range artillery duels. All in all, Hülsen, Braun, and Kleist performed quite well in the face of superior enemy forces.
[1] As a complete aside, Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr de Steuben (Baron Steuben), likely fought at this battle as a member of Hülsen's staff. Palmer, General von Steuben, 38.
[2] Christopher Duffy, By Force of Arms, 273.
[3] German General Staff, Die Kriege Friedrichs des Großen. Theil 3, Der Siebenjährige Krieg, 1756-1763 Bd. 13, pg. 178.
Portion of Russian Briefing before the Battle of Posen
Dear Reader,
With the beginning of social distancing (I was transferred from in-person to online work over 1 month ago), I began to think about returning to a wargaming campaign which I had run in the Spring Semester of 2015 with my undergraduate students at Indiana Wesleyan University. This campaign, which takes place during the Seven Years War, pits several teams against one another in both map and tabletop combat (my students in 2015 actually used video games to resolve the combat).
This time, helped by a veteran colleague, I invited a number of academics, professors, wargame designers, and lifelong wargamers to join in the scenario. As opposed to my students in 2015, were I ran a simulation based upon the year 1762, here we chose a more generic scenario earlier in the Seven Years War, based upon a alternate 1758.
The campaign is played on this period map of the province of Sileisa from 1804; as you will see in a few weeks, the campaign has now been expanded to include the entire theater of war. Beginning on Saturday, March 21st, three teams (the Austrians, the Prussians, and the Russians) began movements on the map. I will be reporting on this campaign for as long as it lasts.
Background:
For obvious reasons, I am not going to identify any of the participants by name, but rather refer to them by the historical counterparts they represent. The principal cast of characters include:
The Austrians:
Empress Maria Theresa (Represented by FM Neipperg in theater)
FM. Leopold von Daun
FML. Moritz von Lacy
FML. Ernst Gideon von Loudon
Gen d' Kav. Giovan Battista Serbelloni
The Prussians:
King Frederick II of Prussia
GL Joachim von Ziethen
GL August Wilhelm von Braunschweig-Bevern
Prince Henri of Prussia
FM James von Keith
GL Christoph Burgrave von und zu Dohna
The Russians:
Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (Represented by General Tottleben in theater)
FM Alexander Buturlin
FM Piotr Saltykov
GM Zahkar Tchernychev
GL Piotr Rumyantsev
The initial deployments were as follows: The Russian army (~60,000) at Gnesen, the Prussian Army (~80,000) at Gr. Glogau with additional garrison forces across the map, and the Austrian Army (~90,000 men) at Brunn, in addition to large garrisons at Brünn and Olmütz. Some teams had offensive (cities that must be taken) and defensive (cities that must be held) objectives, while others only had offensive objectives.
Each of these armies had specific compositions, but to avoid giving anything away to the players who are still in progress, I will not be providing the specific army lists.
Week 1 in the Northern sector
Week 1
In various stages, the various armies began to move into action, starting on the
21st of March (1758). The Prussian King divided his army into two portions, with the larger portion (~60,000) marching directly at Posen at a breakneck pace. The smaller portion took a slightly slower pace towards Schweidnitz (~20,000). The Russian army, slow to the march, began moving towards Posen on day 2. On day 3, the Russian army reached Posen, and was informed that the Prussian army was on their doorstep. The Russian commander, General Buturlin, was given the options of 1) a safe retreat over the Warta via abandoning the baggage train, 2) the ability to retreat most of the army and the baggage train via a rearguard action, 3) fighting the King of Prussia with the entire army. General Buturlin, chose 3), and dug in as best he could. This brought on a general action to the southwest of Posen. An overall situation map was provided to each commander, with the Russian map being reproduced below:
Russian briefing map, Battle of Posen
The resulting battle was sharp but short. The Prussians, advancing in three columns, deployed and attacked on the Russian right flank.
The Prussian Army (left foreground) prepares to attack
This attack led to heavy fighting over earthworks and hedges in that sector of the battlefield cost the Prussians a number of their best troops, as grenadiers battalions were fed into the maelstrom.
This deadly bargain paid dividends, however, as the Russian right was jackknifed further from its original position. In an assault by the Prussian center column won the day, a Frei-Infanterie battalion captured a battery of heavy guns, and the Russian army reeled from the battlefield, more disorganized than truly beaten.
A Frei-Infanterie Battalion storms the Russian position
The butchers bills was light, considering the nature of the fighting. Approximately 12,000 Prussians and 15,000 Russians became casualties, with many of these lightly wounded and returning to service within the next few weeks. 3,000 Russians were captured by the Prussian Army. The Russians retired to the north, leaving the Prussian army to lick its wounds on the battlefield.
In the southern sector of the map, the Austrians advanced from Brünn, pushing out advanced troops and parties of grenzers and hussars to gather information, and taking a powerful train of artillery in tow. No major conflicts occurred in the southern part of the map of the first week, and indeed, by the end of the first week, the Austrian main army, (~90,000) was preparing to debouche from the Moravian foothills in the vicinity of the important fortress of Neisse. Tune in next week for a continuation of this series.
First of all, the point of this post is not the provided a detailed description of the way that the show Outlander deviated from the actual history of the Regulator Rebellion, and the major conflict of that rebellion at Alamance. Rather, I hope to evaluate Outlander's first major battle scene, depicted from start to finish, (there was a mist hiding what happened at Prestonpans, and we only really saw Culloden in hazy flashbacks that focused on two combatants.) At the outset, I must say that I was rather shocked by the historical inaccuracies, even on a basic level that is separated from disconnected from the complexities of uniformology.
This post is a mix of actual historical criticism and tongue-in-cheek humor. Take it for what it is, I am trying to stay sane.
At the outset, I am not a specialist in this particular part of colonial history, although I highly recommend Marjoleine Kars' Breaking Loose Together, and Aaron J. Palmer's A Rule of Law, if you are looking for a basic information regarding the regulator movement and opposition to it. Furthermore, I highly recommend talking with Jeremiah DeGennaro and Drew Neill, who work at the Alamance Battlefield State Historic Site, and Scott Douglas, the director of Fort Dobbs State Historic Site, for more detailed information regarding the material culture of the Regulator Rebellion. Check out the social media of the Alamance Battle Site for more great and detailed information that you will find here.
So, without further adieu: my thoughts. Like I did with the George Washington miniseries, I'll give the timestamp for the events I'm describing. However, I'll give them at the end of the paragraph or sentence, so as not the interrupt the flow. These come from the 7th episode of the 5th season of Outlander.
Obviously there were not uniformed regulars at this battle (no "redcoats"). I think Tryon actually had three cannon, but who is counting. Cannon are expensive. For uniformed regular troops from the 1770s, these costumes really aren't horrible. [37:58] You all know that I am a fool for well-fitted gaiters, and these are mediocre. Either Tryon has a very small number of regular dragoons, or he has an officer's suite comparable to that of a Prussian Field Marshall. [38:07]
Your Formation... that's deep, bro
No-one has bayonets fixed. We'll come back to this point later. Also, this is a very odd formation that the troops find themselves posted in. 6 ranks deep, in an order that is too far apart to be open order, but too close together to be a true extended order.
Stack those cannonballs
Next, let us turn to the artillery. Eighteenth-century field artillery did not store their ammunition in little pyramids right next to the cannon.[38:46] Moving the cannons any length of distance would require picking up and re-stacking the solid shot. I am also a little confused why only one cannon has a caisson. Likewise the Royal Artillerymen (the part of the British Army who work the cannons,) actually wore blue uniforms during this period.
Shut the Pan, bro
The infantry engage in an odd fire and advance by ranks. I think that the director might have played a bit of "Napoleon Total War" before filming this sequence. Speaking of infantry fire: Jamie is aiming his rifle with the pan open. [39:05] Can't even get a flash in the pan with those mad skillz. In the next shot, the pan is mercifully shut. [39:19] It is all good buddy, rookie mistake. Now, I understand (again, from reading secondary works) that the militia did use fairly conventional tactics when engaging the regulators, but that really isn't what is being displayed here.
Governor Tryon as the Original G
Let's talk pistols. First of all, I am taken aback at the number of pistols on the screen. [38:39] Also, Governor Tryon no-scopes a guy with a pistol at like 80 yards. [38:54] Although when it comes to smoothbore long-arms, I am of the opinion that ranges are a bit greater than generally stated, the Prussian officer Berenhorst wrote in the late-eighteenth century: "At a range of more than fifty paces, a pistol shot and a well-thrown stone have just about the same effect."[1]
After two or three volleys, the militia charges into hand to hand combat. Among the troops with military style muskets, narry a bayonet is seen. Historically, the fighting took place at range until the regulators ran low on ammunition, and that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. In this charge sequence, a guy with a stick kills a regular soldier. This is what happens when you don't fix your bayonets. During this same sequence, the militia appears out of the undergrowth, killing redcoat troops in an ambush. These are the stock images from which American identity is made.
Hereafter follows a relatively long and not horrible seen of two groups of militia fighting in a woodland environment. In the actual battle, it seems that the militia stayed in the open until the regulators ran low on ammunition.[2] As opposed to reloading their long-arms, most of the militia seems to be content firing a seemingly infinite number of pistols. A British soldier finally uses a bayonet, although he is holding it in his hand, and it fighting with it like a dagger. [42:01]
"Ahh! Both Grunt" Indeed
Eventually, after some hand-to-hand fighting sequences with the lead actors, a pursuit montage depicts flying civilians with weapons being shot down by uniformed redcoats. See above point regarding American identity. Also, a montage of redcoats bludgeoning prisoners, and prisoners being dragged behind redcoats on horseback. One has to ask the question, did the dragoon dismount and tie these prisoners to his saddle mid-battle, or did he have some of his colleagues in the infantry helpful round up a few regulators for a drag?
Obviously, I am not trying to excuse British imperialism, or the rough way that the regulators were treated in the aftermath of the battle. One man, James Few, was hung after twice refusing a pardon from Governor Tryon, and there were more executions as well.[3] I do think, however, that choosing to make uniformed British regulars carry out these atrocities takes away some of the ambiguity that have a non-uniformed militia carrying out these acts might have.
All in all, it is important for those consuming Outlander as an enjoyable fiction to keep in mind that the show relies on stock images of eighteenth-century warfare that have actually decreased in quality over time. Season 3's Battle of Culloden montage was more true to actual events (even if it was still a bit shady) than this season's portrayal of the Battle of Alamance. So, ask yourself, why do you watch Outlander? If you are looking for Jacobites to get you hot and bothered, I highly recommend the 1995 Kidnapped's Armand Assante.
[1] Berenhorst, Betrachtungen, Vol II, 434. (Quoted in Duffy, Military Experience in the Age of Reason, 223)
[2] Marjoleine Kars, Breaking Loose Together, 200.
[3]Ibid, 201.
Swedish Reenactors portray Karoliner on the march in summer months
Photo by Anders Bertrandsson
Dear Reader,
Today, we have our second guest post- this time from Michael Glaeser.[1] As a historian who has published on the Great Northern War, Michael brings a great depth of experience to the subject in this post: the Battle of Narva.
If you would like to write for Kabinettskriege, or have an idea for a post, please contact us via the link on the upper right. Without further introduction- here is Michael's post:
In the year 1700, the Kingdom of Sweden was the dominant power in the Baltic. The sea was very much a Swedish one with the nation’s territory circling around the waters to include Finland, Ingria, Estonia, Livonia, and parts of northern Germany. For many socio-political reasons, Denmark-Norway, Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and Russia formed an alliance to seize control and beat back Swedish hegemony. The three-pronged attack was meant to be quick and decisive. After all, the King of Sweden, Charles XII, was only an eighteen-year-old adolescent…
Immediately after declaring war on Sweden on August 20th, the Russians began their push into Ingria to besiege the fortified town of Narva. With Russia having no access to the Baltic, Ingria was a vital strip of land that Tsar Peter I desperately wanted to have back. As Narva was also the lynchpin fortress on the border of Ingria and Estonia, Peter wanted to take the town first and use it as a base of operations from which Russian troops could pour into neighboring regions. More importantly, it was only fourteen kilometers away from the Gulf of Finland and that vital seat on the Baltic Sea.
Looking for sources: a British Newspaper from 1700 describes the battle
Due to its strategic location, the town of Narva was well fortified. The Swedes added a ring of bastions in the 1680s to supplement the existing 15th-century castle. This was done under the watch of the aged field marshal and engineer Erik Dahlberg, the "Swedish Vauban". The western side of the town had the most open approach but this too had defensive features including a dry moat. The town itself held a garrison of 1,460 infantry, substantially lower than the planned 3,100, but it did include additional cavalry as well. These were under the command of Henning Rudolf Horn at the time of the siege.
While Russian troops immediately advanced into Ingria, it wasn't until the end of October that the artillery and siege guns arrived at the outskirts of Narva. With over 37,000 men facing the town, the general expectation was that Narva could only hold out until the end of the month. Peter had arrived to personally supervise the siege and take part in the forthcoming surrender. Horn and his men clung to the safety of the town walls and were no doubt encouraged by the letters sent from Charles indicating that "we will soon be with you and dislodge the enemy".[2]
Russian Army flags used at Narva (later captured by the Swedish Army)
Following the sweeping success against Denmark, Charles and the Swedish army mustered for shipment to the Baltic provinces in early October. They had arrived and disembarked by the 8th and a plan was formulated to send a relief force to Narva while the king and another body of troops headed south to break the siege of Riga launched by Augustus, the Elector of Saxony.[3] Swedish commander Otto Vellingk brought news of an improved situation- Augustus did not get the necessary support from his ally Peter and rather than face the wrath of the Swedes alone, decided to break his siege and send his army into winter quarters. Given the suspension of Saxon operations and the seasonably bad weather that mired the roads, Charles felt safe enough to divert all efforts towards Narva and come to grips with his cousin at a later point.
On November 13, the Swedish army began its march through soggy and scorched lands. Given the scarcity of food, the weather, and the state of the roads, the army was in need of a morale boost. This came on the 17th when the king led a small detachment against a much larger Russian force led by General Boris Sheremetev at a chokepoint called Pyhajoggi pass. Sheremetev was under orders to withdraw without forcing a battle but the retreat of 5,000 of the enemy had an uplifting effect for the tired Swedes. More importantly, this was the first independent action for Charles who held his own and managed his men well enough to earn praise.
Despite hearing news from Sheremetev that the Swedes were approaching, the Russian command was unconcerned. Western European warfare had become known for lengthy sieges rather than fast assaults and pitched battles. The belief in the Russian camp was that the Swedes would halt, gather strength, and then force the issue. Tsar Peter even left the siege a day and a half before the Swedes arrived on the 19th in order to direct more reinforcements. The tsar's leave of absence on the eve of battle has garnered much attention from contemporary observers and historians. Naturally, the Swedes painted Peter as a coward, someone who saw the writing on the wall and wanted no part in an eventual defeat. But given the prevalence and preference for siege warfare, Peter probably thought he had more time. In any case, it was a fortuitous move on his part.
Battle of Narva, Robert K. Massie, Peter the Great, 331.
In the tsar's place as acting commander was Field Marshal Charles Eugene Du Croy, a western trained general who fought against the Swedes at Lund and the Ottomans at Vienna. He had the vastly larger Russian force organized behind a nine-foot-high wall in front of which was a six foot wide dry trench. He was also backed up by over 140 cannon and mortars. Due to the size of Narva, the most glaring error was that his forces were stretched out over a six-kilometer line. The Swedish attack would focus on two columns smashing into the enemy and then rolling up both flanks. With poetic timing, or perhaps divine intervention, a snowstorm picked up in intensity and blew directly into the faces of the waiting Russians. The Swedes used the opportunity to launch their attack with Charles and his Drabants concentrated on the left column. It was this group that was the first to shatter their opposition. A Swedish volley within 30 paces caused many of the defenders to “fall like grass”. Hastily made fascines filled the dry trench, and ladders allowed the Swedes to scale the walls and enter the Russian camp. Success quickly followed on the right as well: “We charged directly sword in hand and so entered. We slew all who came at us and it was a terrible massacre”.[4] That the fighting was intense is evidenced by the commentary surrounding Charles. He had a horse shot out from under him and lost a shoe in the soggy mud. After the battle, a bullet was found lodged in his neckcloth, the first of five to hit him in his life.
With the Swedes storming into the camp, a panic set in. Many of the Russian commanders were foreign and some could not even communicate in the language of their subordinates. Distrust and an unwillingness to fight for their officers led many Russians to flee. Most famous was the rout across Kamperholm bridge which became so inundated with fleeing men that it collapsed under their weight. Many drowned as a result. Du Croy and the Russian guard regiments provided a valiant resistance but were forced to surrender. A small holdout of Russians continued to fight until nightfall at which point friendly fire was inflicting unnecessary casualties on the exhausted Swedes. By the morning, the battle was over.
More Russian Banners Captured at Narva
The Swedes counted over 600 dead. The Russians had anywhere between 8,000 to 12,000. The number that surrendered was even higher forcing the Swedes to set the majority free and allow them to return to Russia with and without arms. Leading commanders were taken prisoner for ransom or future exchanges. All of Peter's artillery was claimed as war booty forcing the tsar to famously confiscate church bells in an effort to cast new cannon. A near spiritual success was the capture of a large number of Russian flags and standards.[5] Among the victors, General Magnus Stenbock was quick to praise his colleague and king: “It is God’s work alone, but if there is anything human in it, it is the firm, immovable resolution of His Majesty and the ripe dispositions of General Rehnskjold.”[6] For all his losses, Tsar Peter remained optimistic and redoubled his efforts to modernize his forces: “When we had that misfortune, or putting it better great fortune, compulsion then drove away sloth, and forced us to labor day and night."[7] It was a process that paid dividends on a summer day in the Ukraine some nine years later.
Thanks for Reading,
Mike Glaeser,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Michael Glaeser is an early modern historian specializing in the Great Northern War and the reign of Charles XII of Sweden. He is published in The Great Northern War Compendium and taught history at the University of New Hampshire. He is also an avid reenactor and wargamer. He completed his graduate work at the University of Sheffield, England.
[2] Hatton, Charles XII of Sweden, 150.
[3] Augustus "the Strong" was both the Elector of Saxony, King of Poland, and Duke of Lithuania.
[4] Massie, Peter the Great, 333.
[5] A vast majority of these captured flags still reside in the Army Museum in Stockholm, and are on display.
[6] Massie, Peter the Great, 337.
[7] Rothstein, Peter the Great and Marlborough, 35.
Today, we are going to address one of the primary conceptions of eighteenth-century warfare: that on the battles were conducted at a slow-moving, geometrical pace to the sound of drums. In 1987, Christopher Duffy, asserted that "the time has long since passed since it was fashionable to dismiss [warfare in] the eighteenth century as decorative interval, suspended between the glooms and dooms of the Wars of Religion and the grinding industrialization of the nineteenth century."[1] Yet somehow, this is still the dominant image of warfare in the Kabinettskriege era. The eighteenth century, in the popular imagination, is still a time where English officers doff their hats and say to their chivalrous opponents, "gentlemen of France, fire first!" According to this view, soldiers move to the beat of drums in perfect clockwork precision, and cannot imagine combat occurring outside of a geometric, mechanical framework. To holders of this viewpoint: this century is still a decorative interval, as the clip below indicates.
It goes without saying that some portions of this stereotype are correct. As a result of the principle weapons system of the time, the smoothbore musket, soldiers did usually fight in linear formations. In Europe, these linear formations were usually in close order. However, as I have suggested before, there was a difference in the eighteenth century, as there is today, between the parade ground and the battlefield. These officers and soldiers were not unthinking automata who were incapable of performing any tasks but those learned on the drill square. Rather, under the direction of junior officers, they frequently modified their actions to fit with local conditions. Soldiers often moved quickly on the battlefield as the situation demanded, often moving at a run in moments of crisis.
To students of the British Army in the American War of Independence, this should not come as surprising news. Matthew H. Spring has recently shown that British soldiers fought unconventionally in North America. However: this trend goes beyond North America and the American War of Independence. Eighteenth-century soldiers were often rational actors, and made competent decisions based on the needs of the moment, and battlefield crises. This willingness to respond quickly to developing factors was not a feature of the British or Prussian armies, but common to almost all eighteenth-century militaries. In performing the research for this post, I have been careful to distinguish intentional quick movement on the battlefield from the speedy flight of retreating troops.
Jacques Mercoyrol de Beaulieu, a French veteran of the War of Polish Succession in the 1730s, recalled the types of battlefield movements possible in heat of the moment: "In these battles, (which were all victories) the Picardie Brigade... moved almost as in a race: the most nimble arrived first, their arrival awakened courage and new strength to those already engaged in combat."[2] Moving quickly, perhaps even at the run, was common enough on European battlefield when speed was required.
A nineteenth-century reimagining of the Battle at Leuthen
The Prussian army was famous for its attention drill and parade excellence. It may therefore surprise readers to learn that Prussian soldiers under Frederick the Great occasionally moved with great speed. The official war journal of the Prussian Fusilier Regiment of Jung-Brauschweig makes this clear. In describing the Battle of Prague in 1757, the journal describes two instances of quick movement: both the Prussian regiment and their Austrian opponents moved at speed.
In order to reach the position of advance, we had to pass a long dam, which delayed us. So, in order arrive at the correct time, we had to run past the village of Arhem: the regiment was not in perfect order. The (Austrian) enemy were already advancing on us at the quick step, and we engaged them.[3]
Johann Jakob Dominicus, a musketeer in Frederick II's army, also remembers running at Prague. He wrote, "our left wing had its work cut out for it, and we had to run with energy, in order to get under the enemy guns."[4] In Prussia, speed, and reaching the appointed position at the right time (so as not to leave a gap in the battle line) took precedence over moving in step and keeping good order. Prussian veteran Georg von Berenhorst asserted that commanders who lost time by correcting minor irregularities in dress were punished, as maintaining a healthy and cohesive battle line was more important than keeping in parade appearances.[5]
General Ludwig Matthias von Lossow recalled that as soon as the firing began, "the orderly lines fell by the wayside, as they did whenever troops advanced through terrain, as it is rarely open enough to permit lines of this size. Units only needed to keep in contact with the other parts of the line, that was the main thing, as the experienced army of Frederick II knew well."[6] Keeping in contact with other units, and keeping up the advance, it seems, was more of a priority than keeping in perfect close order. A Dutch officer in Prussian service recalled a nighttime skirmish in 1757:
"Because of the darkness of night, we had difficulty distinguishing our troops from the enemy, so Lt. York received orders to reconnoiter the enemy with two platoons. They fired on him. Captain Rodig, who had been fired upon, rode out to these flanquers[7]... His pickets behaved bravely, and kept up and orderly fire in the manner of platoons. They then rushed forward on the command, "Marsch! Marsch!" The enemy took flight with haste. [8]
"Quick movements, which considerable columns or lines of infantry,[Frederick II] considers as impracticable and ruinous from the hurry and disorder that must thence ensue... but brigades, or smaller divisions of the line, [such as regiments or battalions] occasionally lengthen their step, and move on with rapidty at the moment of attack.[9]
British Soldiers Moving to Attack the Enemy
In delegating more responsibility to junior officers, the British facilitated quick movement even more in North America during the American War of Independence. Matthew H. Spring exhaustively shows that British troops moved at a kind of jog or trot:
"The King's troops, 'briskly marched up to' the enemy at Long Island, 'briskly ascended ' Chatterton's Hill, 'advanced fearlessly and very quickly' at Brandywine, came on at Bemis Heights at a, 'quick step' stormed for Clinton, 'with as much velocity as the ground would admit,' and 'after a very quick march moved up briskly' against the enemy at Monmouth. Likewise, in the South, the redcoats, 'marched forwards briskly, or rather rushed with great shouts,' at Savannah, were observed 'advancing rapidly' at Briar Creek, and 'rushed on with the greatest rapitity' (or 'as fast as the ploughed fields they had to cross would admit') at Spencer's Ordinary. Most expressively of all, one rebel militiman at the battle of Cowpens later recalled, 'the British line advanced at a sort of trot with a loud hallo. It was the most beautiful line I ever saw,' while another reported that the King's troops, 'advanced rapidly as if certain of victory."[10]
All of the quotes in the above paragraph come from observers present at the battles, and Spring provides a detailed footnote for those looking to track them down. Thus, in the American War of Independence, British soldiersmoved quickly as part of usual practice, rather than speeding up when the circumstances demanded it. Roger Lamb recalls that the British moved forward at Guilford Courthouse, "in excellent order, at a smart run, with arms charged."[11] At the same battle, the normally slower Hessians in the Von Bose Regiment joined the British advance with speed:
"After quickly laying aside our tornisters and everything that could impede a soldier, the 71st and von Bose recieved orders to more forward and attack the enemy... We had not advanced more than 300 yards when we found a deep ditch in front of us, with tall banks and full of water. After crossing it with difficulty, we then came to a fenced wheat field; on the other side of this field 1500 continentals and militia were deployed in line... I formed the battalion into line with the greatest of speed and we ran to meet the enemy in tolerable order."[12]
Don Troiani's Study of a Von Bose private
Other German allies of the British, the Brunswickers under Baron Riedesel, appear to have moved at speed during the culmination of a flank attack during the Battle of Freeman's Farm on September 19th, 1777. Hearing the English troops engaged with the rebel Americans, Riedesel moved out, "as quickly as possible," and launched his final attack, "at the quick-step."[13]
It is important that we do not overdraw these examples. In the eighteenth century, most European commanders valued ordered bodies of men, and preferred to attack in an orderly fashion. However, in moments of crisis, European junior officers frequently took it upon themselves to move bodies of men at speed, in order to contain crises or take advantage of conditions. The British took a decidedly different approach in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, speed was instiutionalized in the British Army. Whether in Europe or North America, these soldiers were not automata: they moved at the speed demanded by the situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Christopher Duffy, Military Experience in the Age of Reason, 3.
[2] Mercoyrol de Beaulieu, Campagnes, 184.
[3] Anonymous, Sammlung ungedruckter Nachrichten, Vol 4, 118.
[4] Dominicus, Tagebuch, 16.
[5] Berenhorst, Betrachtungen, Vol 1, 221.
[6] Ludwig von Lossow, Denkwürdigkeiten zu Charakteristik, 242.
[7]Possibly a type of skirmisher, see my publication in the 2014 issue of the Journal of the Seven Years' War Association.
[8] Anonymous, Schreiben eines Hollaendischen Volontairs, 5.
[9] David Dundas, Principles of Military Movement, 9.
[10] Matthew Spring, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only, 146.
[11] Roger Lamb, Journal, 361
[12]Du Buy, Raports vom Oberst Lieut. du Buy Regts v. Bose zu der General Lieutenant v. Knyphausen, Staatsarchiv Marburg, Best. 4h Nr. 3101.
[13] Eelking, Leben und Wirken, Vol 2, 149-50.
Prayer after the battle of Fraustadt: Gustav Cederströrm
Dear Reader,
On February 13th 1706, in the middle of the Great Northern War, general Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld of the Swedish army faced a difficult situation. The Saxon army under general Johann von Schulenburg outnumbered Rehnskiölds' force by slightly over two to one (9,500 to 20,000). The Saxons and Russians under Schulenburg had been following Rehnskiöld, with the hopes of destroying his much smaller army. Rehnskiölds' situation was only worsened by the fact that King Augustus the Strong of Poland (another member of the anti-Swedish coalition) was approaching with an additional 8,000 horsemen. If Schulenburg and Augustus completed a junction, the force against Rehnskiold would increase to three to one.
North of the town of Fraustadt, (present day Wschowa) the Saxo-Russian force established a defensive position of roughly two miles in length, between the villages of Röhrsdorf (present Osowa Sein) and Geyersdorf (present Debowa Leka). The defensive positions were littered with cannons and Chevaux de frise, spikes designed to impale horses.
Chevaux de frise
Schulenburg deployed his army in a traditional Kabinettskriege pattern: the infantry in the center, with the cavalry on the wings, and Rehnskiöld followed suit. Schulenburg placed his Russian allies on the left flank of his infantry line, and supposedly ordered them to turn their uniforms inside out to disguise the fact that they were Russian. (The inside of the Russian coat was red, like the outside of the Saxon coat.) Schulenburg was dubious about the value of his Russian allies, based on their poor performance at the debacle of Narva in 1700.
At the outset of the battle, the Saxons and Russians had most of the traditional military advantages. They had a larger army, much more artillery (the Swedes didn't have any cannons at this battle) , the flanks of their infantry line were protected by cavalry, villages, and a marsh, and they had strong fortifications in the front of their army.
Despite all of these disadvantages, Rehnskiöld ordered the Swedes to attack. The Swedes possessed one advantage that the other forces of the Great Northern War did not: superior morale. The Swedes would attack against incredible odds again and again during the Great Northern War. Rehnskiöld also knew that he had great superiority in cavalry, and as we has seen before, if cavalry could break into enemy lines, they would cause panic and massive casualties.
Before we continue, here is a map of the battle of Fraustadt, drawn by yours truly. Do not copy this map for anything except personal use.
Map by author 2/13/2013
My map is based on contemporary maps and shows the course of the battle. Oskar Sjöstrom provides a more accurate map of the deployment, in his book, Fraustadt 1706 - ett fält färgat rött ("Fraustadt 1706- a field colored red".) Here is his map.
Map by Oskar Sjöstrom (2008)
Rehnskiöld knew that to frontally attack Chevaux de frise meant suicide for his horsemen, so he sent them around the enemies' flank. On the right flank, the cavalry under Krassow and Rehnskiöld would sweep around the left flank of the Saxon and Russian army. On the Swedish left flank, the cavalry under Hummerhielm would by pass by the Chevaux de frise by moving through a frozen swamp in front of the Saxon right flank. The result of this flanking movement can be seen on my map, above.
The Swedish cavalry moved to envelope the Saxon flanks, while the Swedish infantry moved against the centre of the of the Saxon and Russian forces, preventing them from assisting the cavalry. The Saxon cavalry did not attempt to countercharge the Swedes during the flanking movement, and the result was disasterous for the Saxons.
Both Saxon cavalry wings broke under the onslaught, and the Swedish cavalry, showing considerable restraint, moved to attack the rear of the Saxon and Russian infantry. This can be seen on my map. Once the Swedish horsemen were in among the enemy infantry, the battle was over, and the Saxon and Russian army ceased to exist. The Swedes lost around 1,500 men killed and wounded, while the Saxons and Russian lost around 15,000 killed, wounded and captured.
This double envelopment has often been compared to Hannibal's miraculous victory at Cannae, and the Swedish army was grateful for its incredible victory. The regimental chaplains led the men in prayer, to thank God for the victory. This scene was immortalized by the great Swedish painter, Gustaf Cederström, in the painting at the beginning of this post.
For further information, check out Oskar Sjöstrom's book Fraustadt 1706 - ett fält färgat rött. Even for non-Swedish readers, the book has many helpful maps and diagrams.
