Soulful Soldiers

Dear Reader,


In the modern world, we associate soldiers and militarism with brutality, violence, and masculinity, (and by connection perhaps-stupidity.) Often, we read this stereotype into the past. As far as eighteenth century warfare is concerned reading the present into the past is a severe problem in historical thinking. Christopher Duffy addresses this issue in his excellent book, Military Experience in the Age of Reason. 

As much as modern literature and fiction might attempt to present the past accurately, this is a task for trained and professional historians. A perfect example of this is the excellent web-comic Family Man, by brilliant writer and artist Dylan Meconis. Meconis gives an excellent representation of Central Europe in the 1760s, (if you ignore the occasional vampire or werewolf) down to rabbit and wolf hunting with a Jägerbüsche. However, her detailed representation as just that, a representation. 

In order to be truly "historical," a work of non-fiction needs to draw on the writing of individuals who lived during that time, and other evidence remaining from the past. Returning to the premise of this article, some 18th century soldiers were certainly brutal, pipeclayed, villainous men, who raped, stole and murdered throughout Europe. However, many of the soldiers of the 18th century were not this type of man. Some were Seelenmensch- Soulful men. This was exceedingly evident in the Prussian army. Frederick the Great, for all his spikeness, was a man of great sensitivity and feeling. On the death of his general Hans Karl von Winterfeldt, he remarked, "He was a good man: a soulful man. He was my friend." 

How do we know that 18th century soldiers were soulful, you ask? Their writings. Many soldiers from 18th left behind a plethora of writings on military matters, but some also left poetry about their personal lives. These soldiers played music, wrote poetry, and attempted to bring culture into their world of death. Here is a selection of poetry from eighteenth century soldiers:

Miniatures of Hessian Soldiers

The first poem is by Johann Heinnrich Ludewig Grotehenen, a soldier who served in the Western German army during the Seven Years' War, under the command of Ferdinand of Brunswick. 

Ein Soldate bin Ich eben
I was only a soldier,
und steh vor meinen feind.
and stood before my enemy
In freud und lied muss leben
I must live in joy and song,
wie mirs gott Hat bereit
How God has prepared me!
und wenn ich stehe in feld
For when I stand in the field
und lieg in meinen zelt
and lie in my tent
Hab ich mich gott befohlen
Have I myself instructed God?
Er mags wie es ihm gefält
He makes things how he pleases.

The second is a selection from the 1759 Quebec campaign, by an anonymous author.  It describes the death of General Wolfe. The author here spells it Wolf.

The British at Quebec

The first part of the poem describes a young man who enlists because he is heart broken. The second part begins:

Then this brave youth took to the ocean,
to free America from those invasions;
He landed at Quebec, with his party,
to attack the city, being brave and hearty.

Wolf drew up his men in a line, so pretty,
On the plains of Abraham, before the city.
A distance from the town, the French did meet him.
With double numbers, they resolve{d} to beat him.

The French drew up their men: for death prepared.
In one another's face, they flood and flared.
Whilst Wolf and Montcalm together walked.
Betwixt their armies: they like brothers talked.

Then each took his place, 'twas of attire.
And then this numerous host began their fire.
Suddenly from his horse fell this brave hero,
You may lament his loss in fields of sorrow.

The French began to break their ranks and flying,
Wolf seemed to revive whilst he lay a dying--
He raised up his head, where the cannons rattle,
and to his army said: how goes the battle?

His aid-de-camp reply'd: 'tis in our favor.
Quebec and all her pride, nothing can save her.
She falls into our hands, with all her treasure.
O, reply'd brave Wolf: I die with pleasure.


Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns


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

Who was the Best?

The Battle of Zorndorf

Dear Reader,

For centuries, military historians had one task: identify who won battles, who gained the most honor, and which states created the best militaries. In essence: who was the best? Fortunately, with the advent of the New Military History, historians have begun to examine other factors, such as social, religious, and economic factors relating to war. However, many non-academic readers are still very much concerned with the question, "who was the best?" or, "why were they the best?" Today we are going to engage with those questions in a popular way, designed to spur conversation on this topic.

 This search for military exceptionalism would doubtless make my professors a bit queasy, not doubt, but its a Thursday, I'm tired after a long couple of weeks on the road, (researching New Military History type topics in Washington DC,) and my brain could use a fun and engaging break.

So, of the armies of the eighteenth century, who was the best?

Feel free to reference this map while reading

Let's identify some states who were obviously not the best:

Spain:
Despite a resurgence of military effectiveness in the late-eighteenth century (during the American War of Independence) Spain made a poor showing in most of the other eighteenth century wars. Though it has turned into an over-romanticized myth as a result of the paintings of Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau, and Alatriste, the end of the Tercio-era did present a serious challenge to Spanish military power. The Spanish military humiliated during the Seven Years War, when British and Portuguese forces defeated the Spanish army in Iberia, and challenged them from Havanna to Manila around the world.

The Republic of the Netherlands:

Much like Sweden after the Great Northern War, the Netherlands went into a long slow decline after the War of Spanish Succession in the 1710s. Suffering in the early wars of Louis XIV, during the so-called, "Rampjaar" or "year of disaster" in 1672, the Dutch recovered to produce an excellent military commanded by a competent great captain: Stadtholder Willem (William of Orange). Under William, Dutch troops managed to firmly secure England for the Protestant cause, won a civil war against the rival Stuart monarchy in Ireland, and gained considerable success in the Nine Years War and War of Spanish Succession, even after William's death.

The Dutch began to lose influence as their economic power waned, but fought successfully as part of a coalition during the War of the Quadruple Alliance, but were badly defeated during the War of Austrian Succession. The Dutch, Austrian, British, and Hessian forces were unable to stop the French from overrunning a number of fortresses in the Austrian Netherlands and Brabant. Political unrest and the so-called, Orangist Revolution of 1747 followed military disasters in this war.

After the 1750s, they were never again a serious military contender.  Neutral during the Seven Years War, the Dutch were one of the few anti-British powers to suffer in the global eight years war surrounding the American War of Independence. Unable to compete with the British for maritime trade, the end of this "Fourth Anglo-Dutch War" led to the loss of trade monopolies and territorial losses in India.

Denmark:

The Danes never really got off the ground as a power in the eighteenth century. After their failure to reclaim Skåne from Sweden during the Scanian War, they were repeatedly and soundly beaten by the Swedes again in the Great Northern War. After the thrashing they received in the Great Northern War, the Danes largely remained at peace for the rest of the eighteenth century. War briefly threatened again in 1762, when the Tsar Peter III declared war on Denmark. Fortunately for the Danes, he was assassinated before the war truly began. Avoiding serious military conflicts such as the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War, Denmark instead spent the eighteenth century putting down Norwegian peasant rebels, fighting a war against the Algerians, and engaging the farcical
"Theatre War" against Gustav III's Sweden.

The Commonwealth:

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had the extreme misfortune to be a relatively weak surrounded by larger, predatory powers. Famously coming to the assistance of the Viennese in 1683, the Polish state suffered during the Great Northern War, as Swedish forces repeatedly crossed the Commonwealth. Despite excellent cavalry potential, the Polish state was slowly devoured by Russia, Austria and Prussia, until its revival by Napoleon in the early nineteenth century. Thaddeus Kosciuszko made a brave attempt at a war of independence in 1794, but this was crushed by the Russian army under Suvorov. Casimir Pulaski, a soldier of indeterminate gender, is widely considered to be the father the American Cavalry.

Bavaria:
Like Saxony, historians are left to wonder "what could have been" regarding a successful Bavarian state in the eighteenth century. Though the Bavarian army performed well enough in the War of Spanish Succession and War of Austrian Succession, Bavaria never really was able to capitalize politically on its few military successes. The Bavarians had a knack for choosing to attack Austria (often as allies of the French) when the Austrian Empire appeared much weaker than it actually was. Charles VII was able to break-up an otherwise unbroken string of Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperors, for that at least, he deserves our gratitude. Between 1745 and 1778, Bavaria clung to the status of a second-rate power. Finally, after the death of Maxmillian Joseph in 1778, Prussia and Austria fought over the inheritance of the Bavarian state, clear proof that Bavaria had lost control of its own destiny.  Like Poland, Bavaria would be briefly revived as a military power during the early-nineteenth century.

Saxony:
The Saxons performed well enough during the early wars of the eighteenth century, but had the singular misfortune of standing in-between Prussia and Austria between 1740-1786. The Saxon military never performed exceptionally, and was snapped up wholesale by the Prussians at the outset of the Seven Years' War. A number ex-patriot regiments fought in French and Austrian service during the war, but they were unable to prevent the occupation and despoliation of their homeland. With the personal union of Saxony and Poland early the eighteenth century, Saxony could have risen to the rank of the first power in Northern Germany, but did not strike at the crucial moment in 1740.

The United States: 

This fledgling nation made a poor military showing in the American War of Independence, and lost many major battlefield encounters. While the Americans showed a talent for light infantry work, they lacked the staying power required win large-scale battles in the European style. One of the reasons the Americans were able to achieve the success they did was the relative ineffectiveness of cavalry in North America. Thus, although the American forces performed quite well in convincing the British to abandon the United States, they are rather out of place on this list. Indeed, it seems to me that if the Americans were placed in Europe, against a traditional European field army, they would have quickly folded in the face of superior combined arms tactics.

Now, some states who fall in the middle of the pack: 

Sweden:
Ahhh Sverige. The noble Swedes made an excellent showing in the Great Northern War, but were overwhelmed through a mixture of opposing forces, and the tactical blunders of their King at Poltava. If we were only examining the period from 1700-1721, the Swedes would far and away win this line-up. Their cavalry and infantry were absolutely exceptional at shock attacks, despite being outnumbered in every battle. The infantry also showed an excellent ability fight with firepower in the later war. However, after the defeats in the Great Northern War, the Swedes went into a long slow decline. They did not recover until the late 1780s, when they won several battles against the Russians, delaying the loss of Finland for another decade. This early panache combined with late recovery places them in the middle of the pack.

France:

The French saved the Americans during the American War of Independence, they effectively reformed their army halfway through the Seven Years' War, and they were truly terrifying opponents during the War of Spanish Succession and French Revolutionary Wars. Sadly, they were soundly defeated by the British in the  Seven Years' War. The French focus on continental Europe forced the loss of the colonies in North America, for no discernible European trade-off. Despite their strategic short comings, the French were formidable on the battlefield, possessing excellent cavalry, infantry with a penchant for shock action, and by the late eighteenth century a formidable artillery train.

British:

The British possessed excellent infantry, but fair to middling cavalry and artillery. I know this placement will shock some of you, but Britain did not have a spectacular military record in the 18th century. They fought the French tooth and nail in the western Seven Years' War, but most of their spectacular victories occurred on sea, not on land. The Battle of Minden was a spectacular field victory, but those who remember Minden and Quebec should also keep in mind Fontenoy, Roucox, and Lauffeld. One of the sticky facts of British success in the eighteenth century is that the British only succeeded in North America because they were tying down the French on the continent, and they only were able to tie down the French on the continent through German help. The fact of the matter is, that in every great European battle which the British won, the actual British forces made up a minority of overall army, German soldiers from various states were in the majority. This is not suggesting that the British were poor soldiers in any way, merely that they always had help.

Western Germans (Hanover, Brunswick, Hesse-Kassel):

The unsung heroes of the eighteenth century. These troops were responsible for many of the "British" victories of the eighteenth century. During the Seven Years' War, these troops made up the majority of the army opposing the French in western Germany. Brunswick and Hesse-Kassel would go on to lend forces to Britain during the Seven Years' War. While most American readers remember the Battle at Trenton during the American War of Independence, where the Hessians were surprised and captured, their were a number of battles where the Germans saved the British or won on their own, including:  Fort Washington, Hubbardton, and Freeman's Farm. Thus, a large portion of the credit for British battlefield success in the eighteenth century needs to be given to Britain's German allies.


The Top Three: 


And the number 3 spot goes to: 

Austria:

Austria gets the number three spot for most improvement during the course of the eighteenth century. Christopher Duffy's massive two volume work on the Austrian military charts the difficult process of restoring the army to a place of prominence. By the end of the Seven Years' War, the Austrian army had built up respectable infantry, good cavalry, and exceptional artillery forces. They would recover from their defeat in the War of Austrian Succession, and give the Prussians a run for their money in the Seven Years' War. By the War of Bavarian Succession, it was obvious that the Prussians could no longer compete with the Austrians. Austria would go on to play a pivotal role in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and lead the way in continually opposing Napoleon.

and the number 2 spot goes to:

Prussia:

And the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In all seriousness, Prussia's meteoric rise from relative obscurity to a European great power was achieved by the Prussian army. The War of Austrian Succession gain Prussia the attention of the European powers, and the Seven Years' War assured that it was there to stay. Prussia possessed the best infantry of the eighteenth century, good cavalry, and good artillery, (at least in terms of attached guns.) The Prussian military was acknowledged by most military authorities as being the best in Europe. Oh- Frederick the Great helped a little too.

then who could be number 1??? 

Russia:

Russia had everything required for eighteenth century success: stalwart, tenacious infantry, excellent heavy cavalry (and light cavalry in the form of Cossacks), as well as an impressive artillery arm. Throughout the course of the eighteenth century, the Russians proved almost impossible to defeat on the battlefield. Frederick the Great was certainly never able to soundly beat them. As far as generals, Peter the Great was not spectacular, but Suvorov and Bagration were both sound military men. Russia's true genius was the ability to build a spectacular military tradition Ex Nihlo. The modern Russian military was formed in the lifetime of Peter the Great. The Russian armies instant success (despite the lack of a prior military western military tradition) give it the right to claim the number 1 spot in our line-up.


Do you agree? Who do you think had the best 18th century army?

Thanks for reading

Alex Burns

If you liked this post, let me know in the comments below! Feel free to follow the blog. Its free, and lets me know that you enjoy what I'm doing-basically the only reason I write this thing.

Book Review: The Best of Enemies

(cover art from the book)

Dear Reader,

(Sorry for the long absence, I've been in Washington DC doing research for my MA program!)

Book Review of:

Christopher Duffy, The Best of Enemies: Germans vs. Jacobites, 1746. Emperor's Press,
          Bitter Books, (Chicago and London) 2013.

Most Americans remember the Hessians from their time in grade school. These are the soldiers which American general George Washington crossed the the Delaware to surprise at the Battle of Trenton on the day after Christmas, 1776. In his latest book, Dr. Christopher Duffy examines these soldiers in a different context: the '45, the final major Jacobite uprising in Britain  Much like in the American War of Independence, the German state of Hesse-Kassel hired its soldiers as subsidized allies (subsidientruppen) to the British. These Hessians assisted the British (and their Hanoverian monarch, George II) in suppressing this rebellion in the eighteenth century.

In this small, though informative, book, Duffy manages to give a campaign history of the Germans in the '45 uprising, as well as examine the life of Hessian Prince Frederick II in a book which, at times, reads as a mini-biography. Duffy lends a sympathetic voice to Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel, and attempts to show that this monarch had admirable qualities. Duffy's work touches on the history of the Hessian military from the turn of the eighteenth century to the American War of Independence. However, in order to get the full story of the Hessians in the American War of Independence (which is outside the scope of Duffy's work), this book should be read in tandem with Rodney Atwood's The Hessians. 

 For readers familiar with the American War of Independence, many familiar names crop up in the text, as we see future Hessian leaders. Duffy's thesis is that the Germans were more humane than their British counterparts, and kept clear of the worst of the atrocities following the Battle of Culloden. He amply proves his thesis, and this provides an interesting counterpoint to the supposed atrocities of the German troops during the American War of Independence.

As usual, Duffy writes in an engaging and often humorous style. His prose is easy to understand, even for those who do not understand all of the technicalities of eighteenth century warfare. He provides a full bibliography, which is clearly laid out. Overall, the only major flaw in this book is it's length: it leaves the reader wishing for more! Dr. Duffy has once again proved that military history and serious scholarship go hand in hand.

 The book is being published and sold by John Brewster over at Bitter Books, with assistance by Emperor's Press. If you would like to purchase the book directly, here is a link to Bitter Books.  For British readers, the book is a fascinating examination of a pivotal event in the history of Britain. For American readers, the book gives an important comparison to the experiences of the American War of Independence. For any serious student of the Jacobite Rebellions or American War of Independence, this book is a must have.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

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

Why Study History?

Dear Readers,

Today we are going to venture off the Kabinettskriege path and look at a question that many minds (much greater than mine... Marc Bloch, for example) have answered, or attempted to answer.

The question is this: why study History?

Why should anyone care about History? It doesn't feed you, it doesn't clothe you, it doesn't shelter you, why should you care?

As a history student, I can't recall how many family dinners where someone hears that you study history, and asks something like, "So you are studying history because you want to be a professor... doesn't that seem like a self-sustaining system?" or, "What is the use of history? So we won't be doomed to repeat it?"

The answer to this question is manifold. Here, I will attempt to give you the bare bones of an argument for history.

1) The "doomed to repeat it" mantra.

Believe it or not, this is actual a legitimate reason to keep the past alive. Ever heard of the Holocaust? American Slavery? There are people in this world who attempt to argue that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that Slavery, "really wasn't so bad." Well, as a Historian, I can guarantee that the Holocaust did happen, and Slavery really was so bad. Let's not even talk about what happened to the Native Americans. 

2) The "Informs who we are today" argument.

This is another common argument, and another good one. The best example I have ever heard of this is the Confederate flag. If you think History doesn't matter to people, go buy a Confederate (non-American readers: The rebels during the United States Civil War) flag, and wave it around in the American rural south. The individuals there will probably clap you on the back and offer to buy your drinks. Do the same thing in urban centers of the American north, and you might receive a beating. (With VERY good reason.) Thus, while history might not put food on the table, it informs who we are today.

3) Leads to a full life.

I met someone recently, who told me that living a life without a knowledge of history is like watching the Thanksgiving day parade on a small black/white tv. You could hear the commentary, perhaps even make out the various floats, but would it really be enjoyable? Living a life without history is the same way.Without it, you can get by, do your job, and live your life, but history adds meaning and depth to life.

4) Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy it! (And this makes History marketable)

In my mind, one of the best arguments for history is that some individuals actual enjoy it! Ever met a Civil War reenactor? A wargamer? Or perhaps someone who just enjoys reading? These people love history. In this way, one could think of the historian as a someone in the entertainment or hobby industry. While my professors would doubtless cringe to think of themselves in this way, the historian is not unlike a company which builds fishing boats. Not everyone loves fishing, or fishing boats, but some people do, and these people fishing boats, creating a demand for more fishing boats. In the same way, historians create a product (books, lectures, etc) to meet a demand.

5) Unless our society changes, schools and colleges require students to have History classes. 

History is a subject which students need to have. Like it, hate it, you have to take it anyway. This creates a demand for history teachers and professors. No one tells the science teachers that they are unnecessary. The fact that history teachers cannot be coerced into designing WMD's is an advantage, right? Just watch Back to the Future. If Doc Brown had been a History teacher, the Libyans wouldn't have shot him.

In summary, History warns us about the traumatic events of the past, (even if we usually choose to ignore that warning,) creates the word in which we currently live, adds meaning and depth to life, and is a commodity which can be bought and sold like anything else.

Believe it or not, History matters.

Thanks for reading,

Alex

Sorry for the long delay!

Dear Kabinettskriege Readers,


I know its been a while since I posted, but don't worry, I haven't forgotten about my blog. My MA program is keeping me quite busy, but school will be over quite soon. This summer, in addition to my seasonal work, I will be taking a class on the Russian military with Dr. Sergei Zhuk, so look forward to some Russian themed posts in the future.

For now, let me know what you would like a post about. As opposed to giving specific topics, I'm going to let you choose a theme, and then I will write about something within that theme. So, readers, would you like:

A) Biography (King/Queen/Statesman/General/Soldier etc)
B) Battle Analysis (Looking at a particular engagement in this period)
C) Army Analysis (Looking at a particular army in this period)
D) Diary Analysis (Looking at the wartime experiences of a particular individual)

Let me know what you think!

Thanks for reading,

Alex

Film Review: The Patriot

The Patriot (Copyright 2000, Columbia Pictures Inc)

Dear Reader,


Many historians get very up tight when movies portray their period inaccurately. The fact of the matter is that movies are fictional creations, and should not be taken literally. Doing so only causes pain for those of us who are alive to a sense of the past.

First of all, the Patriot is obviously a great movie. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside about the creation of our great nation during the American War of Independence.  Mel Gibson delivers the performance which equals his work in Braveheart.  Jason Issacs, who would go on to play Captain Mike Steele in Black Hawk Down, and Lucius Malfoy in Harry Potter, plays the quintessential British villain.

The movie portrays the Southern theatre of the American Revolution, through the eyes of Benjamin Martin, a plantation owner, whose freed Africans continue to work for him. This is the first problem with the film. If a white master freed his slaves, they would generally not continue to work on his land. For former slaves, it was much easier to make a living as a produce farmer than a cotton worker.

In the film, Martin is a good man, who cares for his children after the death of his wife. His character is based on Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox." Marion was a guerrilla leader in the American South. In actuality, Francis Marion was not a terribly pleasant person. While it is true that he was a man of his times, and needs to be examined in his historical context, it is also true that he committed horrible atrocities against the Cherokee Indians during the French and Indian War, he hunted down and killed slaves who were "suspected" of aiding the British in any way during the American War of Independence, and occasionally, his men massacred British wounded and prisoners.

Jason Issacs character plays the devilish British villian in American History: Colonel Banastre Tarleton. (In the movie, the character is called Tavington.) Tarleton receives something of a character assassination in The Patriot. His men massacred American soldiers at the battle of the Waxhaws, but only because they thought the Americans pretended to surrender, and then shot Tarleton. He recieves some criticism from Washington Irving, but none of it appears to be factual. While light cavalry officers in the 18th century often had a reputation for violence, Tarleton appears to have been a fairly standard example of this type of soldier, not an evil aberration. The worst thing that can proved against Tarleton was that he advocated for slavery during his time Parliament (and he only did this because his family's economic investments would have been crippled, not because he though slavery was morally acceptable.) The infamous scene where the British burn down a church, full of trapped parishioners, is totally fictitious. One historian stated that if this scene actually occurred,  America probably would have used it as an excuse to stay out of the World Wars.

Let's move on to the films portrayal of the war. The British soldiers are pictured as mindless automatons, who can only move in rigid lines and fight in compact bodies. This myth has been thoroughly destroyed by Matthew H. Spring's excellent book, Through Zeal and Through Bayonets Only: The British Army on Campaign in North America. In this work, published through University of Oklahoma Press, Spring convincingly argues that the British quickly adapted to the conditions of North America.  Thus, the only scene where British soldiers behave appropriately is where they exit the corn, in the scene directly before Mel Gibson's house is burned down.

The films climatic battle combines elements of the Battle of Cowpens and the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, and makes it appear as though there were relatively the same number of British and American soldiers. In both battles, the British were significantly outnumbered.


Overall, The Patriot is a very enjoyable fiction of the American Revolution. The movie is quite entertaining, and that's what movies are for, right?

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

Games at the Seven Years' War Convention

The view from the hotel: Notre Dame! (Hesburgh Library to be precise.)

Dear Reader, 

I promised pictures of the games: here they are! The majority of the pictures come from Dean West's beautiful Sandershausen game, but I managed to take pictures of several other games as well.

The French prepare to attack at Sandershausen

 

The Hessians (or Prussian stand ins) prepare to receive them.

The Diesbach Regiment: The end of the French Line

 The above photo is of the Diesbach Regiment, one of the best units in the French army. This regiment was on of the few to come out of the disastrous battle of Rossbach with any honor. They formed a square and marched of the battlefield, leading Frederick of Prussia to quip, "What is this red brick wall, that all my artillery cannot manage to bring down?" 

Behind the Hessian lines (again, these are Prussian figures)

The overall scenario at Sandershausen.

The French (bottom) are attempting to drive off the Hessians (top). As you can see, the French have superior numbers on their side. 

Some light troops and Landmiliz

The Hessians commanders, and the game host (1st play through)

The Evil French! (1st play through)

Sadly for the forces of good everywhere, the French soundly beat the Hessians in record time during the first player through. Good Job to the French players though!

The table during the 2nd play through

The French commander leans over the table, menacingly (2nd Play through)

Against all odds, the Hessians managed to defeat the French on the second play through. They did so by emulating the actions of the historical Hessian commander, Johann Casmir von Isenberg-Birstien

Dean West assisting with Patrick Lebeau's game on Saturday. Dean is attempting to get a bird's eye view of the proceedings.

Pat Lebeau's beautiful Burkersdorf scenario

A confused naval action of the coast of India. Jeff Knudsen's beautiful 1/900 scale ships of the line help make this game a favorite of convention go-ers.

The British attempt to break the French line

Oddly enough, after a long day of gaming, there was a fireworks display for some other event outside our hotel room. A fitting end to the convention!