Talk:Battle of Walcourt

English army, 1689
I don't think this is a particularly accurate statement,

"However, William was sceptical about the quality of the English troops; compared to the Dutch troops of the period, English troops were little more than a rabble, lacking in organisation, field administration and commissariat."

Waldeck wasn't in the best position to make such statements. It's quite easy to imagine a rivalry between the contingents that made up the army and Friedrich perhaps embodied these rivalries, espcially if he was slightly intimidated by an upstart like Churchill. If you had a similar source from Marlborough it would be easier to agree with but I doubt he would ever make such derogatory statements about his troops.

John Childs I think gives a less obscure and clouded opinion. He says, "Whilst their combat performances were not outstanding, the British were not markedly deficient when compared with the Dutch, Danish, and German contingents which composed the Confederate Army." Lack of a united leadership and the simple fact that the army was a made of several smaller armies mitigated the success of the Allies in the war so in many respects no single army was "outstanding", hence the unusual number of defeats, however Childs gives the impression of a British contingent that certainly wasn't a "rabble". Indeed, ten years later during the War of Spanish Succession, the British Army was perhaps the best in Europe; relatively little was done to improve its performance during this time.

Source: The Oxford History of the British Army. Ironically, your source and my source have the same author.


 * I don't think this is a particularly accurate statement,
 * "However, William was sceptical about the quality of the English troops; compared to the Dutch troops of the period, English troops were little more than a rabble, lacking in organisation, field administration and commissariat."


 * To continue the description of the English army – “. . .although there were regiments of men, there was no army, in fact none of that fitness for immediate service to be found at that time in continental armies.”


 * These statements are from Chandler’s ‘Marlborough as Military Commander’ who is in turn quoting from C Walton’s 'History of the standing British Army'. To quote Chandler again – “William’s scepticism about the overall value of English troops was well founded at this period. . . Even worse, the army included disaffected elements – and the year 1689 was to see a number of minor mutinies.”


 * We are however, not talking about the qualities of British soldiers on the battlefield. To quote Chandler– “The English [of the period] bore an evil record for looting friendly inhabitants, and for stripping clothes off their own wounded comrades. Fortunately their reputation was greatly redeemed by their valorous conduct in actual battle”. Or, as Waldeck says in the article - “. . . I could never have believed that so many of the English would show such a joie de combattre.”


 * However Childs gives the impression of a British contingent that certainly wasn't a "rabble".


 * No he doesn’t. Let me quote you from your own source. John Childs writes – “with little or no money in their pockets, soldiers [were] unruly, and behaved like armed thugs.” During the war many soldiers moonlighted to supplement their pay – “some ran taverns and alehouses”, “substantial bribes were given to . . .grenadiers and forlorn hopes (and liberally dosed with drink)” I could go on, but you get the idea.


 * Comparisons with the Dutch as this time?
 * Quoting from Chandler’s – “The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough”, p113: The Dutch are considered to be amongst the best serving the Allied cause” Describing the English infantry as comparatively amateur and immature (inexperienced).”


 * Indeed, ten years later during the War of Spanish Succession, the British Army was perhaps the best in Europe; relatively little was done to improve its performance during this time. 


 * Childs writes on p.68, again using your own source – “Between the Restoration and the death of William in 1702, the army underwent profound changes”. Which includes the period between 1688 and 1702. These changes in organisation and equipment, coupled with Marlborough’s (and other’s) leadership and the common soldier’s natural battlefield aggression, possibly made them the best in Europe. But until this re-organisation, they were indeed often little more than a rabble. The statement describing the English soldier in 1689 before the battle of Walcourt, is accurate. Raymond Palmer 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You've mentioned things about the conduct of English troops outside of the battlefield, how they moonlighted etc, but that doesn't indicate how they behaved during a battle. William was no doubt skeptical of the British Army because one year earlier he had seen how the majority had stood by and let him take over England.


 * "although there were regiments of men, there was no army, in fact none of that fitness for immediate service to be found at that time in continental armies.”

Perhaps because the previous year the army had been critically reorganized. Maybe in that sense they were disorganised before 1689 but I don't think the term "rabble" is an accuarte description.


 * "The Dutch are considered to be amongst the best serving the Allied cause."

This sounds like a primary source (?) so again the same criticisms concerning the last source can be levelled at it this one.

"Describing the English infantry as comparatively amateur and immature (inexperienced)." How is it then that the same author describes the British as "not markedly deficient when compared with the Dutch, Danish, and German contingents."?

What change occurred between 1689 and 1703, other than the complete withdrawal of the matchlock musket?