![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
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.
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?
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
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.
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?