Dean West

Issue Number 4 of the Journal was full of interesting articles and information. I thought Jim Mitchell's piece on reenacting, which also delightfully describes the development of his interest in military history and wargaming, was entertaining in the extreme. Writers with Jim's talent are important to the success of any publication. I also enjoyed Rich Black's description of Kesselsdorf, a battle I knew little about.

The letters to the editor were especially interesting this time. I rather agree with John Boadle that informational submissions from the members should predominate in a specialist journal, but as is always the case with wargame journals, the level of expertise of readership varies widely. It seems to me that Jim's approach of describing the campaigns of the period chronologically, and in general terms, gives the less knowledgeable reader a base of information from which to explore in more depth. But Purky's response to John's concerns was a brilliant manoeuvre sur les derrieres which threw the opposition into confusion in the best tradition of Bonaparte. I hope that some of us take Jim up on his offer.

I am glad to see that others besides myself are willing to defend the honor of French soldiery, or are at least bent on taking potshots at the British. In his letter, Andrew Paolini makes the excellent point that commanders lose battles, not troops. It seems unfair to blame the rank and file, who must suffer on the battlefield for the sins of their commander, for the loss of a battle. They have enough problems. There are few, if indeed any, major battles of the 18th Century where the common soldiers of Britain and France did not perform with determination and gallantry, unless they were disasterously compromised by the maneuvers of the commanders, as at Rossbach, and were essentially unable to properly defend themselves.

In reply to Andrew's letter the editor remarks that in the end, commander incompetence notwithstanding, it is still tough to justify the "incredibly long winning streak" the British enjoyed in its wars with the French (without, I guess, blaming it on the troops). But again, wars are run by the commanders of nations, and the mistakes that cost the war were theirs, not the troops. The French soldiers in North America might have had a somewhat better chance in the French and Indian War had the government deployed another ten or twelve thousand men here, so the soldiers would have been outnumbered only two to one, instead of four to one? I really do not believe twelve thousand men would have meant much to French fortunes in Germany, where troop commitment exceeded 150,000, outnumbering the opposition handily. Or how about the tragic Lally-Tollendahl, who had a miserable little field army which boasted but two regular infantry battalions with which to hold India for the French Crown? So Clive becomes a hero while Lally is beheaded by an ungrateful and poorly led nation.

In Europe, battles between British and French in our period went either way, to a large degree based on commander decision making. In the War of the Austrian Succession, the British won Dettingen, and lost Fontenoy, Laufeld and Rocoux. These last three battles were larger encounters than Dettingen. Because of French performance in this war, Frederick the Great considered them his most dangerous opponent at the beginning of the SYW. In that war the French won Hastenbeck, Bergen, Korbach, KlosterKamp and lost Crefeld, Minden, Warburg and Vellinghausen. The incompetence shown by the French commanders in these last four fights is legendary.

It is also important to understand that tactical innovations implemented by the French during the dark days of the SYW continued the evolution of tactics which would, in the next war, end linear warfare as Frederick, Ferdinand and Maurice de Saxe knew it. Certain reactionaries, like the Duke of Wellington, still deployed troops in linear fashion with success. But in the ultimate engagement, Waterloo, Wellington was beaten until saved by the Prussians, who were able to join him due to the mistakes of the French commander pursuing them.

Well Jim, that should help fuel the fires of friendly controversy. I am working on the Marshal Saxe article for a future issue. I obtained a copy of a book entitled The Defense of Piedmont 1742-1748. We learn about Bourcet in this one. It turns out that in one operation during Maillebois' campaign of 1745-46 the French were organized into divisions, and due to the terrain made use of light troops. Bourcet later came under Broglie's cominnd, and that general soon organized his forces in divisions and successfully petitioned the king to allow a light infantry company in each French battalion (fighting under Broglie). Bourcet is my new Frog Hero. There are also great descriptions of the Battles of Campo Santa and Madonna d'Ormo in this volume.

[Editor: Dean, there you go again; whenever I start crowing over English exploits at Agincourt, Crecy, Blenheim, Minden etc., you have the gall, or should we say 'Gaul', to mention Fontenoy, Rocoux and Layfeldt. It's not very sporting of you, is it? I do find it interesting that, as you have pointed out to me so often, that the French seemed to have a decided edge in military innovation and tactical thinking during the latter half of the 18th Century, Maurice de Saxe and Bourcet being but two examples of many.]

Charles C. Sharp

I just got the 1994 Emperor's Headquarters catalog, and note that the 25mm Old Glory Marlburians are listed. Alas, they also list a whole bunch of other 18th Century 25mm goodies. I have been painting 15mm almost exclusively for about 8 years, ever since my second transfer in the army to an area that was all 15mm players. Now I find myself not only contemplating masses of 25mm figures, guns, wagons, etc., but also buildings, fences and bridges. What is most dangerous is that years ago I scratch-built structures extensively for HO scale model railroads, and the prices of 25mm structures make that option very attractive again - but where do I find the time?

I think I have a way to produce a 25mm War of the Spanish Succession battle before I have 30+ units painted (which at my rate of painting, won't be before 1995, at least): skirmish wargaming. I'm certain this has been done for the French and Indian War extensively, and I've seen rules for the ECW tiny unit games (5:1 scale) games. I have to do some research on rules, perhaps adopting the 1:1 "Western Gunfight" type rules to smoothbore musketry and swords/bayonets. I have in mind an action from the French dragonard through Franconia in 1708-09: the hamlet of Wertheim on the Main, with the only bridge over the river for 20 miles in either direction. A lovely little scenario could be done with just 5-6 bridge guards from the local infantry company, a "sleeve" (8) of dragoons out to scout the bridge and carry off anything not nailed down, and some townsfolk. Since the Spessart Mountains, an extensive forest area, are right across the river, at least one of the civilians could be a rifle-toting jagermeister. Not only would it be a quick way to show off the Spanish Succession period in 25mm, if I can work up a "down and dirty" quick set of workable rules, they should work for any petite guerre situation from 1690 to 1815.

[Editor: I had the good fortune of meeting Charlie Sharp at last year's HISTORICON convention and was very impressed with his 15mm Marlburian games using modified Age Of Reason rules. Charlie puts on a great-looking wargame, so I'd love to see what he could do with 25mm skirmish games. I have often wondered why SYW gamers have the mindset that skirmish level games can only take place in North America (and 90% of the time these scenarios involve Indians wiping out an English settlement or recreating Braddock's defeat -- BORING!). Can't we be a little bit more original than that and come up with some European skirmish sceanarios? How about Austrian Hussars and Croats raiding a Prussian field bakery to deprive Alte Fritz of bread for his troops. Savory's book is full of skirmish scenarios between Von Luckner's Hanoverian light brigade and the French light troops in Western Germany. I used to run a game called 'Croat Terror, using modifted 'Woodland Wars' skirmish rules. I merely substituted Croats wherever the word "Indians" appeared in the rules; militia became frei-korps, British became Prussian regulars, and French regulars became Austrians, etc.]