GrenadierAZ | 13 Jul 2014 11:06 a.m. PST |
All, I'm working on some rules for the Seven Years War. While I have a fairly decent library on the subject, my books leave something to be desired when it comes to the performance of the minor players such as Saxony, Bavaria, Hannover, and Sweden. What are your thoughts on the strengths, weaknesses, and performance of these minor armies? |
summerfield | 13 Jul 2014 12:34 p.m. PST |
I have written a book on the Saxon Army and currently one on the Hanoverian Army. The Saxon Army performed very well after they were transferred to the Western theatre. It is difficult to say about the 1756 campaign as the Saxon Army was outnumbered but held out against the Prussians until the food started to run out. The Hanoverian Army was solid and lacking battlefield experience in 1757. The infantry and cavalry were considered by Ferdinand of Brunswick as the pick of the army. The Artillery was heavy and through the war improved greatly under Shaumburg-Lippe as Allied Artillery Commander. The latter I am still struggling to know exactly what they were using. Some authors say British and French pieces rather than Hanoverian. The Bavarian Army had a mixed reputation with the Austrians. Stephen |
Herkybird | 13 Jul 2014 12:45 p.m. PST |
Sweden had an apparently reasonable army, though their regiments were small in comparison to other nations. They only had to fight a very second rate Prussian enemy force as Frederick didn't consider them a real threat, and he was far more concerned about the Austrians and Russians. IMHO I would class them as Austrian quality. |
Daniel S | 13 Jul 2014 12:58 p.m. PST |
The Swedish army was severly hampered by the fact that it was thrown into the war without any attempts to make good years of neglect or even to prepare for the planned campaign. As a result the troops marched to meet the Prussians in worn out uniforms with some infantry units barefoot due to a shortage of shoes and stockings. A shortage of flints meant that some musketeers were issued with "dummy flints" made out of wood when called up for service. Corruption was widespread in Sweden at the time and the arms industry was no exception. As a result the cavalry found themselves armed with poorly made swords of low quality which seldom matched the goverment pattern. A 1759 report describes how the swords were too short which made it hard to thrust with them properly in battle so the troopers resorted to cuts and slashes only to find that many swords broke when struck by the heavy pallasch style swords used by the Prussians. One of the few units that reported few such probles was the Liferegiment of Horse which was still armed with the pattern m/1717 sword(!). The lack of good swords combined with neglected training put the Swedish cavalry at a real disadvantage and it performed poorly in the first years of the war. Leadership was problematic as well due to a rigid seniority system which meant that senior officers had not only been promoted without taking merit into account but they were also often overage. A lack of light troops put the Swedes at a disadvantage in the "Small war" until they began to raise such troops themselves. The best part of the army was probably the infantry, despite often serving in wretched conditions the many would put in a surprisingly stubborn preformances. And as new leaders emerged during the war some units began to perform with a certain ragged dash. (Notably some actions by the grenadiers) |
Garde de Paris | 13 Jul 2014 3:20 p.m. PST |
"Back in the day" I painted a western-campaign 15mm army for the allies. My research suggested that Hanover was the largest part of the allies under Prussian General Ferdinand of Brunswick, with some 21 (?) single-battalion regiments of infantry. Two battalions of composite grenadiers. Best German units of the western army. Added various light infantry and jaeger "legion" type units with some cavalry. Pengel and Hurt suggested that their 8 horse units were relatively small, and usually fought with two combined to form a 3-squadron composite. 4 dragoon regiments of 4 squadrons each. One regiment of hussars (Luckner?), last uniformed in white with scarlet pelisses (?). At the beginning they all maneuvered rather slowly, and the Prussian 9th and 10 Dragoons, send by Frederick, retrained them to be aggressive at the attack. Great Britain had the next largest contingent, eventually 12 (?) single battalion regiments. Plus composite grenadier battalions. Lots of cavalry – Horse, dragoons and light dragoons. Next was Hesse (Kassel?) with 12 or so single battalion regiments. Composite grenadiers, plus a guard grenadier battalion. 2 four-squadron dragoon regiments. 4 horse regiments of 2 squadrons each – I painted mine using Prussians in the cuirass, but I am told they never wore it. Brunswick was next with 4 infantry regiments of 2 battalions, and 2 composite grenadier battalions. A Carabinier (heavy) cavalry regiment of 3 squadrons. These had earlier been a dragoon regiment in red uniform! Also some hussars in yellow and light blue. I recall reading about early battle of Hastenbeck in the 7 YW Journal that this was a very poor Kreis, and the infantry did not perform well. Smaller, but I never did any. GdeP |
Cardinal Hawkwood | 13 Jul 2014 11:24 p.m. PST |
Frederick thought very little of the Swede's ability |
Nadir Shah | 14 Jul 2014 4:50 a.m. PST |
Frederick also called the Austrians dogs too! |
GrenadierAZ | 08 Aug 2014 9:55 p.m. PST |
Any more thoughts on the Saxon army? |
summerfield | 14 Aug 2014 4:19 a.m. PST |
Having written a book on them. I could explain at length. It is which period and when is the issues. 1756 they were bottled up but fought well until forced to capitulate. Only took the field when transferred to French pay. Otherwise prisoners would have been excecuted as deserters by the Prussians. They fought very well and were considered by the Allies superior to French for their solidity. Stephen |
GrenadierAZ | 15 Aug 2014 10:53 p.m. PST |
Dr. Summerfield, could you refer me to any particular books of yours? |
summerfield | 16 Aug 2014 7:53 p.m. PST |
My books are available from Ken Trotman Ltd, my UK publisher. link Some extracts from my books are found on link The Austrian 7YW Infantry and the Prussian 7YW Fusiliers will be published next month. Currently working on Hanoverian 7YW Army. Stephen |
Glorfindel777 | 20 Aug 2014 9:31 a.m. PST |
I have Dr Summerfield's book on the Saxon Army and can thoroughly recommend it. Phil
|
summerfield | 21 Aug 2014 5:20 a.m. PST |
Thanks Phil It is good to hear that I providing much needed information. You get isolated writing and illustrating books. The AUSTRIAN INFANTRY OF THE 7YW (2nd Ed) has now been published. This has been completely re-illustrated with an additional 300+ illustrations. Explaining the evolution of the uniforms during the 7YW and resolving the inconsistencies. I will put an extract up on my Academic Page tonight. PRUSSIAN FUSILIERS OF THE WAS and 7YW is now with the printers so expected October. Stephen |
seneffe | 21 Aug 2014 3:00 p.m. PST |
Stephen- one point about your first post- re the Hanoverians, I don't think they were lacking so much in combat experience in the SYW. Many regiments had seen heavy combat in the WAS only a few years before and would have had many experienced officers and men still in the ranks by the SYW. |
summerfield | 21 Aug 2014 5:27 p.m. PST |
Interesting comment. Alas this view is from the Prussians so as you say may well be political bias especially from the commander of the army. There are many thing like this that need to be considered. Thank you for your comment. Stephen |
Nadir Shah | 29 Aug 2014 10:48 p.m. PST |
The Hanoverian's, and Brunswick troops, after the disaster of 1756-7, were on the point of mutiny, especially the Brunswicker's.I am not sure they were bad troops during the early encounters, outnumbered and outmaneuvered by a strategically more adept French foe, certainly! However the Duke of Brunswick was a canny fox and took great care to blood the troops in controlled settings when he took over, thus allowing them to gain experience and confidence. By 1759, my personal opinion of the Hanoverian's were that they were solid troops as good and capable as any other nations regulars, with some extremely good regiments mixed in. |
GrenadierAZ | 30 Aug 2014 11:53 a.m. PST |
I've always rated the Hanoverians rather poorly. It just seems like they were the weak link in Ferdinand's army, although perhaps I am being too charitable to the British cavalry. |
summerfield | 30 Aug 2014 1:18 p.m. PST |
The Hanoverians were every bit as good as the British in the army according to my reading for me book on the army that will be available next year. The Allied army repeatedly defeated superior French and Saxon forces. Stephen |
seneffe | 04 Sep 2014 2:54 p.m. PST |
Schoenkoenig- you may benefit from a little more reading. May I suggest Savory as a start? It will help set you right on both points in your last post. |
GrenadierAZ | 06 Sep 2014 8:43 p.m. PST |
Sure; have a title by Savory on hand? |
seneffe | 07 Sep 2014 8:38 a.m. PST |
'His Britannic Majesty's Army in Germany during the Seven Years War' by Lt-Gen R Savory. Recently republished by 18thcenturypress.com. Generally acknowledged as the definitve work on the armies and campaigns in western Germany. |
crogge1757 | 10 Sep 2014 1:36 p.m. PST |
Well, this threads "minor" armies obviously refers to the multiple Germanic princes armies serving with either side of the belligerent nations. Often, they made up for what was known as the Reichsarmee then – i.e.The Roman Emperor's army. During the War of Austrian Succession, it included many that served in the Anti-French camp. A common proverb among that periods French military men would read that this army was made of the best as well as the worst troops of all Europe. The Hannoverian army certainly accounted to the former, rather than the latter as learned from experience between 1757-1762. |