"The First British Army, 1624-1628: The Army of the..." Topic

… Duke of Buckingham.

"The First British Army, 1624-1628. The Army of the Duke of Buckingham (Century of the Soldier) True, the concept of Britain dates back to Roman times, but it was James I that founded Britain in the modern sense. With his accession to the throne in 1603 for the first time Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland were united – with James bestowing on himself the title of 'King of Great Britain'. Before this time, Scots and Irishmen may have served in the English Army as mercenaries, but it was known as an English Army – but now the King s (or British) flag flew over the castles and forts throughout the land.

The army raised by Charles I in 1625 for his war against Spain -and subsequently, with France – is most famous for its failure. However, it is one of the best-documented armies of the early 17th century.

Using archival and archaeological evidence, the first half of the book covers the lives of the officers and men serving in the army at this time – as well as the women who accompanied them. The author discusses the origins of officers and why they decided to serve in the army – and how the men from England, Scotland and Ireland were recruited (as well as how they were clothed and what they ate; the medical care; and the tactics used by the army at this time). It also covers the hidden faction of tailors, armorers and merchants who helped to put the army into the field…"

Full review here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I have the book, and wrote a review for it on Amazon (the co.uk location). I rated it a 4 out of 5.

Pros: neglected subject, and author provides neat narrative of the armies of that time (officer corps, enlisted men, clothing, discipline), and of the expeditions of this time frame.
Cons: the definition of "army", and that of a "standing army", is not clearly given, and the author seems quite eager to make the claim for a "first British Army". In 1624 there were still three separate kingdoms, each with their own parliaments and laws.
He also doesn't see (or consider) difference between 'domestic' regiments, like the ones sent to Cadiz, and mercenary regiments, like the ones that served in the Low Countries. Thus calling the regiments sent to Sweden under the Marquis of Hamilton the "second British Army" is a bit superfluous.

kind regards, Wienand

I'll agree with the 'definition'problems….But it is full of interesting info on a neglected topic