Empire: Total War Heaven

Excellent article I must say! I can see you spent a long time on this. I salute you, sir!

A well written article, congratulations. However I still cannot quite grasp the inbred family line of the subhuman Hapsburgs (neither could I before).

Edit: Darwin rules surpreme!

[This message has been edited by Basilis (edited 04-21-2009 @ 01:38 PM).]

Excellent article! Thanks for sharing with us.

I second that. Very well done, informative, analytical, and an enjoyable read as well!

A well written article, congratulations. However I still cannot quite grasp the inbred family line of the subhuman Hapsburgs (neither could I before).

Actually the Ancient Egyptians used to do that too. Cleopatra married her 11 year old brother when her father died on the throne.

Good for the younger brother because Cleopatra was beautiful, not so great for Cleopatra which why I'm not surprised when a few years later the little man was killed by the Romans led by Caesar.

Yes, Hellenic occupation resumed the pharaohs' habits, including inbreeding.

Thanks everyone! (and especially Kor for uploading the article).

A well written article, congratulations. However I still cannot quite grasp the inbred family line of the subhuman Hapsburgs (neither could I before).

I was tossing up whether or not to include the seriously-pruned family tree of Charles II (you can see it on Wikipedia here). In the end, though, I had too many illustrations as it is, and it isn’t that important (all the essential details are in my own little family tree). It’s fascinating to look at, though.

Also, I’m looking out for errors and things. Here’s a few mistakes, unclear points or other observations I’ve picked up on since I wrote the article -

“Upon [Charles V’s] death, his empire had been split between his descendants...”

Charles’ son Philip (of Spanish Armada fame) had inherited the Spanish Empire from his father, but the Austrian lands and Imperial Crown actually passed to Charles’ younger brother, Ferdinand.

“The Holy Roman Emperor was notionally elected by the rulers of the German states (the Electors) from among Princes who ruled lands within the Empire's traditional borders (Germany, Northern Italy, the Netherlands and parts of France and Eastern Europe)...”

The Holy Roman Empire did traditionally cover this area, but by 1700 the Electors were all German. Indeed, I found it virtually impossible to determine where, exactly, the Imperial border was at the time of the War of the Spanish Succession given the fracturing of the Empire following the Treaty of Westphalia – the line I drew on the map is (to be generous to myself) an approximation or (to be a bit less so) an educated guess.

“[Louis XIV] had already expanded France eastward into Imperial lands using guile, bribery and outright conquest...”

Louis actually bought Dunkirk from England for £320,000 (the English had captured it off the Spanish in 1657). So while he did buy second-hand Imperial real estate, I have no evidence that he actually bought lands in Germany. His tactics there were somewhat less subtle (for example, he waited until Austria was fighting for her life against the Turks and then waltzed an army into Strasbourg).

“In five weeks, Marlborough had put over 100,000 allied soldiers between Tallard and Vienna...”

The numbers don’t add up any other way, but I’m not sure how Marlborough could have bought 100,000 men into Bavaria yet had only 52,000 at the battle. He would have needed to use troops to secure his supply lines back to the Rhine and into Franconia, and some of his soldiers would have been sent with Baden, but I can’t see how this could amount to half his army. It’s possible that French sources that give the numbers of the Allied army as being around 70,000 are more correct, but Creasy, Churchill and Spencer all seem confident in the 50,000-55,000 range, and they seem to be able to produce the Order of Battle details to back it up.

“On Eugene's side, Danish, Prussian and Imperial Infantry under General Scholten and the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau would attack Lutzingen...”

Anyone else found the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau in ETW?

“Despite his own desperate situation, Eugene complied instantly. Marsin saw them approach, and was forced to abandon his proposed attack to wheel and meet them.”

I still can’t figure out where the Marsin-Fugger cavalry battle actually took place (that’s why I didn’t draw it on the map). One of them must have crossed the Nebel at some point, but which? The sources seem to imply it was Marsin, and that part of the reason he was driven back was that his squadrons were not yet back in good order after the crossing, but why would he have crossed the river and not charged into the flank of the Allied infantry already across? Or, if that was his plan (as I’m inclined to believe, and as I actually wrote in the article) why bother to cross the river to meet Fugger rather than let him have to cross? It seems to make more sense that Marsin had crossed the river between Lutzingen and Oberlgau when he attacked the wavering right wing of the allied army and wheeled right. But that raises its own set of questions – why did he go right (towards his own Irish troops) and not left (towards the flank of the wavering Allied right)? And if he did go left, why did Marlborough need to request Eugene to release Fugger rather than let Eugene handle the problem himself?

“He probably overstates the case, but it is very likely that, had Tallard won through at Blenheim, he would have taken Vienna, and France would have won the War of the Spanish Succession and become the most powerful state in Western Europe since the Empire of Charlemagne.”

Would it? A question for the ‘Not so decisive after all’ thread.

Great article, read it with much enjoyment over breakfast.

[This message has been edited by Hawkeye84 (edited 04-21-2009 @ 10:05 PM).]

Disclaimer: to all you actual historians out there, please correct any inaccuracies or blatant blunders.

Now that's done, I'd like to address
“In five weeks, Marlborough had put over 100,000 allied soldiers between Tallard and Vienna...”
The numbers don’t add up any other way, but I’m not sure how Marlborough could have bought 100,000 men into Bavaria yet had only 52,000 at the battle.

You've put down the discrepency of 48000 down to some inaccuracy in one of the two numbers. I was wondering if it might be possible that they are both accurate?

Firstly, attrition would have played a minor but not insignificant part, what with disease and desertion (arguably, fewer soldiers desert when victorious and on the offensive).

Secondly, this was a stage where seiges played a major part in European warfare, and so forts were vitally important, and for every stronghold that he seized or moved away from, he would have needed a garrison, or some small holding force, before moving on. Slowly but surely reducing his numbers.

Thirdly, could you be underestimating the troops which are forced to be tied up in securing supply lines? I think during Napoleon's occupation of Spain more half his army wasn't anywhere near Portugal/Wellesley. I'm guessing that the number of partisans opposing Marlborough would have been less, but Marlborough was fairly meticulous with supplying his men, and protecting that supply (as any successful general has had to have been, if not quite as obsessive as the Duke of Wellington)

Quoted from bdf101:

You've put down the discrepency of 48000 down to some inaccuracy in one of the two numbers. I was wondering if it might be possible that they are both accurate?

Firstly, attrition would have played a minor but not insignificant part, what with disease and desertion (arguably, fewer soldiers desert when victorious and on the offensive).

Secondly, this was a stage where seiges played a major part in European warfare, and so forts were vitally important, and for every stronghold that he seized or moved away from, he would have needed a garrison, or some small holding force, before moving on. Slowly but surely reducing his numbers.

Thirdly, could you be underestimating the troops which are forced to be tied up in securing supply lines? I think during Napoleon's occupation of Spain more half his army wasn't anywhere near Portugal/Wellesley. I'm guessing that the number of partisans opposing Marlborough would have been less, but Marlborough was fairly meticulous with supplying his men, and protecting that supply (as any successful general has had to have been, if not quite as obsessive as the Duke of Wellington)

Those are good points, and they’re the most likely explanation I can think of (assuming both figures are accurate).

That said, I’m not satisfied that they can account for Marlborough having only half as many men at the battle as he bought into Bavaria. He must have known the battle would be decisive and could determine the fate of the war and the Grand Alliance, so surely he would have pulled together all the troops he could spare.

There would have been attrition, but Marlborough was famous for keeping up discipline and morale in his ranks, and keeping his troops well-supplied. His march from the Low Countries to the Danube is remarkable by the standards of time not only for its speed and distance but for the fact that virtually the entire army reached its destination. I can’t see him losing thousands of men actually in Bavaria.

As to second point, I’m not aware that the allies needed to garrison any fortresses other than Dillingen in order to maintain their Danube crossing. Baden had been sent to take another one with a force of unspecified size, but I can’t see it numbering in the tens of thousands (not when everyone knew of the importance of the upcoming battle).

Nor can I see how the supply lines into Franconia would have needed tens of thousands of men to maintain. They were, in fact, quite weak and vulnerable, one of the reasons why Marlborough wanted to bring Tallard to battle as quickly as possible. Certainly he wasn’t trying to maintain an occupation at that stage like Napoleon in Spain. More importantly, I can’t account for the fact that virtually the entire Franco-Bavarian Army was there – the combined forces of Tallard, Marsin and the Elector’s field army. If they didn’t need thousands upon thousands of men to maintain supply lines, why did Marlborough?

Quoted from Lord Morningstar:

“The Holy Roman Emperor was notionally elected by the rulers of the German states (the Electors) from among Princes who ruled lands within the Empire's traditional borders (Germany, Northern Italy, the Netherlands and parts of France and Eastern Europe)...”

The Holy Roman Empire did traditionally cover this area, but by 1700 the Electors were all German. Indeed, I found it virtually impossible to determine where, exactly, the Imperial border was at the time of the War of the Spanish Succession given the fracturing of the Empire following the Treaty of Westphalia – the line I drew on the map is (to be generous to myself) an approximation or (to be a bit less so) an educated guess.

With Westphalia/Münster the borders of the empire were redrawn. The Dutch Republic was excluded from it, Belgium was still part of it but this was only the case in name, as the territory belonged, until 1714, to the Spanish Habsburgs (afterwards to the Austrian Habsburgs). Switzerland was also excluded from the Empire after 1648. I'd say your border is pretty accurate, although I see no reason why Italy would be excluded. Afaik Northern Italy was still firmly Imperial at this time. Savoy was also officially a part of the Empire.

Quoted from Lord Morningstar:

The numbers don’t add up any other way, but I’m not sure how Marlborough could have bought 100,000 men into Bavaria yet had only 52,000 at the battle.

John A. Lynn, the leading historian on the army of Louis XIV, describes the numbers thus:
20 000 starting out, growing to 40 000 with the Hanoverians, Prussians, Danes, and Hessians; at Launsheim they rendezvoused with 40 000 troops of Louis of Baden. At Ulm there were 10 000 troops under Styrum, at Vienna 20 000 further Austrians. Eugene stayed behind with 28 000 in the lines of Stollhofen to guard the Rhine. Later, Eugene hurried back to Marlborough with about 70% of his cavalry and 30% of his infantry (he left the rest behind). On 7 August, Louis of Baden left Marlborough's army to besiege Ingollstadt with 15 000 men. Lynn gives the forces of Eugene and Marlborough together as 56 000. So there were 100 000 troops between Tallard and Vienna, just some were on garrisoning/protection duty (this probably includes the 10 000 at Ulm and Vienna) and Louis of Baden's departure and Eugene's garrisoning of the lines of Stollhofen further depleted the allied strength. Only a small part were available or probably even intended for campaigning. This is a very much shortened description based on John A. Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV 1667-1714 (Harlow 1999).
Incidentally, garrisoning forces could often be huge. In the Austrian Succession War the Dutch also had 100 000 troops under arms, yet the allied army (which also included British and Austrians) at the battle of Lafelt only numbered 60 000 men, because it needed to account for potentially unexpected manoeuvres (and thus most countries had two armies on the border) and also because of garrisoning (Maastricht alone had 12 000 men within its walls in 1747, although this was an exceptionally large number).

(Incidentally, Overkirk would be more properly called Nassau-Ouwerkerk - unfortunately the British historians of the 18th century weren't very good at spelling foreign names, and their successors haven't bothered to fix strange and frankly confusing aberrations like these.)

Just read this. Very good article, Lord Morningstar. Well written and thorough.

Quoted from Lord Morningstar:

“The Holy Roman Emperor was notionally elected by the rulers of the German states (the Electors) from among Princes who ruled lands within the Empire's traditional borders (Germany, Northern Italy, the Netherlands and parts of France and Eastern Europe)...”

The Holy Roman Empire did traditionally cover this area, but by 1700 the Electors were all German. Indeed, I found it virtually impossible to determine where, exactly, the Imperial border was at the time of the War of the Spanish Succession given the fracturing of the Empire following the Treaty of Westphalia – the line I drew on the map is (to be generous to myself) an approximation or (to be a bit less so) an educated guess.

Quoted from Kor:

With Westphalia/Münster the borders of the empire were redrawn. The Dutch Republic was excluded from it, Belgium was still part of it but this was only the case in name, as the territory belonged, until 1714, to the Spanish Habsburgs (afterwards to the Austrian Habsburgs). Switzerland was also excluded from the Empire after 1648. I'd say your border is pretty accurate, although I see no reason why Italy would be excluded. Afaik Northern Italy was still firmly Imperial at this time. Savoy was also officially a part of the Empire.

Funnily enough my original version of that map includes Northern Italy (and I even say it was part of the Empire in the article).

I included Alsace and Lorraine as being 'traditionally' part of the Empire - I guess at the time they would have been considered disputed.

Quoted from Kor:

John A. Lynn, the leading historian on the army of Louis XIV, describes the numbers thus:
20 000 starting out, growing to 40 000 with the Hanoverians, Prussians, Danes, and Hessians; at Launsheim they rendezvoused with 40 000 troops of Louis of Baden. At Ulm there were 10 000 troops under Styrum, at Vienna 20 000 further Austrians. Eugene stayed behind with 28 000 in the lines of Stollhofen to guard the Rhine. Later, Eugene hurried back to Marlborough with about 70% of his cavalry and 30% of his infantry (he left the rest behind). On 7 August, Louis of Baden left Marlborough's army to besiege Ingollstadt with 15 000 men. Lynn gives the forces of Eugene and Marlborough together as 56 000. So there were 100 000 troops between Tallard and Vienna, just some were on garrisoning/protection duty (this probably includes the 10 000 at Ulm and Vienna) and Louis of Baden's departure and Eugene's garrisoning of the lines of Stollhofen further depleted the allied strength. Only a small part were available or probably even intended for campaigning. This is a very much shortened description based on John A. Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV 1667-1714 (Harlow 1999).
Incidentally, garrisoning forces could often be huge. In the Austrian Succession War the Dutch also had 100 000 troops under arms, yet the allied army (which also included British and Austrians) at the battle of Lafelt only numbered 60 000 men, because it needed to account for potentially unexpected manoeuvres (and thus most countries had two armies on the border) and also because of garrisoning (Maastricht alone had 12 000 men within its walls in 1747, although this was an exceptionally large number).

That makes sense.

I had originally written a little about Eugene’s manoeuvres, but in the end it came across as a bit confusing and not important enough to warrant trying to explain with more words or another map. Plus it interrupted the dramatic flow of the story .

Quoted from Kor:

(Incidentally, Overkirk would be more properly called Nassau-Ouwerkerk - unfortunately the British historians of the 18th century weren't very good at spelling foreign names, and their successors haven't bothered to fix strange and frankly confusing aberrations like these.)

I saw at least one other spelling of his name in a few sources (can't remember exactly how it went, although it had a 'q' or two in it). I believe Creasy may have used it, but I don’t have his book handy. In the end, I used the one that most of my sources used (as a native English speaker) and that appeared on the map I pilfered.

As a side note, for those more interested in ancient history, I’ve also written articles a while back on the First Punic War and Second Punic War (although they are not illustrated).

Nice one. I just finished a paper on France c. 1650-1800, shame I finished it a couple of days before this came out, I did a fair bit on Blenheim. And I bump the Habsburg thing, I got very confused about the Hispano-Austrian inbred family.