Book Review: Ramillies 1706

Ramillies, by Michael McNally, is not a recent book from Osprey Publishing, but I purchased it relatively recently and felt reviewing it would be fine. Published in 2014, this book recounts the Duke of Marlborough’s victory over a Franco-Spanish-Bavarian force in the Flanders campaign of the War of Spanish Succession. “Marlborough’s tactical masterpiece” according to the subtitle, is arguably more important than the 1704 Battle of Blenheim since Ramillies effectively destroyed all resistance of Bourbon forces in the Low Countries in a spectacular battle with wonderful tactics by Marlborough’s Allied force.

Image result for ramillies osprey


McNally does a fantastic job with the ORBAT in this book, listing the origins of each regiment in the battle and the number of battalions. Each brigade and division lists the number of troops in the formation as well as divisional and brigade commanders. The illustrations by Sean O’Brogain are wonderful and very dynamic, showing all aspects of the battle and are placed very appropriately in accordance with the text. Sometimes Osprey doesn’t do this well, but it is spot on with Ramillies. The pictures always show what is going on during the battle and reflect specific events talked about, like the routing Bourbon right or the wounding of James Gardiner. There are some very nice prints put in the book as well as some really nice photographs of the Ramillies battlefield. The maps in this book are very well done too.


The chronology section is lacking and quite complex, so I was dissapointed in that. The book also makes a big deal out of the battlefield being less flat than you’d expect, but the maps are still really flat. It’s just contradicting. Apart from that, there really aren’t any problems with this.

I enjoyed this book, especially since I don’t know too much about the War of Spanish Succession. Osprey does a good job with this one, and McNally also does a good job, especially with the order of battle. There’s a lot of interesting tactics and descriptions of the contrasting styles of warfare from the French and Allied forces.

Rating: 4.5/5

Also, if you want to see the illustrator, Sean O’Brogain, travelling around Ramillies, please visit his blog here.


Matchlocks versus Flintlocks

The turn of the 18th century brought an end to the era of matchlock muskets and the flintlock arrived to reign for over 100 years. Most historians accept the fact that the flintlock was a vastly superior weapon, but how much of an edge did the musket really have?

First let’s look at the basic concept of the matchlock musket. Matchlocks evolved throughout multiple wars, but the first of them were operated by a lever. The lever would trigger the pin with attached match cord to move down and light the powder in the pan. Later, matchlocks developed to have a trigger. The muskets were usually at the shoulder of the musketeer, measuring 140 cm (4’5). To load a matchlock, you would pour some powder in the pan, close the pan and blow off the loose powder, pour powder and ball down the barrel, ram the charge, light the match, and fire. The process would usually take a minute for inexperienced musketeers, but many could fire twice per minute.

Image result for matchlock musket drill
Part of a 17th century French drill manual on firing a matchlock musket

Now let’s look at the flintlock. The flintlock operated with a simple system with a hammer, frizzen, and pan. The musket was similar in length and weight to a matchlock and were used in the latter 17th century and continued to be used throughout the 18th century and even through the Napoleonic Wars, ending in 1815. Loading a flintlock was easy to learn for common infantrymen. The soldier would pour some powder into the pan and close the frizzen over it. Then, he would charge the musket by pouring the ball and powder into the barrel from a cartridge. The bullet would be rammed and then he would pull back the hammer. The flint would strike the pan and spark the powder, firing the musket.

Many would label the flintlock as the superior weapon immediately since it clearly arrived on the battlefield after the development of matchlock muskets. However, the flintlock did not have much of an edge at all. Loading times were staggeringly similar. Trained musketeers in the 1680s and 90s fired flintlocks in 30 seconds, just two seconds less than the average time to fire a matchlock (according to John Tincey in Osprey MAA 267). The weight and lengths of these muskets were comparably the same, too. Both weapons would frequently misfire due to problems with their pans and damp powder would not fire from either musket. Many musketeers continued to use the matchlock into the very early 18th century. So why was it replaced?

Image result for battle of blenheim
British musketeers at Blenheim, 1704 – The War of Spanish Succession was the first war in which the matchlock truly was replaced on the battlefield. It was still used, however, by some Russians in the Great Northern War.

Matchlock musketeers carried their powder in wooden cartridges slung around their shoulders, nicknamed ‘apostles.’ Musketballs were carried in a pouch, and powder for their pans was in a horn. Including this, the musketeer had wadding in a separate pouch. These were very fiddly to operate, and would waste time. In the heat of battle, a musketeer may forget which ‘apostle’ he used and may forget wadding, causing a muzzle flash but no shot. Musketeers in the flintlock-era solved this problem by using paper cartridges, which were quicker to load and more effective. Flintlock muskets also had the ability to attach bayonets to them. The plug bayonet could be used by matchlocks, but this prevented firing, and many matchlock musketeers relied on swords or their regiment’s pikemen to defend them. Socket and plug bayonets were more common for the flintlock, and when Louis XIV first introduced the socket bayonet, it was exclusive to flintlock muskets. Flintlocks also removed the problems with matchcords, which would fizzle out on many occasions and cause uncoordinated firing from companies. Flintlocks were perfect for volleys and therefore suited the evolving style of European armies.

Related image
The pan of a matchlock musket

The advantage is taken by the flintlock thanks to technological advances away from the musket itself. When presented head-to-head, these muskets were not much different from one another. Mass production in the Industrial Revolution played a large role in the flintlock overtaking the matchlock as the primary weapon on the battlefield, as well as the disappearance of pikes and the evolution of the Marlburian-Era tactics.

Book Review: Fontenoy 1745

Osprey Publishing’s recent release, Fontenoy 1745, retells the story of the War of Austrian Succession’s most famous battle. An Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian force commanded by the Duke of Cumberland came face to face with Marechal de Saxe’s French forces in the small Belgian town of Fontenoy, just outside Tournai. Written by Michael McNally and illustrated by Sean O’Brogain, this book opens up a near-forgotten war in Europe’s history.

Image result for fontenoy 1745
Osprey Publishing’s new book: Fontenoy 1745

Praise: Cumberland’s tactical errors are pointed out bluntly, and rightfully so. The book makes its statements of how the Anglo-Dutch forces were uninformed and very strong-willed to their plans. Saxe’s flexibility and use of multiple columns is depicted in a few maps and really shows what a complex network the French general made. There are also reconstructed uniforms in the book of many units of interest such as the Mousquetaires du Roi of the French army. On-site photographs are always great, but McNally manages to capture the correct weather too. His misty pictures clearly show how hard it was for the early-morning attacks troops made. Osprey Publishing always do a good introduction to a topic, and the War of Austrian Succession is covered briefly and provides a solution to any confusion one may have about what the British or the French fighting in Belgium has to do with the Austrian throne.

Image result for fontenoy 1745
British and French Guards clash at Fontenoy

Criticism: The two battle maps in the book felt boxy too me. While 18th century warfare was very rigid in its structure, the maps feel odd and seem to exaggerate the number of troops on the field with huge blocks of infantry. The illustrations could also have been placed better in the book, as you find a picture of the French Irish Brigade about 10 pages after you hear about their attack.

The War of Austrian Succession is mostly overlooked, but it still remains a very important war. Maria Theresa kept her claims to the throne, and it eventually led to the Seven Years’ War. Saxe’s strategies influenced Napoleon Bonaparte later in the early 19th century. Seeing the British defeat as an opportunity, the Jacobite Rebellion sprang up in Scotland. While the Battle of Fontenoy was 3 years before the end of the war, it remains a turning point, and a remarkable French victory over the British, Hanoverians, and Dutch.

Rating: 4/5