The Story of the British Army

by Charles Cooper King

Of this Cutts, the colonel of a regiment of old time, it is said that “few considerable actions happened in the wars in which he was not, and hath been wounded in all the actions in which he served”; and again: “In that bull-dog courage which flinches from no danger, however terrible, he was unrivalled.” There was no difficulty in finding hardy volunteers, German, Dutch, and British, to go on a forlorn hope; but Cutts was the only man who appeared to consider such an expedition as a party of pleasure. He was so much at his ease in the hottest fire of the French batteries that his soldiers gave him the honourable name of “The Salamander.” He was a fighting man of the time; became baronet first, and was then raised to the peerage, and of him it was written—

“The warlike Cutts the welcome tidings brings,
The true, brave servant of the best of kings—
Cutts, whose known worth no herald need proclaim,
His wounds and his own worth can speak his fame.”

Still, with all that, he had not enough science to make a general.

During this period armour was still gradually being abandoned, though the cuirass was worn by mounted troops and to some extent by the officers of the line regiments. The beaver hats of the cavalry were lined with steel and the legs were protected by heavy jack-boots. The ranks of the infantry had been reduced to six, and were still further being lessened in depth. The companies, about 100 strong, still had, in 1680, 30 pikemen, 60 matchlock men, and 10 men armed with a light fusil to pick off conspicuous leaders; but three years later the English Guards were furnished with “snaphaunce” muskets, with flint, or pyrites, locks, and the bandoliers were replaced by pouches. In 1695, the king directed that the “cap” was to be worn by the Royal and Scots Fusiliers and the Grenadiers of each regiment. The others wore the three-cornered hat. The company was by then 60 strong, with only 14 pikemen, and the officers carried pikes, partisans, or half-pikes. Pikes were not entirely abandoned until about 1705.

The pay of the cavalry soldier was 1s. 6d. per day, out of which he had to keep his horse; that of the private was but 8d. per day. The cavalry regiments were organised in four squadrons, much as they are now, and were being armed with sword and pistol. The artillery alone were only partly organised as an “arm” of battle, and had made little progress save in construction from the time of the Civil War; but the necessity for military engineers had arisen, and Captain Burgh and Lieutenant Wallace remained “with the forces engaged in the siege of the castle (of Namur) in the capacity of engineers.”

But the growth of the permanent army had been steady. By the time Charles II. died, there were about 16,500 men enrolled, of whom about one-half were now regulars; in 1697 the total home and field army which has been variously estimated at from 80,000 to 65,000 men, had been again reduced—this time to what was liberally supposed to be the number on the English Establishment after Nimeguen, or about 10,000 men; but William’s proposal to permanently increase the army to 20,000 met with the greatest opposition. An amendment that the army in England should consist only of 7000 men, and those entirely British, was carried, and thus the Dutch guards of the king were disbanded, though apparently there were still some 12,000 men on the Irish Establishment and about 4000 on the Scotch, while there had been no objection to voting 15,000 men for the fleet. With this branch of our national defence there has always been greater liberality and less suspicion. This at least was mainly, if not entirely, defensive, was the absolutely necessary protector of our commerce, and could never have been a serious menace, so men seemed to think, to the peace or liberties of the realm. The amalgamation of the English and Scotch Establishments in 1707 had given precedence to the infantry in the case of the Royal Scots, but had placed the cavalry second, in the case of the Scots Greys, though they had been raised in 1681.

Still the army had much improved. The introduction of the first Mutiny Act in 1689, giving Parliamentary authority for officers to punish men for mutiny and desertion without reference to civil law, a power hitherto denied to them in Great Britain during peace, still further recognised the standing army as a constitutional force, besides the militia, which had been up to that time theoretically the only one; for it was not permanently paid or embodied. But before King William’s time the “method of voting men and money for the army annually had been introduced, to some extent.”

The distinguished gallantry of the men at Landen, Steinkirke, and Namur had called forth the reluctant admiration of foreign powers, and had converted this country into a power having Continental as well as insular interests:—“the English subaltern was inferior to no subaltern, and the English private soldier to no soldier in courage.” This criticism speaks for itself.

It is curious to notice how the political centre of gravity had changed. Before this time English armies had indeed fought Continental battles, but they were largely those in which only our real or fancied personal interests were concerned. Now, however, the English flag was to fly in causes alien to her own personal interests, and valuable only to the king and the country the king loved. For Holland first of all was really at the bottom of the “soldier king’s” action in leading the armies of Great Britain. His interests had always been Continental, and his personal influence, as well as other less important factors, was leading this country to assert herself and display her military value in his own national interest That William had some military skill is evident, but his action was rather that of a brave soldier than that of a great commander. By his own often reckless exposure, he aroused the spirits of his soldiery, and he did not fear to face danger, as Landen, where his clothes were several times pierced with bullets, proved. Yet, though apparently respected, he was little liked. The “asthmatic skeleton” who at Neerwinden “covered the slow retreat of England” had roused irritation among the officers. Dutch generals had been forced into high commands for which they showed no special capacity. Neither Schomberg nor Ginckel in Ireland had displayed marked ability; and Solmes at Steinkirke had evidenced an incomprehensible apathy in going to the help of Mackay’s British contingent; while, after Aughrim, when Ginckel had been raised to the peerage as Earl of Athlone, the veteran Mackay was left out in the cold. The British officers felt the incompetency of these foreign leaders, and also in the above battle that English soldiers had been sacrificed to save the Dutch Blues. The defeat at Neerwinden cost the army sixty-nine cannon and sixty standards. So often were Dutch and English colours captured in these early wars, that the Prince of Condé called King William the “Upholsterer of Nôtre Dame,” from the number of banners he had surrendered for the decoration of that building! The two medals for Landen, or Neerwinden, which the king struck, and which have the title “Invictissimus Guillemus Mag.,” have little significance, therefore. The men fought magnificently; the generalship was of no high order on the Allied side; and the results were meagre.

But if the officers cared little for the Dutch prince, the rank and file were not likely on their side to feel affection for a sovereign who introduced flogging into the army and keel-hauling into the navy. And, lastly, the cost of these wars, which were directly designed for the defence of Holland, cost this country some £33,000,000 of money and the establishment of a National Debt.