Battle of Wittstock 1636 Flashcards
Battle between Swedish army and coalition of Saxon & Imperial (HRE) forces. Lasted 2 days.
Took place in NE Brandenburgh (German state) in October 1636.
Part of the struggle for control of Germany by HRE Ferdinand II
Earlier Battle of Nordlingen (1634) (Swedish defeat) and Treaty of Prague (1635) gave HRE Ferdinand advantage against anti-Habsburgh powers (led by Sweden & France). Imperial-Saxon coalition expected to ‘finish off’ the Swedes.
Swedish army joined by Scots & German regiments making up ‘Army of the Weser’ commanded by Field Marshal Alexander Leslie. Only c. 1/3 Swedish army were Swedes or Finns.
Estimates of relative sizes of two armies conflict. Most usual puts Swedes with c. 15k and Imperialists with c. 22k
Battle was a Swedish victory but c. 7000 - 10,000 men died & many more injured/invalided.
Paper analyses 2 neglected Scottish accounts.
Historical background to Scots at Wittstock
Scotland & England often seen as unconcered with 30YW & if troops present - seen as mercenaries only. But such view is short-sighted.
Scotland’s contribution includes small scale involvement eg in Spain or Venice as well as better-known participation in Scandinavian or Dutch armies.
Some Scots did have mercenary motive, perhaps including Sir James Turner & Count Walter Leslie, but not primary motivation for all eg Robert Monro (sp?) or James Spens
Larger Scottish military migrations usually in support of political or religious causes & sponsored by Charles I during his reign. Privy Council records show many warrants issued for raising soldiers in king’s name.
Purposeo of troops was to support Charles I’s sister Elizabeth of Bohemia to regain her husband’s possessions in the Upper & Lower Palatinate. Same ambition shared by most commanders who left personal testimony (some equally concerned with defence of Protestantism, esp those in Dutch Scots Brigade)
C. 50k Scots were in anti-Habsburg forces. Several 1000 more on Imperial side.
Scots sought service when a given country took lead in a phase of conflict. Anticipating Sweden’s entry 12k Scots already in Swedish service by 1630.
Scots leaders were promient: 12 field marshals & generals, > 70 colonels, 50 lieutenant colonels and 8 admirals. Entire armies were under Scots command incl Swedish ‘Army of the Weser’ under Alexander Leslie.
Wittstock = possibly greatest impact of Scots troops
Swedish recruitment continued throughout 1630s. Several 1000 also sent to France (Catholic & Protestant).
From 1638 flow reversed with 1000s returning to fight in British Civil Wars. After that, smaller contingents did return to continent.
After Treaty of Westphalia, most Scots units merged or disbanded.
Historiography
Little critical analysis of battle in English to date (paper published 2012). Reason = failure to appreciate Scottish dimension in battle or understand Scots’ impact on outcome because of over-reliance on limited selection of battlefield reports which ignore voices of 2 out of 3 Swedish-side commanders on the day; Leslie and Lieutenant General James King.
Work of Hans Delbrück has been most prominent but he repeated pro-Imperialist contemporary accounts & missed Leslie & King’s reports. Others repeated his view without further research so appraisal of battle is partial, confused & lacking crucial details.
Secondary literature ignores role of Swedish particpants except Lieut-Gen Lennart Torstensson and Field Marshal Johan Banér. But they were together in same wing of army.
Delbrück mistakenly has Leslie in command only of 4000 ‘reinforcements’ rather than centre of army. Classic accounts include Leslie more prominently, but in the wrong position. Other accounts conflate people of same name (eg Ruthven, see p 78).
Scandinavian scholars have paid more attention to Scots commanders’ role but still with errors. Leslie’s role and army centre often absent.
Conflicting accounts…
Emerged immediately after the battle.
Not helped by distrust between James King and Johan Banér, Banér’s alleged jealousy of Alexander Leslie and Leslie & Banér’s distrust of Johan Vitzthum von Eckstädt.
Accounts agree about Swedish battle plan but differ about how plan played out.
Banér’s attack on the flank of the Saxon section the opposing force ran into trouble and only Leslie’s intervention from the centre saved the situation. Banér acknowledges Leslie’s help in a report to Queen Christina (p81). Leslie’s actions widely reported at the time and picked up in some histories.
But Leslie’s role is not mentioned in all accounts of the battle, even Scottish ones eg account to Leslie’s kinsman Sir Colin Campbell of Glenorchy doesn’t mention Leslie at all (why not?)
Even when Scots mentioned, significant discrepancies in contemporary accounts exist esp about role of King’s cavalry.
Banér says late arrival of James King’s horse caused him problems but also that they had little to do on day 1 of battle casting doubt on their contribution to the outcome.
James King’s own account is different. He claimed his cavalry along with Leslie’s infantry supporting Banér caused enemy’s initial retreat and so eventual Swedish breakthrough
According to King’s report:
» despite Banér’s orders to cease action as night fell, 2 of King’s regiments advanced & destroyed 3 enemy regiments.
» Banér’s reluctance to let King pursue the enemy, let them escape
Englishman Joseph Averie spoke directly with King, Leslie & Banér in the weeks after the battle. His account differs from Banér’s (is this true?).
Did Banér downplay King’s role to boost own reputation or was it genuine oversight?
Leslie gives two accounts of the battle (in German), both written 3 days afterwards & including an official report for Swedish Gov & one for his friend Chancellor & Regent Axel Oxenstierna which includes an attack on Leslie’s ‘enemies’ in the Swedish hierarchy.
Contemporary correspondence suggests Leslie was refering to Banér as being ‘viciously inclined’ towards him. (p 84 for extract). Averie also comments on Banér’s ill will towards Leslie and that Banér’s envy of Leslie was well-known before Wittstock.
Leslie was consistent supporter of James King & trusted him completely even when on opposite sides in British Civil Wars. Leslie’s and King’s report are consistent with each other but differ from Banér’s
These reports & other documents reinforce understanding of extent of Scots military command & highlight trust element.
Scottish commanders were:
» Field Marshall (Leslie)
» Lieutenant General (King)
» 2 major generals (Thomas Kerr & John Ruthven)
» 4 brigades or squadrons under Scots command & > 45 Scots officers spread through army.
» Elements of Army of the Weser located in each of the 4 sections of combined Swedish army rather than in single unit suggesting Leslie wanted people he trusts in each.
Surviving orders of battle show Leslie’s trusted men placed in key locations (p86)
Leslie’s & King’s accounts mention Major General John Ruthven but he is missing from Banér’s account.
According to Leslie & King, Ruthven was co-commander of main reserve under Lieutenant General Johan Vitzthum.
Ruthven served with Leslie from 1630. Married to Leslie’s daughter. Leslie’s son, Lieutenant Col Alexander Leslie ‘the younger’ also on the field ie men he trusted.
Vitzthum had reputation for being slow to commit to actions & of uncertain trustworthiness. He refused orders from both Banér and Leslie to commit the reserve troops to battle. Swedish State Council records reserves finally advanced against his orders, presumably on Ruthven’s orders & Vitzthum later faced treason allegations (p86)
Banér’s report says Vitzthum arrived too late. In his inaction means 3 out of 4 sections Swedish army were under Scottish command (centre, left wing & reserve).
Banér does ascribe final victory to their actions, particularly Leslie.
Further discrepancy in reports concerns what commanders wanted to do after victory.
Banér claimed Leslie wanted to stay with him and continue campaign but Leslie had already asked to leave Swedish service because Swedish Crown’s ambitions didn’t match Scottish aim to restore Palatinate for Elizabeth Stuart.
Nov 1636, Leslie reiterated support for Elizabeth & that he & James King disagreed with Banér’s handling of the campaign
Conclusion (p88)
Scottish commanders accounts agree with existing orthodoxy:
- support notion Swedes were outnumbered
- reiterate human dimension of the victory
Battle cost 1000s lives and many dead & wounded were Scots
After battle, many Scots officers returned to Scotland, some to recruit new levies, some to recover from wounds, others to retire
Leslie also returned briefly to Scotland after battle before going back to Sweden in 1638 seeking final decommissioning. He went back to Scotland to raise & lead Army of the Covenant against Charles I.
Leslie’s reputation as a commander earned respect, even from the king who he defeated, and got him an earldom (Leven).
But while he was absent from Sweden, his role at Wittstock was being diminished and Banér’s inflated, according to Riksråd (State council) records. In one version from Jan 1639, Leslie is omitted completely.
