Links to Seven Years' War Convention websites

Dear Readers,

As a result of changes in the Seven Years' War Association, I have taken over management of the web related materials for the Seven Years' War Convention. You can find the new Seven Years' War convention site at http://sywconvention.blogspot.com/, or you can follow us on Facebook. As a result, I will steer away from posting excessive SYW convention related material on this website. Rather, I will focus on the cultural and military history which you have come to expect from Kabinettskriege. 

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns 

Dogs in the Kabinettskriege Period

Charles Lee with one of his numerous dogs 

 Dear Reader,

Whether you are a good, loyal, dog loving person, or an evil, faithless, degenerate cat lover, you still want to hear more about animals in the Kabinettskriege period, right?

The fact of the matter is, dogs were loved in this period of history, much like they are today. At the Battle of Germantown, a fierce battle in the 1777 Philadelphia campaign, the American soldiers actually captured one of General William Howe's dogs, a fox terrier, (name, alas, unknown). The dog had followed Howe into battle, and in the confusion, retreated with the Americans instead of the British. Caroline Tiger has written a fascinating study of this incident. 

A recent study of dogs, gentlemanly conduct, and warfare

 Many Americans soldiers advocated taking the dog as a prize of war, or even charging it with being a spy. General Washington soon became aware of what was happening, and returned the pooch to his owner, with a friendly note, stating:

"General Washington's compliments to General Howe. He does himself the pleasure to return him a dog, which accidentally fell into his hands, and by the inscription on the Collar appears to belong to General Howe." [1]

Thus, Washington proved that he was a gentleman, and this incident left a profound effect on General Howe. Howe was far from the only dog lover in the Kabinettskriege period. General Charles Lee, a British and American soldier, was seldom seen without at least six dogs. General Washington had many dogs, and after the war, named one of them Cornwallis after the British general!

Frederick II of Prussia, working with his dogs

Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia also loved his greyhounds and whippets very much. While often spiky and unkind in human relationships, he always had a soft spot in his heart for animals. This might be a result of his childhood, where often pets were his only consolation when dealing with his menacing father. His favorite dog was Biche, a whippet who was given to him early in life. Much like General Howe's dog, she was captured by the Austrians during a battle. At the end of the war, the Austrians returned Biche to Frederick, and he cried tears of joy.

Later, when Biche passed away, Frederick wrote the following:

“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 

One of our modern-day "dog's of war"

However, like James Herriot, Frederick believed that it was important to always have animals in his life, and went on to have many other dogs. He loved dogs until the end of his days, as evidenced by his last words, “cover the dog, he is shivering.” Frederick’s love for dogs, (and other animals) shows us another side of his character, often missed by historians. Much like today, dogs were an essential part of life during the Kabinettskriege period.

If you enjoyed the post, feel free to share it.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns 

[1] Washington Papers, Washington to Howe, Oct. 6, 1777. 

Russian Expansion in the Kabinettskriege Era

Putin as Peter the Great

Russia has a long and complicated history with her eastern European neighbors. At the beginning of the Kabinettskriege era, in 1648, there was no reason to suspect that Russia would rise to the status of a European power. Indeed, in those days, there was no Russia, only the small state of Muscovy. All eyes were on Sweden. Her powerful army, and exceptional leadership, gave the Swedes control and domination of much of eastern Europe, particularly in the Baltic region. By the end of the Kabinettskriege era, Russia had displaced Sweden as the dominant power in eastern Europe, and was able to do this through a complex mix of factors.

Eastern Europe in the late 17th Century

Situation in 1648

Russia (Teal/Green) had a impressive territorial empire, but lacked strategic positions and resources. Russia also had a number of powerful enemies. The greatest of these, until 1721, was the Baltic empire of Sweden (pink). Another power opponent of Russian interests was the Ottoman empire (brown), and the Ottoman empire's client state, the Crimean Khanate (bright green). Directly to Muscovy's west, the Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth possessed much territory, but was showing signs of decline.

Muscovy itself had a number of problems. Muscovy had recent emerged from the time of troubles, a disastrous  period in Russian history, which saw much instability. The Russians had also managed to survive a series of long wars against the Mongols, but the army which defeated the Mongols was now outdated. In order make Russia into a great power state, the Russians needed: 1). A stronger army 2). powerful, skillful leadership, 3) and divided and weakened states in the rest of eastern Europe. By 1789, the end of the Kabinettskriege period, Russia would achieve all of these goals, and join the ranks of the European great powers.

Figurines of 17th Century Russian Streltsy

1). Reforming the Military
Until the turn of the eighteenth century, Russian military life was dominated by the type of soldier you see above, Streltsy. These soldiers were state of the art in 1550s, but by the 1650s, had begun to show their age. In order to join the ranks of European great powers, the Russians needed to reform their military along European lines.

They adopted the flintlock musket, as opposed to the primitive matchlock used by the Streltsy, and began to dress in French and German military fashion. For most of the Kabienttskriege era, the Russian military was one of the best in the world. By 1709, the time of the cataclysmic Battle of Poltava, the Russian army began to look a bit more like this:

Early 18th Century Russian Soldiers

Peter I of Russia, "the Great"

 2). Effective Leadership

The Russian army was modernized by a man who was not a masterful tactician, but a great leader: Peter I of Russia. He lost battles in the Great Northern War, but kept Russia in the fight when his allies deserted him. He was often a brutal leader, but his methods produced results. It was his influence, more than any other factor, which led Russia to embrace a distinctly European way of life and thinking.

He had other, very effective rulers follow him as well. Both Elizabeth Petranova, his daughter, and Katherine the Great of Russia followed in his mold of making Russia a first rate European power. Under Elizabeth, the Russians defeated Frederick the Great's Prussia in the Seven Years' War, and Prussia only survived this disastrous war by tenaciously hanging in the fight until Elizabeth's death in 1762.

Katherine the Great in military dress

 3). Weakened Neighbors in Eastern Europe

The Russians were able to achieve spectacular success, because of their great army and leadership, but also because of their diplomatic choices and options. Throughout the eighteenth century, Russia was able to isolate specific enemies, and destroy them in detail. This began with the Great Northern War in 1700, and would continue throughout the eighteenth century. In the Great Northern War, Russia was able to isolate Sweden, and attack it, in an alliance with Denmark and Poland.  This war was successful and Sweden's empire was dismantled. However, this achieved a dual purpose. In the course of the war, Poland was also weakened, both economically and militarily. This would lead to the partitions of Poland, later in the eighteenth century, where Russia, Prussia, and Austria would claim large swaths of Polish territory.

Another example of this is the Russian conflict with the Ottoman empire. The Russians used their common Christianity with the Austrians to gain powerful allies, and force the Ottomans to fight a two-front war. Many of the smaller states in eastern Europe, such as Courland or the Crimean Khanate, were snapped up in times of crisis, when larger powers were too busy to intervene.

 Practical Application Today

At first glance, it might seem as though Putin is a "new" Peter the Great, as the picture at the top implies. However, there are a number of historical differences which actually work in favor of the EU and their allies. First- in the twenty-first century, it is much more noticeable when large countries annex smaller ones, thanks to instantaneous communications, social networks, etc.

Second, Putin may be a charismatic strongman, and a capable strategic leader. His diplomatic maneuvering shows some skill, and his handling of the 2008 South Ossestia war show that he has the potential to force opponents to make mistakes, and back down. With that being said, he is no Peter the Great. While he may be attempting to revitalize the Russian armed forces, those forces are still years away from matching and exceeding first world armies, such as the United States, or even France and Germany. The fact that the dispute is happening in Russia's back yard, Ukraine, indicates that despite the saber rattling, NATO and their allies have Moscow on the back foot.

Third,  the Russian army, unlike the Russian army of the eighteenth century, is badly in need of reform. However, the Ukrainian forces they would be fighting are not much better off. With that being said, Russia should worry about more than just Ukraine, should it choose to invade. While the United States might not intervene, other powers, such as Poland, Lithuania, and the Baltic States, will certainly not take Ukrainian annexation lying down.

This brings us to the fourth and final point: Europe is not divided. This is not 1914. This is not 1938. The entire continent of Europe condemns what Moscow is doing, and should Moscow attempt the total annexation of Ukraine, will act to protect European interests. The Poles, particularly, will fight to keep independence.


Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

Ukraine in the Kabinettskriege Era

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire by IIjam Repin

Dear Reader,

Today, we are faced with a crisis in the Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine have a long and complicated history. The origins of Russian civilization are found in the region which today encompasses Ukraine. Kyivan Rus' was the oldest great civilization the Russian sphere, and it was located close to modern Kiev. So, as a result of this crisis, we are going to look at the relationship between Russia and Ukraine in the 1648-1789 period.

Eastern Europe in 1648

 Oddly enough, in 1648, Russia was not in control of Ukraine. The Ottoman Empire and the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth controlled the area we think of as modern Ukraine today. You can see Kiev on the Dnieper. However, in 1648, on the eve of the Kabinettkriege era, the Cossacks who lived in Ukraine began to fight a war of independence.

Box art from Zvezda 

In 1648, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky led the Zaporozhian Cossack host in a war of independence against the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Zaporozhian means, "the land beyond the rapids," or in this case, the fields of modern central Ukraine. These men fought for an independence against Polish domination, with the goal of creating a Cossack Hetmanate in Ukraine.

This began a period in Polish history known as the Deluge, in which Poland was repeatedly overrun by more powerful neighbors. The Cossacks succeeded in breaking Ukraine away from the Poles, but they failed to consolidate power effectively, and sought support from outside the Ukraine. After Khmelnytsky died, the Cossacks lost vision, and failed to finish their independence movement. The Cossacks fiercely resisted any influence from the Ottoman empire, and were caught in a larger struggle between east and west. Russia and Sweden were battling for control of the Baltic world, and the Cossacks of Ukraine became entangled in that struggle.

Adam Mazepa and Karl XII of Sweden

In the early 18th century, the struggle between Sweden and Russia reached a breaking point, and the decisive battle of that conflict, Poltava, was actually fought just east of Kiev, in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Cossack leader, Adam Mezepa, sided with the Swedes, in an effort to defeat Peter I of Russia. Thus, even in the eighteenth century, Ukraine was torn between the east and west. Mazepa and Karl XII of Sweden were defeated at Poltava, and Mazepa died soon afterwards.

This defeat ended the Swedish alliance, and brought Ukraine back into the Russian sphere of influence. Throughout the eighteenth century, the Zaporozhian Cossacks loyally served the Russian crown, and fought in all of the major Russian wars. Cossacks lived a free life, so serfs from neighboring areas often fled to Ukraine in order to become free.

In 1775, Catherine II of Russia disbanded the Zaporozhian host, "for their deeds and insolence of disobeying the will of our Imperial Majesty." Russian military units moved in, and disbanded the Cossack way of life. Cossacks were incorporated directly into the Russian military units, and an independent Ukraine became a thing of the past.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

Battle of Helsingborg, 28th February, 1710

Magnus Stenbock vid Helsingborg by Gustaf Cederstroem

Dear Reader,

Today, we are going to take a moment to remember a significant event in the Great Northern War. As I stated in the post on this Kabinettskriege era war, the Great Northern War is divided into 3 large phases: 1700 to 1709, 1709-1718, and 1718-1722. Today, we are going to look at the Battle of Helsingborg, which occurred on February 28th 1710, according to the Swedish calendar.

This battle was the first major field battle in this war since the Battle of Poltava in 1709. In the Battle of Poltava, the Swedish army was totally defeated by a restructured Russian army under Peter I of Russia. I would recommend everyone read Swedish historian Peter Englund's book, The Battle Which Shook Europe, as he is both a great historian, and a great writer.

This battle occurred not between Sweden and Russia, but between Sweden and Denmark. The Danes had been invaded and knocked out of the war very early on, but with the defeat of Karl XII of Sweden at Poltava, they broke their treaty and resumed the attack. In October of 1709, they reoccupied Helsingborg and other cities in the region. They desperately wanted to reclaim Skåne, the southern portion of Sweden, which they had lost to the Swedes in the 17th century. You may know this area of Sweden, as it is the setting of the famous, "Wallander" series by Swedish author Henning Mankell. (Ystad is just off the map to the right.)  Magnus Stenbock, the leader of the Swedish forces in the king Karll XII's absence, realized that he could not defeat the Danes with the small number of soldiers he had (around 1,500 to the Danes 14,000) and withdrew to raise more forces.

The Attack at Helsingborg

By February, Stenbock had raised enough troops to stand a chance against the Danes. This is one of the battles of the Kabinettskriege period where the number of soldiers on each side was almost exactly equal, around 14,000 men each. The one difference here, is that the Swedish had slightly more cavalry, while the Danes had more infantry. While some military historians might immediately assume that this was to the advantage of the Swedes, (after all, Hannibal used his mounted arm to great effect,) it is equally fair to say that infantry is useful as well- see the Battle of Mollwitz, 1740.

Initial Deployment

Stenbock prepared to attack the Danish forces around Helsingborg, which was one of the larger cities in Skåne. The Danish commander, Jorgen Rantzau, expected the Swedes to attack from the northwest, along the Angelsholms road, but Stenbock, using a heavy fog as cover, shifted north and attacked along the Kulla road. Rantzau, seeing that his left flank was exposed, quickly shifted his army and reinforced this trouble spot.

Battle is joined

The Swedes advanced to the attack, and the cavalry on the Swedish left immediately engaged the Danes. The Karoliner possessed some of the finest cavalry in the world, and as a result, quickly got the better of their Danish opponents.

Danish Collapse

The Swedes also attacked with their infantry in the center, and finally their right wing cavalry. The Danish put up a good fight, better than the Saxons at Fraustadt, but their cavalry was unable to best the Swedes, leading to a collapse on the Danish right, which eventually panicked and routed the Danish army. The Danish lost 1,500 killed,  3,500 wounded, and 2,677 captured, or just over 50% losses. The Swedes on the other hand, lost 897 killed, and 2,098 wounded, or around 20% losses. The unusually large Danish loss (by Kabinettskriege standards) can be attributed to the high ration of Swedish cavalry, which effectively pursued the Danes.

Magnus Stenbock i Mälmo, by Gustaf Cederstroem

This battle revitalized Swedish belief in their cause, and Stenbock would go on to win another victory at Gadebusch in Germany. This would prolong the war, dragging it out to the bitter end in 1722, when having been horribly defeated by Russia, Sweden surrendered. However, when looked at in another sense, Helsingborg gave us the Sweden we have today. As recently as 1658, Skåne had been under the control of Denmark, and if Stenbock had lost at Helsingborg, Denmark would have likely received Skåne in the peace settlement of the Great Northern War. However, because of this victory, Skåne remained part of Sweden, up to the present day.

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge

Patriot Militia fire on the oncoming Scots Loyalists

Dear Reader,

Today, February 27th,  is the anniversary of the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge, a combat between to militias during the American Revolutionary War. In this battle, around 800 loyalist militiamen, (mostly Scotsmen loyal to the crown) faced around 1,000 patriot militiamen near Wilmington North Carolina.

Many of the Scottish loyalists did not have muskets, being armed with the traditional highland broadsword. The Scots attempted to charge a defensive line set up by the patriots, and they were met with a barrage of musket fire, leading to the death and capture of several loyalist officers.

The death of their leaders led to the dispersal of the loyalist forces, securing North Carolina until 1780. This is one of the last instances of the famous "highland charge" which dominated Scottish military tactics in the Kabinettskriege era.

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

What is the use of digital history?

Dear Reader,


Today, at the Indiana Wesleyan Social Science lunch table, there was very interesting discussion about the value of digital history, and the digital forum and blogosphere in general. A number of good objections were raised, along the lines of  J.R.R. Tolkien's response to C.S. Lewis being, "every man's theologian." With the invention of the internet, anyone can write their opinion on any subject, and publish it in a digital format.

I am a graduate student in history, and I endeavor to post on my subject field- the transatlantic world in the early modern period. However, some would argue, that through by-passing the peer-review process, my work on Kabinettskriege is not helpful, and might be dangerous.

I have published articles in the standard way, but I am interested in writing Kabinettskriege for different reasons. In the modern academic setting, certain subjects are neglected, for very good reasons. Tactical military history, so long the focus of historians, has been discarded for the New Military History. (Which is not a bad thing, in my opinion.)

However, in the absence of interested peer-reviewed journals, is it truly harmful to use the internet as a medium for this type of history?

Should I reconstruct Kabinettskriege along more formal lines, using footnotes and sources?

If any historians have thoughts, I would love to hear them.


Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

War Songs in the Kabinettskriege Era

The best known Kriegsleider of the 18th Century: Der Choral von Leuthen

As any soldier will tell you, the portions of soldierly life which get focused on in the movies (battles, hard marches, etc..) make up about 2% of the actual life of a soldier. This was equally true in the Kabinettskriege  era. However, like today, soldiers found things to occupy their time, and calm their nerves in face of impending danger. 

One of the most easily traceable pastimes of soldiers in the eighteenth century are the songs which they sung in camp and on the march. Different cultures sung different types of music at different times, and for different reasons. 

The most famous eighteenth century soldier's song is likely the Der Choral von Leuthen, a religious hymn, sung by the Prussian army as they departed the battlefield of Leuthen, on December 5, 1757.  This song, the Lutheran hymn, Nun Danket Alle Gott, was the subject of a film made during the Nazi period. While most of the film is not worth seeing, the actual scenes depicting the soldiers singing are quite haunting. 

Here are the English lyrics: (note, the English lyrics are not a direct German translation, but the version sung in American Lutheran churches.) 

English: 

Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers’ arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.

O may this bounteous God through all our life be near us,
With ever joyful hearts and blessèd peace to cheer us;
And keep us in His grace, and guide us when perplexed;
And free us from all ills, in this world and the next!

All praise and thanks to God the Father now be given;
The Son and Him Who reigns with Them in highest Heaven;
The one eternal God, whom earth and Heaven adore;
For thus it was, is now, and shall be evermore.

As you can see, this is a perfect hymn to be sung on the march after a victorious battle. It is a hymn of thanksgiving. Many soldiers in the eighteenth century sang religious songs, but they also concentrated on song which discussed their way of life. In Germany, a popular song was Prinz Eugen Der Edle Ritter or, Prince Eugene, the noble knight, which discussed the victory of Prinz Eugen von Savoy over the Ottomans at Belgrade on August 17, 1717. Since the lyrics are in the song, I will not list them. 

This song, popular with the Austrians, celebrates a great victory of one of the greatest Austrian generals of the Kabinettskriege era.  However, not all soldiers songs in this period focused on the protection of God or the skill of a general. Some even seem to protest warfare as harmful. 

These two songs, sung by modern band, are a take on two traditional eighteenth century soldiers songs. The first song, which discusses the somewhat questionable recruiting practices of the day, still emphasizes the benefits of military life: "a scarlet coat, a fine cocked hat, a musket at your shoulder," in addition to pay. 

The second song discusses the difficulties of family and military life. The young man, (mostly likely an officer if he could afford to buy his lady a horse), is called away to fight the king's war in "High Germany." This term describes Germany between the Danube and the Alps. This indicates that the war in question is either the War of Spanish Succession or the War of Austrian Succession, when conflict ranged into that part of Germany.  Both of these songs portrayed warfare in a negative light, as destructive, and harmful, but were still sung by soldiers, often as a way of protesting the hardships of their profession. 

Soldiers sang about things that mattered to them- God, victories, and the hardships of their way of life. Soldier's songs formed an important part of the social bonds which held eighteenth century armies together, and are worth listening to every now and again. 

Thanks for Reading! 

Alex Burns 

Siege of Minorca, 1782

St. Philip's Fortress (Castillo de San Felipe)

Dear Reader,

Today we are going to examine the capture of Minorca, one of the substantial victories of the French and Spanish forces in the global war which surrounded the American War of Independence.   France and Spain were soundly defeated in the Seven Years' War, and both began to prepare for the eventual rematch. The opportunity came earlier than expected with the rebellion of Britain's American colonies. The French and Spanish had several goals, including 1). Retaking Gibraltar. 2) Capturing Pensacola and retaking Florida. 3). Retaking Minorca, 4). Assisting the rebel colonists 5). Capturing Jamaica and other British possessions in the west Indies.  

Location of Minorca (Modern spelling of Menorca on Map) 

By late 1779, Spanish and French strategists realized that they were performing poorly in the attempt to capture Gibraltar, and, as a result, began to operate against different British positions. The Duc de Crillon planned a campaign against Minorca, a island and powerful naval base which the British had first taken in 1708, during the War of Spanish Succession. The French captured it in 1756, but it was returned to British control as a result of the numerous other British victories in the Seven Years' War. 

Upon landing on the island with overwhelming numbers in late august of 1781, the French and Spanish began to undertake the long, complicated process of besieging the principle fortress on the island. This required digging trenches and erecting a series of artillery batteries to destroy the fortress' cannons, in preparation for an assault by infantry. In most cases of eighteenth century sieges, assaults did not occur, as the defending general would surrender when the walls were breached. This practice saved the lives of both attacking and defending soldiers. 

The Franco-Spanish Siege Batteries are in Yellow. 

The French and Spanish quickly silenced the outer ring of defenses, and forced the British garrison to withdraw inside the citadel. While the British were able to continue resisting for some time, the French and Spanish mortars destroyed their supply of meat. This also prevented the soldiers from growing vegetables, a vital part of a soldierly diet in the eighteenth century. This lead to the garrison suffering from scurvy, a dental disease, which greatly weakened their ability to defend the fortress. 

By late January 1781, the number of healthy soldiers in the garrison had dropped from 3,000 to around 600. This meant that the British could no longer fully man the defenses, making the fortress vulnerable to a sudden assault. The British surrendered on French surrendered on February 5th, 1781, and the Spanish retained control of the island for the rest of the eighteenth century. 

This action is a splendid example of two aspects of the late eighteenth century strategies of the French and Spanish. First, like the British, they managed to master the art of amphibious operations, that is, the use of naval power and armies in conjunction.  Second, this siege is an example of the French and Spanish strategy of spreading the British thin throughout the world. While the Spanish and French were not able to take Gibraltar, they defeated the British in Florida, Minorca, and greatly aided the fledgling United States. 

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns 

Taking of Saint Eustatius

The British Take Sait. Eustatius, February 3rd, 1781.

Dear Reader,

Today we are going to look at the taking of Caribbean island of Saint Eustatius, by British forces, on February 3rd, 1781. This is part of the global war which surrounded the American War of Independence.
This tiny Caribbean island, which was under nominal Dutch control, was the first power to recognize the independence of the United States.

When a visiting American ship, the Andrew Doria, fired a salute, Dutch commander Johannes de Graaff returned the salute from the cannons of Fort Oranje. This historic salute occurred on the 16th of November, 1776.  This was the first time a European commander recognized the independence of the American colonies. Master historian Barbra Tuchman mentions this event in her book, The First Salute: A View of the American Revolution. 

Johannes de Graaff

In addition to recognition, St. Eustatius also provided the American colonies with Dutch money and weapons. This was one of the major reasons for the Fourth Anglo-Dutch war, part of the global war surrounding the American War of Independence. The anniversary we are remembering today is part of that Anglo-Dutch War. On February 3rd, 1781, an massive English fleet attacked St. Eustatius, and Commander de Graaff surrendered the island and his fortress after a token resistance. St. Eustatius was also home to a Jewish community, which the British, under Admiral George Rodney, forced to leave the colony.

The British did not take St. Eustatius for long, and the French recovered the island, and returned it to its Dutch masters by 1784.

Thanks for Reading,


Alex Burns

47 Ronin

Ronin Samurai

Dear Reader,

Today, we are taking a moment to pause and celebrate one of the most enduring stories of heroism in Japanese culture. It occurred, today, January 30th, in 1703: 311 years ago.  It was retold in a recent movie released around Christmas. This story, the story of the Forty Seven Ronin, is one greatest examples in Japanese history of bushido, or samurai culture.

Essentially, the story is one of loyalty to a deceased lord. When Lord Asano was forced to committed suicide because he was bullied into striking his etiquette teacher, his retainers were forbidden to seek vengeance. The etiquette teacher was a powerful nobleman, with many guards, who suspected that these samurai would attempt to avenge their lord's honor.

Upon the death of their lord, the retainers became Ronin, or samurai with no master. These 47 Ronin waited for over a year, until the nobleman who had caused the death of their lord dismissed many of his guards. Then, on Tuesday, January 30th, 1703, they attacked his palace, and killed him. The Ronin knew that even if they succeeded, the penalty for their actions would be death, but they proceeded with the plan.

The gravesite of the Ronin

In the end, they were forced to committed ritual suicide to atone for their actions, but they earned immortality within the bushido code for their actions. While many debate the, "honor" of their decision to disobey a command not to take vengeance, all respect their courage.  You can still visit the graves of these warriors in Tokyo today.

Thanks for Reading,



Alex Burns

Journal of the Seven Years' War Association

Front cover of issue XVIII no. 1. 

Dear Readers,

Today I wanted to link to a journal which publishes work on the late Kabinettskriege era. This is somewhat self-serving, as I published an article with them last year, and I have another one coming up in March. If you like this blog, you will really enjoy the Journal of the Seven Years' War Association. It has book reviews, articles on eighteenth century warfare, and information on upcoming conferences and conventions!

Check it out at: http://www.sevenyearswarassn.org/

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

Book Review: Warfare in the Seventeenth Century

Cover Art 

Dear Readers,

Today I am reviewing John Childs' Warfare in the Seventeenth Century. This book provides an excellent introduction to the period, at least in terms of European conflict. It fails to provide a good comparison with non-European styles of warfare, but Childs does not set out to provide a definitive global history. Rather, warfare and tactics in Europe interest him the most. The Ottoman Empire is as close to non-European history as the book attempts.

On the plus side, Childs gives an excellent discussion of 17th century warfare. While he continues to argue his thesis from Armies and Warfare in Europe: 1648-1789: that the Kabinettskriege era did not see any real changes from the Thirty Years' War, he has retreated from some of his more outlandish claims. When attempting to say that warfare just as cruel towards civilians, he prefaces his sentences with, "Perhaps."

As one would expect of a book directed by the Smithsonian, there are a huge number of wonderful pictures and artwork throughout the book, including some excellent maps. Childs covers the Thirty Years' War in great detail, discusses the English Civil War, and gives Vauban and Coehorn their due. He concludes with a discussion of the Wars of Louis XIV, and how warfare changed in the later half of the 17th century.

Despite the cover art showing the Raid on the Medway, the book lacks any real naval information. The Anglo-Dutch Wars have been given short shrift. It appears, then, that a better title of this volume might be: Land Warfare in Europe in the Seventeenth Century. That would give a better picture as to the focus of the book, and allow potential buyers to make a more informed decision.

However, this book does go into much greater detail about European warfare than Jeremy Black's contribution to the same series, Warfare in the Eighteenth Century. As opposed to Black's whirlwind tour throughout space, geography and time, Child's focuses on what he knows, and give the best possible book for beginners on European land warfare in this period.

Thanks for Reading,

Alexander Burns

New American Revolution Series

"Turn"

Dear Reader,

So today, I wanted to share a trailer for a new show about the American Revolution. Here it is.


I can't say that I am super excited. This goes back to the the problem of good and evil, and heroes and villains in history.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

A sign of things to come:

Dear Readers,

So after reading Jeremy Black's Warfare in the Eighteenth Century, I have decided that the content of this blog is very Euro-centric. This is not necessarily a problem- after all, the goal of the blog is the examine the Kabinettskriege era- an era which is specific to European and American warfare. However, for the sake of completeness, I think that it might be important to cover non-western methods of warfare.

I will attempt to do this over the course of the next few weeks, as well as review John Child's and Jeremy Black's contributions to the Cassell History of Warfare series.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

Frederick II, "the Great" of Prussia as a military commander

A Flute Concert at Sanssoucci 

Dear Reader,


Few figures in the Kabinettskriege era have attracted so much attention as Frederick II of Prussia. He has been the subject of numerous biographies, and his actions changed the face of European power dynamics. If I was to recommend one biography, it would have to be that of German historian Gerhard Ritter. It is available both in the original German, and in English.  However, many have tried to give their take on the life of this, "Great Man."

Thomas Carlyle, a biographer and pseudo-historian of the nineteenth century wrote a massive biography of Frederick. Carlyle believed that Frederick's choices had changed the course of history, and that he was a, "Great Man." Needless to say, Carlyle downplayed Frederick's more feminine qualities, such as his love of the French language, his flute playing, and his possible homosexuality.

In the most recent monograph on the Seven Years' War, Franz Szabo's The Seven Years' War in Europe, Szabo demonizes Frederick. In Szabo's opinion, Frederick was, "an opportunist and risk taker, dressed in the veneer of an intellectual, but at root, a heartless killer." He lambasts Frederick's dental hygiene,  flute playing ability, and poetry. He rightly points out that Frederick lost half of the major battles during the Seven Years' War, and uses this as evidence that Frederick was a poor commander.

The Prussian army won all the battles of the War of Austrian Succession, and won a string of victories at both the beginning and end of the Seven Years' War. Frederick was involved in many of these battles, but he was not exclusively responsible the victories or defeats. Szabo's greatest fault is that he attributes all Prussian victories to other leaders, while the defeats are Frederick's sole responsibility.

Friedrich und seine Generale

One of Frederick's greatest talents was his ability to see talent in others. In addition to being a capable military commander, Frederick surrounded himself with excellent military men, who served him well, even when his judgement was in error. Schwerin saved the day at Mollwitz, and Seydlitz won the victory at Rossbach.

Frederick had expansionist designs for his kingdom: that is, he was willing to fight wars with his neighbors to expand his territory. However, Peter I of Russia and Louis XIV of France also fought expansionist wars: it was a normal activity for kings in the Kabinettskriege era.

As the debate concerning Frederick and his "greatness" continues into the 21st century, I would like to see more emphasis placed on the actions and decisions of Frederick's generals, who have stood in the shadow of their king for too long. In addition, as opposed to examining Frederick's great victories such as Rossbach, Hohenfriedburg and Leuthen, and his defeates, such as Kolin and Kunersdorf, I believe we should pay more attention to his middling battles, such as Chotusitz, Soor, Lobositz, Prague, Burkersdorf, and Torgau. Finally, while this post has focused on Frederick as a military commander, we should also examine Frederick's "greatness," in non-military matters.

What do you think of Frederick II? Let us know in the comments below.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

2014 Seven Years' War Convention

Dear Readers,


Today I am doing a promotion for the 2014 Seven Years' War convention. This year will feature a presentation from Dr. Christopher Duffy, and potentially, a presentation from Ken Bunger about Seven Years' War battlefields today.  The convention will be located at its usually place at South Bend, Indiana over the 28th and 29th of March.


If you are interested in hearing a great historian speak, looking at a number of book vendors, or playing in a wargame, this is the convention for you! The Duffy lecture and the book retailers are always my favorite part. You can often find out of print books dealing with Kabinettskriege era warfare.

If you want more information- let me know in the comments. I highly recommend the convention for anyone who enjoys this blog.  Here are some links to past events:

http://kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2013/04/games-at-seven-years-war-convention.html

http://kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2013/04/duffys-lecture.html

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

On the water: Does the Kabinettskriege period have anything to do with Naval Warfare?

Kabinettskriege Era Landing Craft from the Art Gallery of Ontario

Dear Readers,

Today, I wanted to take a look at something that I've been thinking about for a while. You are reading a blog entitled Kabinettskriege, which is a term that covers land warfare from 1648-1789.  But does this period really have anything to do with naval warfare? After all, doesn't the Age of Sail last from the Battle of Lepanto (1571) to about 1850? Surely the Kabinetskriege period only holds up on land?

After doing a bit of digging, I seem to have found some evidence that naval warfare was distinct during the Kabinettskriege era. I would not say that this term should replace, the age of sail, but that it should be viewed as a subcategory of this larger period. After all, the Kabinettskriege period on land is a subset of the larger, "horse and musket," age, which lasted from about 1550 to 1865. Let me explain why I think that the Kabinettskriege era, (1648-1789) could be used on sea, as well as on land.

In the lower portion of this picture, you can see two opposing fleets in line of battle

The first large battles between ships of the line occurred between 1639-1653, or, close to the end of the Thirty Years' War. In fact, the term, "ships of the line," refers to these large ships' place within the "line of battle," which was a evolving concept in this time period. By the end of the Thirty Years' War, two opposing fleets would attempt to approach each-other in a line, and fire as they passed the opposing fleet. This development, the line of battle, forms the beginning of the Kabinettskriege era at sea. This was the basis of Kabinettskriege era naval warfare. In the eighteenth century, this led to many naval battles without decisive outcomes.

From 1648 to the 1780s, there were not many large tactical changes. Technology progressed, with the introduction of the carronade and the flintlock cannon. However, there were not many radical changes in large fleet actions. The two sides formed line of battle until one side fled. Much like warfare on land, sea battles in the Kabinettskriege era were not designed with annihilating the opponent in mind. Rather, they were designed to create a system were one side to slightly higher causalities, and then withdrew.

Battle of Trafalgar, 1805

Toward the end of the 18th century, in the Global Eight Years' War, and French Revolutionary Wars, this changed. Lord Nelson, and other British commanders began advocating for a more one-on-one style of combat, where British naval superiority could have a more decisive effect.  Note the distinct lack of battle-lines in the map of the Battle of Trafalgar above. By the French Revolutionary Wars, some forward thinking British commanders were beginning to advocate for battles such as the above, which relied on breaking the enemy line and engaging in single ship actions. While some naval battles in the French Revolutionary Wars employed the linear formation, it was going out of style by this time.

Thus, at sea, there is a good reason to use the Kabinettskriege period. It marks when the line of battle was going into favor, and falling into disuse.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns

Cold in the Kabinettskriege period

Continental Army in the Snow

Dear Reader,

As we brace for cold temperatures across much of the Midwest, I would like to remember another winter, which occurred during the Kabinettskriege era. While most of American readers probably jump to the winter at Valley Forge, which was very cold, I am actually talking about the, "Great Frost," of 1709.

A frozen lagoon in Venice during the 1708-1709 winter

During this winter, the canals of Venice froze, the cold caused a famine in France which killed 600,000 people, and many recorded that it was the coldest winter in living memory.

Swedish Karoliner attack during the winter

For soldiers, this cold winter put a freeze on operations. Karl XII of Sweden was campaigning against Russia, and his army was faced with the brunt of the cold. Lieutenant Lyths, one of the the Swedish soldiers, gave the following description in his diary:

“It was a great sorrow to behold the poor men, who were frozen by means of the slow march. Indeed, many a cavalrymen and dragoon sat frozen to death still on their horses. The day after, which was the 24^th of December, the companies were surveyed, and each had 25 or 26 men found frozen, and regrettably, this forced the amputation of hands, legs and feet. There was more sorrow and sadness than one could believe. Frozen birds fell to the earth, smaller livestock, such as chickens and geese, likewise lay dead in their outbuildings from the cold. We also could not protect our horses from the cold, and many fell.
Blessed be the Lord my God, who has brought me warmly through so many dangers. Blessed be my God, in both good and bad times, in all times. Indeed, Eternal glory , thanks, and praise to my God, full of grace, goodness and mercy. To me, the proof is now evident that the day of my death is swift approaching. So, I ask you, my God, with a humble heart, full of grace, send your peace and blessing to me, remain with me, and allow me to abide with you forever. Oh my Lord God, hear and grant me this, for the sake of Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Amen, Amen." 

This shows the extreme cold that the Karoliner experienced, as well as the deep religious devotion which drove them to carry on. The Swedish army was weakened by the cold, and this contributed to their decisive defeat at the Battle of Poltava during the following summer.  Cold was difficult for many armies in the Kabinettskriege era, but usually the Russians and the Swedish were able to carry out difficult winter operations. However, the Great Frost of 1709 proved to difficult for the Swedish army.

Stay warm- and thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

Review: Bill Potter's Bayonets! Heroes, Villians and Character Lessons from the American War of Independence

Audiobook Cover

Dear Readers,

For Christmas, my wonderful fiancee purchased a copy Vision Forum historian Bill Potter's Bayonets! Heroes, Villians, and Character Lessons from the American War of Independence. This audio book is a series of lectures about the American War of Independence, using specific scenarios to impart lessons to homeschooling children. The audio book- no longer in production due to the collapse of Vision Forum- is still available on Amazon. 

First of all- let me say how surprised I was by the good quality of Potter's lectures. His discussion of the military aspects of the American War of Independence is quite excellent. I was expecting 1776-style propaganda concerning the Subsidientruppen ("Hessians") who were involved, but Mr. Potter demonstrates that they were competent professionals, even if he does make glaring generalities about, "the German mindset," throughout, and compares Hessian tactics with those of the Germans in World War 2.

Mr. Potter often describes the role of, "providence," in his lectures. He asserts that God ordained the various facets of the American War of Independence. This leads to an age old question- does God pick sides in war? Mr. Potter cites the wounding of James Monroe, and the presence of an able surgeon to the will of God. However, this begs the question- if God wanted to spare Monroe, could he not have directed the bullet some place else? Many nations throughout history have attempted state that God was on their side- even the German soldiers during World War 2  had the inscription, "Gott Mit Uns," (God with Us) on their belt buckles. As a historian, regardless of my personal beliefs, I would be extremely wary of making the claim that God supported or caused an event.

Women do not seem to figure into Mr. Potter's calculations, with the exception of Benedict Arnold's second wife, apparently a, "Jezebel," who according to Potter, led him away from God and the American cause. White men are featured prominently- and this product could be seen as an attempt to teach history as it was in the late 19th century. G.A. Henty would be most pleased, my dear lads.

There are other minor, more humorous mistakes, such as the claim that Freiherr von Steuben died in the Battle of Camden (or Brandywine, I can't remember). Contrary to this, Steuben lived to a ripe old age, and George Washington's last act as commander and chief  was to grant him a pension.

I would hesitantly recommend this product for ages 10-15, with the caveats that I have mentioned above. If used in conjunction with a more modern textbook, it could be very useful as a fun anecdotal supplement.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns