Duke of Marlborough vs. Charles XII

Who wins in a battle between the Duke of Marlborough and Charles XII

  • The Duke of Marlborough

    Votes: 18 48.6%
  • Charles XII

    Votes: 17 45.9%
  • Draw

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37

Anaxagoras

Banned
Who wins in a battle between the Duke of Marlborough and Charles XII of Sweden? Assumke each commands 50,000 infantry, 7,500 cavalry and 100 cannon.
 
Voting for the Duke. Charles had some very good soldiers but does seem to have been rather reckless, not to mention lacking in concentration when it came to logistics and supply, which was one of Churchill's [this one anyway:)] stronger suites.

Steve
 
Hard to say. Depends really on when the battle is fought. 1700-1709, the Swedish army was probably the best trained in Europe. After 1709, the Swedish infantry and cavalry declined sharply in quality due to large casualties in Livland and at Poltava - even so, the quality of the infrastructure producing more men was fairly good, although it needed time to produce troops of the same quality as the pre-war ones.

After 1709, Cronstedt reformed the Swedish artillery. Already advanced for its time, the regimental guns became better organised, lighter, more manouvrable and had a rate of fire 8 times that of a musket, and could fire 30-32 musket balls, something that contributed to the victory against Denmark and Saxony at Gadebusch 9th of December 1712 (at a time when Sweden should be on the ropes, fighting Poland, Saxony, Prussia, Bremen, Hannover, Great Britain, Denmark-Norway and Russia at the same time).

The Swedish army of the time was almost incapable of defence, it was completely organised around the offence, a big weakness in some instances, a great advantage in others. The Swedish basic unit, the battalion, had 2/3 musketeers and 1/3 pikemen, something abolished in the English/British army of the era. This gave the Swedes an advantage in close combat and against cavalry, but a disadvantage in shoot-outs.

The Swedish tactic was to fire two salvoes at 20 and 10 paces and then charge. Discipline was very good and unit cohesion even better. Routs at a large scale was almost unheard of during the time. The infantry had the ability to keep formation and silence under heavy enemy fire as they aproached, something that often unnerved their musket-armed opponents (Saxons, Danes and Prussians, as well as mercenaries in service of the Poles and Russians).

However, if the Swedish infantry bounced from their charge, they were in a dire situation as retreat under fire, formation changes etc were not drilled at all (IIRC).

The Swedish cavalry was also very offensive, aiming to cut-in at the enemy cavalry and drive them from the battlefield. They rode in a tight V formation knee behind knee with rapiers extended in front of them to break enemy caracolling cavalry, something they did VERY well. Pistols were for extended melees, not for caracolling, something which was expressively forbidden. They rode sturdy, hardy and small horses used to the cold climate and with a stamina for long pursuits. Driving the enemy cavalry away and keeping them away, then returning to help the infantry crush the enemy main battleline was the objective.

The situation is hard to determine. Marlborough was very smart, if he has been fighting the Swedes for a few years, or been with someone who has, he can probably design a deep defence like the Russians did at Poltava and let the Swedes come to him and win by superior fire, but if he has not, I suspect he will want room to manouvre and line up in the normal European tactic of the time, eating massive Swedish grape shot and getting charged hard.

So, if it is the first time they meet, Karl XII wins, if Marlborough has fought the Swedes before, or at least studied their tactics very well, he wins.
 
Oh, it is releveant. They threw grenades into the enemy ranks just before the charge, when the musketeers fired their second salvo at 10 paces.
 
The Swedish battalion was 600 men, with 200 pikemen, 360 musketeers and 40 grenadiers (equipped with muskets and grenades).

The Swedish Grenadiers used a hand grenade of iron, led or glass, about 10cm across and weighting 3 pounds.

uni_i_m_m1706a.jpg

Grenadier.

uni_i_m_m1706b.jpg

Musketeer.

uni_i_m_m1706d.jpg

Pikeman in combat position.

Here's an image of a typical Swedish grenade from the time.
http://www.edu.linkoping.se/Berzelius/Vapen/granat.html
 
Did they really used caracole in the early 1700s? If they did the Karolin cavalry would have been far superior using "Svenska maneret"
 
Infantry
The British forces of the time used platoon fire volleys, as was very common in the European armies of the time. The Swedish army proved able to handle Russian, Saxonian and Danish armies as well as mercenaries using this system, at least early war. Sweden used cadenced marching and could because their troops were very well disciplined and trained, AFAIK, no other nation did so during the time-frame, which means battlefield manouvre of battalion scale units and discipline under fire is going to be a lot better in the Swedish army.

The Swedish advantage is better discipline and organisation, integrated grenadiers and extensive training (and pikes too) for melee combat. The disadvantage is no training for defence, little training or organisation for anything but offence. If the war has dragged on, the quality of Swedish troops will go down too. 1700-1709 Swedish infantry can probably beat British infantry head on, since the British will be unfamiliar with the Swedish offence. Later than that the British superior fire will trash the Swedish infantry (when quality went down, offensive capability did too, and the number of pikes steadily went down from 1/3 in 1700). The Swedes were not strangers to the idea of concentrating their attack on a few points in a line, as they did at Narva 1700, letting several echelons of battalions advance, in essence sacrificing the first to enemy fire, but having one or two fresh ones behind it do the charge, thus breaking the enemy line and rolling it up from the flanks.

My analysis, the British are superior in fire and defence, but will come short in a melee. The Swedes are suprior in tactical mobility. The longer the war has lasted, the more superior the British infantry will become.

Cavalry
The British used trot-fire-charge for their cavalry, while the Swedes charged immediately and used their pistols in the melee instead of before it. British cavalry was high quality and offensive and had doen away with any caracoll-like manouvres during the time. Swedish cavalry had smaller horses with better stamina and a tighter formation, but British cavalry probably had better immediate charge due to larger and stronger horses. I'd rate Swedish and British cavalry fairly equal - in a long fight, the Swedes might have more troops in the melee due to better stamina on the horses, in a short the heavier British horses might carry the day. The Brits are probably better as Dragoons and taking defensive measures, while the Swedish V-shaped squadron is tighter and allows for a more compact charge against enemy infantry.

Artillery
Here's the main Swedish advantage. The use of gesvinda shot (powder and shot packed together) meant that the Swedish artillery could shoot at 6-8 times the rate of a musket. From 1711-1712, Cronstedt also introduced gesvinda shot for different ranges and not just shrapnel. The Swedish 3# regimental guns (usually 2-4 per regiment, or 1-2 per battalion) were lighter and much more mobile than any other guns. During this time period, many other nations deployed their artillery and had it deployed - moving it tactically was cumbersome and took a lot of time, and required the artillery to be protected by screens of cavalry and infantry. The Swedish guns were lighter, and in 1711-1712 Cronstedt introduced anmarschbommar, a bar on each side of the gun meaning that artillerymen could push their piece forwards with the muzzle towards the enemy themselves. An easy two-horse gear that allowed tactical movement of the gun with the muzzle towards the enemy was also introduced. The horses could be disconnected from the gun in seconds and the gun could be fired with the bars attached without problems. Both systems could be used at the same time and gave Swedish light artillery a superior mobility towards any other nation's artillery at the time.

The Swedish artillerymen were professional volunteers in full-time service, giving the artillery a high quality.

My analysis is that the Swedish artillery is superior to its British equilent of the time.

My bottom line analysis is as before, only wordier. ;)

If Marlborough, who is a very smart and talented General, ahs studied the Swedish system, he'll go for infantry firepower and use forts and reduits like the Russians did at Poltava 1709 and win easily. If he has not met the Swedes before, and goes line against line in an open battle, he will lose.
 
Top