WI: Lennart Torstensson VS William Cadogan

WI: Lennart Torstensson VS William Cadogan

  • Torstensson wins

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Cadogan wins

    Votes: 5 83.3%
  • Tie

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
WI: Lennart Torstensson VS William Cadogan


The right hand men of their respective Generals, Lennart Torstensson served Swedish King Gustavas Adolphus and William Cadogan served British General John Churchill Duke Marlborough. The Size of forces is towards the bottom of the page.

Lennart Torstensson was given command of the Swedish artillery by King Gustavas Adolphus in 1629. Lennart Torstensson proved to be an invaluable subordinate throughout Adolphus’s campaigns. After the king’s death at the Battle of Lutzen in 1632, Torstensson filled the void and became a leading figure in the Swedish army. By 1642 he was commanding his own armies and in 1645 won the Battle of Jankau, which was one of the last battles of the Thirty Years War. One other thing to note about Torstensson is that after 1642 he has trouble walking due to some form of arthritis and has to be carried around most of the time.


William Cadogan, the great John Churchill Duke of Marlborough’s loyal subordinate and one of Britain’s ablest generals. Initially appointed quartermaster general, he helped to organize the march down the Danube and the decisive Battle of Blenheim. Later, in 1706, as commander of the 1st Foot Guards and Malbrough’s vanguard Cadogan preformed splendidly. His reconnaissance missions, pre battle planning, and brilliant maneuvers helped to ensure victory for British forces at the battles of Ramillies and Oudenarde. Personally brave he was wounded a number of times throughout the war. Overall Cadogan helped to ensure that his friend and commander Marlborough never lost a battle. One weakness he may have is that he was never given the opportunity to command a large force in the field; even so I’m positive he would have excelled at it.


Lennart Torstensson: Swedish army of the 1640’s
12,000 infantry, 3,500 cavalry, 90 guns


William Cadogan: British army of the early 1700’s
13,000 infantry, 3,800 cavalry, 66 guns


Who wins in this battle of the subordinates?

Source

Commanders by R.G. Grant
Battle by R.G. Grant
 
Last edited:
Sixty years of development should mean a lot in these circumstances, so the English probably have the advantage when it comes to firepower.

On the other hand, the Swedes were using a large proportion of pikes successfully around 1700, before they were abolished in 1720, so the more archaic weaponry in Torstensson's force might not necessarily be a complete disadvantage, although his great success was as an artillery chief.
 
Sixty years of development should mean a lot in these circumstances, so the English probably have the advantage when it comes to firepower.

On the other hand, the Swedes were using a large proportion of pikes successfully around 1700, before they were abolished in 1720, so the more archaic weaponry in Torstensson's force might not necessarily be a complete disadvantage, although his great success was as an artillery chief.

Yeah the pikes would be okay and maybe even competive especially if some of the British units are still armed with Plug Bayonets, we see how those worked out at the Battle of Killiecrankie. I know that the British were using the Plug up until 1690's and since this battle takes place with an early 1700's British army its possible they may still be used. The French didn't adopt the modern bayonet until a few years into the War of Spanish Succesion, so i imagine the British did about the same thing.
 
Does Torstensson know what he is in for? The fire discipline of the British troops alone could be decisive if the Swedes are unprepared for it.
 
Would it not be more interesting with Rehnsköld against Cadogan?

yeah, if was doing an early 1700's army Vs early 1700's army he would be a good choice. I was going for the troops of the last war, The Thirty Years War, Vs troops of the next war, The War of Spanish Succesion, and trying to determine if they stood a chance. :)
 
Lennart Torstensson was given command of the Swedish artillery by King Gustavas Adolphus in 1629. Lennart Torstensson proved to be an invaluable subordinate throughout Adolphus’s campaigns. After the king’s death at the Battle of Lutzen in 1832, Torstensson filled the void and became a leading figure in the Swedish army.

There's no denial that the end of King Gustav II Adolf's 221 year-reign left quite a void to fill.. :p;)

But seriously, I'm gonna go for the British. What with the numbers being slightly better on the British side, and though I know nothing of artillery, I assume that early 18th century should beat the mid-17th century.
 
There's no denial that the end of King Gustav II Adolf's 221 year-reign left quite a void to fill.. :p;)

But seriously, I'm gonna go for the British. What with the numbers being slightly better on the British side, and though I know nothing of artillery, I assume that early 18th century should beat the mid-17th century.


hahahah i didn't see that thanks;)
 
T

But seriously, I'm gonna go for the British. What with the numbers being slightly better on the British side, and though I know nothing of artillery, I assume that early 18th century should beat the mid-17th century.

Torstensson improved the efficency of the artillery and introduced lighter more maneuverable guns. He made Swedan the most dominate artillery force in the world at the time of the Thirty Years War. Now by the early 1700's i don't think guns have changed that much , so the Swedes would still have a good chance at outgunning the British.
 
Torstensson improved the efficency of the artillery and introduced lighter more maneuverable guns. He made Swedan the most dominate artillery force in the world at the time of the Thirty Years War. Now by the early 1700's i don't think guns have changed that much , so the Swedes would still have a good chance at outgunning the British.

Did he?

Sorry, I've probably been studying the Age of Liberty way too much. Once you've read enough about the War of the Hats and the Pomeranian War, you develop this tendency to dismiss any Swedish military campaign as bound to fail! :p

But, this isn't Frihetstiden, it's Stormaktstiden, and it's been years since I read Herman Lindqvist's books on the period, so I freely admit that much of the knowledge I once had on the subject has been forgotten... :eek:

Perhaps Lennartsson would have been victorious?
 
Did he?

Sorry, I've probably been studying the Age of Liberty way too much. Once you've read enough about the War of the Hats and the Pomeranian War, you develop this tendency to dismiss any Swedish military campaign as bound to fail! :p

But, this isn't Frihetstiden, it's Stormaktstiden, and it's been years since I read Herman Lindqvist's books on the period, so I freely admit that much of the knowledge I once had on the subject has been forgotten... :eek:

Perhaps Lennartsson would have been victorious?

Well then again it could have been able Gustavas's leadership that did it. The gunners i suppose could have been shooting better due to his inspiration alone and not their skill. I mean they did preform inadaqutly at the Battle of Nordlingen even though they had the superority in guns. :confused: i don't know.

On another note one of my favorite books of the period is Will Durant's The Age of Reason Begins, while not all about the Thirty Years War its still a good read.
 
Top