The Complete Soldier (History of Warfare)

The Complete Soldier

History of Warfare Editor

Kelly DeVries Loyola College in Maryland

Michael S. Neiberg University of Southern Mississippi

John France University of Wales Swansea Founding editors

Theresa Vann Paul Chevedden

VOLUME 53

The Complete Soldier Military Books and Military Culture in Early Stuart England, 1603–1645

By

David R. Lawrence

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

Cover illustration: Gervase Markham’s A Schoole for young souldiers containing in briefe the whole discipline of warre, printed for militia training in 1615 and 1616. Courtesy of the British Library. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-Data Lawrence, David R., 1962– The complete soldier : military books and military culture in early Stuart England, 1603–1645 / by David R. Lawrence. p. cm. — (History of warfare ; 53) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17079-7 (hbk. : alk. paper) 1. Military art and science—Great Britain—History—17th century. 2. Great Britain. Army—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Military education—Great Britain—History—17th century. 4. Books and reading—England—History—17th century. 5. Early printed books—England—17th century. 6. Great Britain—History, Military—1603–1714. I. Title. U43.G7L38 2008 355.00942’09032—dc22 2008035395

ISSN 1385-7827 ISBN 978 90 04 17079 7 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

For Herenia

CONTENTS Abbreviations .............................................................................. Note on Dates ............................................................................. Illustrations .................................................................................. Acknowledgements .....................................................................

ix xi xiii xvii

Introduction ................................................................................

1

Chapter One “Caesar to this Present day of King James”: Military Books and Military Culture, 1572–1603 ................. Matriculating in the Schoole of Warre: English Entry into the Low Countries War .............................................. Warfare Abroad and Reform at Home ................................. Books, Learning, and Military Culture .................................. Procuring Foreign Military Books .......................................... England’s Worthies: Military Circles and Military Books in Late Elizabethan England ................................... Chapter Two “Companions of Martiall Noblenesse”: Military Circles and Books in Early Stuart England ............. The English Military Experience: 1603–1629 ....................... Early Stuart Military Circles: The Veres ............................... The Military Court of Henry, Prince of Wales .................... Caroline Military Circles ........................................................ Chapter Three “Practice put in Press”: The Evolution of the English Drill Manual ................................................... The Evolution of the Early Stuart Drill Manual: The Dutch Influence .......................................................... The Honourable Artillery Company: The Incubator of English Military Practice ............................................... The Impact of the Instructions For Musters and Armes of 1623 ................................................................................ The Drill Manual in the Personal Rule Period ..................... Drill Manuals in the First Years of the English Civil War .............................................................................

19 23 31 36 46 51 73 75 93 105 126 135 137 156 167 177 185

viii

contents

Chapter Four “A few men rightly instructed to manage Armes”: The Analytical Treatise and Infantry Warfare ....... Soldier-Authors and their Patrons: The Veterans ................. Soldier-Authors and their Patrons: The Amateurs ................ English Translations of Foreign Analytical Treatises ............ Preparation and Action: Infantry Tactics .............................. The Five Vowels ..................................................................... Habiliments & Necessaries of War ........................................ Chapter Five “There is Great Need for Reformation”: Military Books and Mounted Warfare ................................... Late Elizabethan Theories on Mounted Warfare ................. Warfare and Horsemanship Treatises .................................... Jacobean Military Books on Cavalry ..................................... John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie and Caroline Books on Cavalry ................................................ Cavalry Manuals in the English Civil War ............................ Chapter Six “Necessary Bulwarks”: Siegecraft Treatises in Early Stuart England ......................................................... Soldiers, Military Architects and Mathematicians ................. Siegecraft and the Mathematical Renaissance ...................... An English School of Military Architecture, 1560–1600? .... Siege Literature: Ostend to Breda ......................................... Analytical Treatises and Specialized Literature on Siegecraft, 1630–1642 ........................................................ The Elements of a Siege ........................................................ Necessary Bulwarks: The Theory and Practice of Siegecraft in the Civil War .................................................

195 196 216 230 243 249 254 261 263 270 280 291 303 313 316 322 326 329 336 345 361

Conclusion ..................................................................................

371

Appendix Military Books Printed in English, 1603–1645 ...... Selected Bibliography ................................................................. Index ...........................................................................................

375 393 417

ABBREVIATIONS A.P.C. Add. Mss. Bod. Lib. BL CSPD CSPV NA SP

Acts of the Privy Council Additional Manuscripts Bodleian Library, Oxford University British Library Calendar of State Papers Domestic Calendar of State Papers Venetian National Archives, London State Papers

NOTE ON DATES During the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the English calendar (Old Style) was ten days behind Continental Europe (New Style) and the new year began on 25 March. All dates are given in the Old Style, but where dates in this book fall within the months of January-March 25, I have denoted both years as such, 1641/42.

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester as depicted in Edward Grimeston’s A Generall Historie of the Netherlands. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................................. Figure 2. Sir Francis Vere from his Commentaries (1657). Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................................. Figure 3. Sir Horace Vere from brother Francis Vere’s Commentaries (1657). Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................ Figure 4. William Hole’s 1612 engraving of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales training with pike. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................................. Figure 5. Sir John Ogle, a member of Prince Henry’s circle who also established his own military salon at his home in the Netherlands. From Vere’s Commentaries. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................................. Figure 6. Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange (1567–1625) from Edward Grimeston’s A Generall Historie of the Netherlands. The inspirational general whose military reforms heavily influenced the development of the art of war in early seventeenth-century England. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ................. Figure 7. The frontispiece of Jacques de Gheyn’s The Exercise of Armes printed in The Hague in 1607. Courtesy of the British Library ......................................................................... Figure 8. Edward Panton’s A Table expressing the words in the science militarie. London: Adam Islip, 1614. Courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford University. ............................... Figure 9. Gervase Markham’s A Schoole for young souldiers containing in briefe the whole discipline of warre, printed for militia training in 1615 and 1616. Courtesy of the British Library .........................................................................

53 95 102

109

118

139 142 149

151

xiv

illustrations

Figure 10. Title page of the Instructions For Musters and Armes of 1623. Courtesy of the British Library .............................. Figure 11. Title page of Edward Davies’s Art of War and England’s Traynings (1620 edition). Courtesy of the British Library ......................................................................... Figure 12. A page from Edward Davies’s The Art of War and England’s Traynings demonstrating the advancing and countermarching of shot in two ranks. Courtesy of the British Library ......................................................................... Figure 13. The title page of Robert Ward’s popular Anima’dversions of Warre (1639). Courtesy of the British Library .................................................................................... Figure 14. The title page of Garret Barry’s A Discourse of Military Discipline (1634) written for English-speaking soldiers serving in the armies of Europe’s Catholic monarchs. Courtesy of the Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................................. Figure 15. Portrait of William Barriffe from the frontispiece of his Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man (1635). Courtesy of the British Library ............................................. Figure 16. The title page of John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie (1632). Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................ Figure 17. The fully armoured cuirassier from John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ................. Figure 18. The postures for cavalry found in John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie. By the English Civil War, the postures were no longer seen as a necessary part of cavalry training. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ..................................... Figure 19. A bastion defence depicted in Robert Ward’s Anima’dversions of Warre (1639). Courtesy of the British Library .................................................................................... Figure 20. Map of Ostend from Edward Grimeston’s True Historie of the Siege of Ostend (1604). Courtesy of the British Library .........................................................................

168 205

207 212

217 222 293 298

299 318 330

illustrations Figure 21. The frontispiece of Samuel Marolois’s Fortification ou Architectvre militaire tant offensive que defensive, first printed in Amsterdam in 1627 and translated into English by Henry Hexham in 1631. Courtesy of the Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................... Figure 22. The title page of Thomas Smith’s The Art of Gunnery (1643). Smith’s treatise, originally printed in 1600, was reprinted after the outbreak of hostilities between the Royalist and Parliamentary armies. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ... Figure 23. The frontispiece of Robert Norton’s popular treatise on artillery, The Gunner, printed in 1628. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................................................... Figure 24. An engraving from Robert Norton’s The Gunner offering instruction on opening a breach in a bastion. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ............................................................. Figure 25. Engravings of siegeworks from Stone’s Enchiridion of Fortification (1645). The chevaux de freis is noted as E on Plate 9. The Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto ...............................................

xv

343

355

358

359

368

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study grew out of my dissertation at the University of Toronto where I have had the pleasure of working with a fine group of scholars who have provided me with valuable assistance and guidance during my research. I indebted to Bert Hall and Barbara Todd of the University of Toronto and Ian Gentles of York University for all of their help in preparing this monograph, for their editorial comments, and for their friendship. Special thanks as well to Mark Fissel who commented on the work when it was still a dissertation and Jennifer Mori who has provided suggestions and kind words of encouragement. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to Ken Bartlett, whose advice and support has been instrumental in seeing this book to press. I would also like to thank the members of the Early Modern Discussion Group in the Department of History, University of Toronto as well as the members of the Medieval/Early Modern Thesis Chapter Reading Group, Dana Wessell-Lightfoot, Nicole Greenspan, Jamie Smith, Mark Crane, Michael Ullyot, Jennifer Brewer, Jess Paehlke, and Milton Kooistra, all of whom provided comments on chapters, as well as camaraderie and some fine gastronomic faire. I also would like to express my gratitude to Jennifer Francisco, Rae Pemberton, Louise Kermode, Vicky Dingillo, Marion Harris, and the rest of the staff of the History Department at the University of Toronto for all of their assistance with matters related to my teaching in the department over the years. I wish to express my gratitude to Graham Rees, Maria Wakely, and all of the participants of International Seminars on the Jacobean Book, held in 2004 and 2006 at Queen Mary College, University of London who commented on papers I presented at the seminars. The biannual seminars have fostered the growth of a wonderful community of historians and bibliographers and it has been a real pleasure to have been able to join in the discussions at QM. My research was made easier through the help of the librarians and staff of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library and the Interlibrary Loan Department at Robarts Library, University of Toronto. Thanks also to the librarians at the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS) at Pratt Library, Victoria College, University of Toronto, the

xviii

acknowledgements

staff of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Room and the Reproductions Department of the British Library, London, UK as well as staff at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University. I also wish to extend special thanks to Dr. Julia Walworth, Librarian at Merton College, Oxford, who was kind enough to allow me to spend an afternoon in the Merton College Library reading the Elsevier Book Catalogues. This study began to take shape in the early 1990s when I was teaching a history course “From Subject to Citizen” at Durham Academy, in Durham, North Carolina. The course covered the history of Tudor and Stuart England and Colonial America and each year my students watched Ken Hughes’s 1970 film Cromwell. For seven years I watched (on more occasions than I wish to remember) as Richard Harris’s character turned the Parliamentary army into a formidable fighting force and then single-handedly won the English Civil War. Our discussions of Civil War England turned my attention to training and military manuals and eventually led to this study. Durham Academy also allowed me to take a sabbatical year abroad in 1991–2 to pursue an MA degree in War Studies at King’s College, University of London. I owe very special thanks to students and staff at DA, especially Tim Dahlgren, David Gould, Jim Speir, Joe Sievold, and other members of the History Department whom I had the pleasure to work with between 1988 and 1998. At King’s, Professor Beatrice Heuser encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D. and I must thank her for her support as well. While living in Durham I also had the chance to spend the summer of 1996 in a directed readings course at Duke University discussing the early modern military revolution with Alex Roland. I wish to thank Professor Roland for his help in setting my research in motion. I owe thanks to a number of historians who have offered comments, suggestions, and answered queries via e-mail. Dr. David McKetterick, Dr. Tracy Borman, Peter Harrington and Alexandra Guerson De Oliveira were kind enough to take time to help with some vital pieces of information and I am very grateful to all of them for their assistance. At Brill, editors Julian Deahl, Marcella Mulder, Renate de Vries, and Kelly DeVries have been an absolute pleasure to work with over the past three years. Thanks also to the reader at Brill who offered valuable comments on the manuscript. I also wish to thank Mary Newberry for all of her hard work with the copy editing and Ruth Pincoe who provided valuable assistance with the indexing.

acknowledgements

xix

During successive trips to London beginning in 1999, Flavia Goyanna and all in the “Big Brother” house in Shepherd’s Bush were kind enough to provide me with a roof over my head, hospitality, and friendship. I cannot thank Flavia enough for all her support. Finally, my warmest appreciation to my family: my parents Barbara and Rodney who instilled in me a love of military history and books; my brothers, Simon and Michael, who provided cheap airline tickets to make trips to England, my sister Ann, who pushed the project on by asking “when is the book going to be finished?” and my uncle and aunt, Peter and Isabel Lawrence, who were always happy to provide a hot meal and a pint when I was in England. And, to my beloved wife Herenia, who has had to step over drill manuals on the study floor and read about clay pot hand grenades and bastion fortifications; all my love for her patience and help in seeing this book to completion.

INTRODUCTION “For when Mars and Art, true Valour and Policie meet together in a Chiefe, or Commander, they make a compleat Souldier.” So wrote Henry Hexham in his dedication to Henry Rich, earl of Holland, in The Principles of the Art Militarie, a manual on infantry warfare that was printed in 1637.1 It is the making of the “complete soldier” in early Stuart England that is the focus of this study and though Hexham weighed the influence of four elements, I will save valour for another day and concentrate only on war, art, and policy in this study. In the pages that follow the connections between military culture and print culture will be explored, particularly the role of military books and manuals in shaping the complete English soldier in the years 1603 to 1645. This book explores the early modern English soldier as author, patron, and reader and seeks to establish a much firmer place for military books in the fields of military history and book history. In the two score years between the death of Elizabeth I in 1603 and the formation of the New Model Army in 1645, Englishmen penned over ninety books on military subjects. These books included lengthy treatises on the arte militarie, infantry drill manuals, books on personal combat, military histories, and pamphlets on the laws of war, many of which were written with the intention of moulding the “complete” or “perfect” soldier. Most often, the complete soldier was a gentleman, a man of means who could read and write, knew arithmetic and geometry, and who gained his experience either by volunteering for service abroad or by practising the military arts at the local muster ground or military yard. Contemporaries argued, however, that experience alone was not enough to make a complete soldier and those bound for the wars should also take time to study and read about the arte militarie, gleaning what they could from the wisdom and experience of others. When English military books could not answer all the questions a soldier might have about the trade, he was encouraged to purchase works by Spanish, Italian, French, and German authors. Only when he fully

1 H. Hexham, The Principles of the Art Militarie; Practised in the Warres of the Vnited Netherlands (London: M.P. for Matthew Symmons, 1637), The Epistle Dedicatory.

2

introduction

comprehended all that he might be faced on the field of Mars, would he become a complete soldier. Until now there have been no comprehensive studies of early Stuart military books. Barbara Donagan’s seminal article, “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War: England’s Military Education Before 1642,” addressed the significance of the books written in Caroline period, but she did not explore in detail issues related to the role of books and manuals on training.2 As far as the periods preceding and following the early seventeenth century, mid-to-late sixteenth-century English military books were examined in Henry J. Webb’s Elizabethan Military Science: The Books and Practice, while eighteenth-century books on infantry and cavalry training were masterfully handled by J.A. Houlding in his Fit for Service: The Training of the British Army 1715–1795.3 Over the last thirty years John Childs and David Chandler have each published studies of warfare in the later Stuart period that describe the military books and drill manuals printed in late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century England.4 This book was written to augment our understanding of the evolution of English military books and drill manuals, and to assess how English soldiers used these texts for training as well as for enhancing their understanding of military tactics and the transformations shaping continental warfare during this period. At the same time, we should keep in mind that military books were not reserved solely for martialists, but also were read by scholars and statesmen who turned to these works when pondering questions regarding war and the formulation of state and foreign policy. Traditionally, discussions of military books and manuals have been largely restricted to the field of military history, but these texts must be seen within the broader context of intellectual history and book history. Few historians would argue with H.S. Bennett’s assertion that the seventeenth century was “a reading age,” but consensus over the place 2 B. Donagan, “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War: England’s Military Education Before 1642,” Past and Present 147 (May 1995): 65–100. 3 H.J. Webb, Elizabethan Military Science: The Books and Practice (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965) and J.A. Houlding, Fit for Service: The Training of the British Army 1715–1795 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981). 4 John Childs’ work, which covers the period 1660–1702, includes The Army of Charles II (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976) and The Nines Years’ War and the British Army 1688–1697 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991). See David Chandler’s Marlborough as Military Commander (New York, Scribner, 1973); The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough (Staplehurst, UK: Spellmount, 1997); Blenheim Preparation: The English Army on the March to the Danube, Collected Essays (Staplehurst, UK: Spellmount, 2004).

introduction

3

of military books in that age has remained elusive.5 Historiographical debates on the value of military books and manuals have centred on some of the same issues that were argued over nearly three hundred fifty years ago, notably, the practicality of written texts as didactic tools for teaching martial skills, the value of classical and foreign military models and their applicability to early modern warfare in England, and the authority of “amateur” military writers and their understanding (or misunderstanding) of the military realities of the day. The influence of Minerva on Mars, the blending of ancient with modern, and the relevance of military books to the military arts in the early seventeenth century has not been without its sceptics, though there seems to be a growing consensus among historians that military books and manuals were much more influential in shaping practice than was long believed. Much of the scepticism about the value of military books to the early modern soldier first arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when scholars argued the limited role these texts had in shaping military practice. Nineteenth-century antiquarians drew on the descriptions of weaponry, drill, and tactics found in English military treatises, but they made no effort to weigh the influence of the theories posited in the military literature, nor did they attempt to address the influence of drill manuals on the training of either the militia or the soldiers serving in the English Civil War.6 J.W. Fortescue’s A History of the British Army could do little more than provide a short footnote on the noted authorities of late Tudor and early Stuart military literature, mentioning Henry Hexham’s Principles Of the Art Military, Thomas Kellie’s Pallas Armata, or, Militarie Instruictions for the Learned, John Bingham’s Tactiks of Aelian, Robert Ward’s Anima’dversions Of Warre, and John Vernon’s

5 H.S. Bennett, English Books and Readers 1603–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 2. 6 In Francis Grose’s Military Antiquities respecting a history of the English Army from the Conquest to the Present Times (London: L. Stockdale, 2 vols., 1812), the author did not question the validity of what the early Stuart authors had to say about martial practice, but simply incorporated lengthy excerpts from the 17th century treatises into his history of the army. Grose’s discussion of the “antient musketeer” drew on Edward Davies Englands Traynings (1619) and his chapter on pikemen relied on a short description from Markham’s Souldier’s Accidence. Grose offered readers no critique of the military manuals or treatises and was content to present a panegyric of Britain’s military past, a past that depicted the English military as holding a “pre-eminent Rank among the European nations, and scarcely at any time . . . inferior to those of its most warlike neighbours.” See vol. 1: 127.

4

introduction

The Young-Horseman or the Honest plain-dealing Cavalier. Fortescue did not attempt to offer any insight into whether these books were actually used to educate English soldiers.7 In his classic study Cromwell’s Army, C.H. Firth claimed that while the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century military treatises had a “considerable historical value,” he warned that they must be approached with “great caution.”8 The need for caution arose from Firth’s belief that most English military authors relied too heavily on continental sources and therefore the practices they described did not mirror actual English military practice in the Civil War. It might be unfair to accuse Firth of overlooking the importance of Dutch methods in bringing the trained bands up to speed before the war, primarily because the focus of his work is on Cromwell’s army and not the Jacobean volunteer or Caroline trained band member. Firth did, however, recognize that standardization and improvements in training took place before the war, though he was unwilling to draw a connection between those innovations and the military books he mentioned. Instead, he suggested that military treatises needed to be “sifted and tested” before drawing any final conclusions about their value.9 Cromwell’s Army provided the starting point for this process of sifting and testing the late Elizabethan and early Stuart military books, but it was not until the 1950s and 1960s that anyone took up Firth’s challenge. Geoffrey Langsam’s Martial Books and Tudor Verse and Henry J. Webb’s Elizabethan Military Science: The Books and Practice were the first to heed Firth’s call, each seeking to connect the military texts of the Shakespearean world to the late Elizabethan military reforms and to English engagement in the war with Spain. Langsam concluded that Elizabethan military books served multiple purposes; they offered advice on training and tactics, but they also, concerned themselves with a justification for war on scriptural, historical and philosophical grounds. They distinguished between just and unjust wars; they defended the profession and the honor of the soldier; they discriminated between the professional and the soldier of the levy; they defined military ethics; they presented the ideal soldier and his officers, and criticized adversely those who shamed their profession; they described the

7 J.W. Fortescue, A History of the British Army, vol. 1 (London: MacMillian, 1899), 170, 194, 215. 8 C.H. Firth, Cromwell’s Army. A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and The Protectorate (London: Greenhill Press, (1903) 1992), xiv. 9 Ibid.

introduction

5

organization of the army, its arms, munitions, equipment, and supply; they concerned themselves with methods of levying soldiers, with transport, mustering, training, pay liaison; they taught methods of fortification and a host of military matters.10

Both Langsam and Webb questioned the extent to which England was isolated from the transformation of European warfare, now described as the “military revolution,” which was taking place during the sixteenth century. Webb raised doubts as to whether the long years of peace during Elizabeth’s reign had actually stifled the impetus for martial reform. Citing the marriage of theory and practice in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, he considered military books to have been vital in transforming the English army into “a relatively efficient implement of war.”11 The creation of the trained bands in 1572–73 occurred well before Anglo-Spanish tensions boiled over into full-fledged war, with reform of England’s militia coming at a time of relative calm. This call for reform was very similar to the period following the Treaty of London in 1604, which ended the Anglo-Spanish war, when Low Countries veterans began to write drill manuals to assist in the standardization of infantry drill and weaponry in the 1610s and early 1620s. Some of the earlier criticism of the questionable credentials of English military authors and the value of their books has been muted as scholars have come to the realization that the proliferation of military books across Europe acted as one of the best means of spreading innovation and codifying practice. J.R. Hale made a significant contribution to our understanding of the ties between military culture and print culture with a succession of books and articles published during his long and celebrated academic career. In 1961, Hale published a short work, The Art of War and Renaissance England, that gave brief summaries of a number of late Elizabethan and early Stuart military books that could be found in the Folger Library in Washington, DC. In his introduction, Hale dispelled the notion that the English were uninterested in war. He asserted that simply because English borders were relatively safe from invasion or that her armies did not regularly threaten the borders of other states, that this somehow constrained Englishmen from studying the art of war. Instead, Hale found that the military interests of the

10 11

Langsam, Martial Books and Tudor Verse (New York: King’s Crown Press, 1951), 1. Webb, Elizabethan Military Science, 3.

6

introduction

late Elizabethan and early Stuart Englishmen were, in fact, quite broad and ranged from interest in the invention of a new explosive to attempts to reconcile the pacifism of the New Testament with the blood and thunder of the Old . . . [which] meant that war, its techniques and its issues, penetrated the imaginative life of the people more deeply than at any previous time, as the proliferation of books ensured that this penetration was not restricted to the places in which wars were actually being fought.12

Hale continued to explore the topic of military books in articles published in the 1970s, including “The Military Education of the Officer Class in Early Modern Europe,” “Printing and the Military Culture of Renaissance Venice,” and “On A Tudor Parade Ground: The Captain’s Handbook of Henry Barrett, 1562.”13 In each of these articles he made the case for the prominence of written texts in military education, particularly as the pace of military change quickened in the late sixteenth century. According to Hale, “the potential officer needed to know a more complex and a more disciplined craft of war than had his late medieval predecessor.”14 Books and drill manuals, he argued, helped make sense of these complexities. Hale’s research on English and Italian military books sparked further interest in the influence of military literature on the education of officers in other European states. This research has broadened our understanding of early modern military culture across the continent and uncovered much stronger ties between the theory of war and its practice on the muster ground and on the battlefield. Over the last three decades, scholars have endeavoured to explore the connection between military books and the men who read and wrote them, discovering that highly trained and highly motivated early modern soldiers were not adverse to the use of instructional texts and manuals as aids for training or tactical inquiry. Fernando González de Leon’s “ ‘Doctors of

12 J.R. Hale, The Art of War and Renaissance England (Washington, DC: Folger Library Press, 1961), 3. 13 J.R. Hale, “The Military Education of the Officer Class in Early Modern Europe,” in Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. C.H. Clough, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), 440–61; “Printing and the Military Culture of Renaissance Venice,” Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s., 8 (1977): 21–62; “On A Tudor Parade Ground: The Captain’s Handbook of Henry Barrett, 1562,” The Society for Renaissance Studies, Occasional Papers, no. 5 (1978). All three articles appear in Hale’s Renaissance War Studies (London: Hambledon Press, 1983). 14 Hale, “The Military Education of the Officer Class,” 226.

introduction

7

the Military Discipline’: Technical Expertise and the Paradigm of the Spanish Soldier in the Early Modern Period” challenged the notion that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish officers were “inflexible and unrealistic Don Quixotes,” finding that the Spanish were thinking and writing about military tactics in a thoroughly modern way.15 González de Leon investigated the “complete” or “perfect soldier” genre of military literature published when Spain’s armies were at the height of their power in the late sixteenth century. He discovered that most of the Spanish military books and manuals were written by officers who were either serving, or who had served in the field, and were not directed at armchair generals or courtiers, but at other officers in Spanish service. According to González de Leon, the contribution of Spanish theorists was significant, one that had “no contemporary parallel,” certainly not in the Dutch army, whose officers wrote very little. In Venice, the hub of military publishing in the sixteenth century, there were sixty-seven works of military science issued between 1492 and 1570, most although not all by Italians. Sixty-four other works of similar topic appeared in the rest of Europe during these years. In contrast, we find close to sixty military treatises published in the Low Countries and the Spanish world between 1567 and 1621, most of them written by army officers. These numbers alone suggest strongly that the traditional image of the Spanish soldier stands in need of some revision.16

On a more expansive scale, Sydney Anglo has assessed a vast catalogue of books on hand-to-hand combat in his magisterial work, The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe.17 Anglo concluded his study with a section on military literature that linked the tradition of the martial arts literature with the early seventeenth-century literature on war. This link was most evident in the military academies that became popular at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century. Academies were founded for the education of gentlemen soldiers who were increasingly confronted by the complexities of the early modern military profession, a profession requiring the mastery of new organizational, technological, and leadership skills. Though most of these academies were short lived, Anglo identifies them as places where the 15 F. González de Leon, “Doctors of the Military Discipline: Technical Expertise and the Paradigm of the Spanish Soldier in the Early Modern Period,” Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1996): 61–85. 16 Ibid., 64. 17 S. Anglo, The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

8

introduction

“old skills of personal combat” intersected with the “up-to-date theoretical military sciences and mathematics.”18 Manuals appear to have fit neatly into this educational environment, offering students some means of comprehending the rudiments of drill and the specialized military arts of siegecraft, gunnery, and logistics. Anglo singled out the manuals of Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen, who in 1617 became the director of the military academy at Siegen, established by John of Nassau-Dillemburg, as the exemplars of early modern military literature. Wallhausen’s books, wrote Anglo, offer modern readers a perfect focus of the most fundamental military ideas of the early seventeenth century: the relationship between ancients and moderns, theory and practice, academic education and battle experience, training exercises and real warfare, and the role of personal combat skills within the larger context of battle.19

Wallhausen’s works were very popular with soldiers of many European nationalities and there is ample evidence to suggest that editions were being consulted by English military writers very soon after their publication on the continent.20 The manuals of Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen were a small part of a larger trend toward the dissemination of military ideas in Europe. Military ideas transcended national boundaries, helped by the polyglot nature of early modern armies. For this reason, we cannot see English military books in isolation, nor

Ibid., 283. Ibid., 287. Johann Jocabi von Wallhausen authored eleven military books between 1615 and 1621, including Alphabetum pro tyrone pedestri. Oder der Soldaten zu Feuss ihr A.B.C (Frankfurt-am-Main: Paul Jacobi, 1615); Kriegskunst zu Fuss (Oppenheim: H. Galler, 1615); Kriegskunst zu Pferdt (Frankfurt-am-Main: Paul Jacobi, 1616); Ritterkunst (Frankfurt-amMain: Paul Jacobi, 1616); Manuale militare, oder Kriegssmanual (Frankfurt: Paul Jacobi, 1616); Romanishe Kriegskunst (Frankfurt-am-Main, Paul Jacobi, 1616); Künstliche Picquen-Handlung. Darinnen schrifftlich und mit Figuren dieses Adeliches Exercitium angewiesen und gelehrt wirdt ets (Hanaw: [s.n.], 1617); Archilen Kriegskunst: darinnen gelehret und fürgetragen werden die initia und fundamenta dieser edlen Kriegskunst (Hanaw: [s.n.], 1617); Corpus Militare, darinnen das heütige Kriegswesen (Hanaw: [s.n.], 1617); Defensio Patriae, oder, Landtrettung: darinnen gezeigt wirdt I. Wie alle vnd jede in der werthen Christenheit Potentaten, Regenten, Stätte vnnd Communen ihre vnd der ihrigen Vnderthanen Rettung vnd Schutzung anstellen sollen: II. Der Modus bene belligerandi, viel hundert Jahr bissher gefählet. . . . (Frankfurt-am-Main: Daniel and Dauid Aubrien and Clement Schleichen, 1621); Camera militaris Oder Kriegskunst Schatzkammer (Frankfurt-amMain: Daniel and David Aubrien and Clement Schleichen, 1621). 20 See J. Cruso, Militarie instructions for the cavallrie: or Rules and directions for the service of horse collected out of divers forrain authors ancient and modern, and rectified and supplied, according to the present practise of the Low-Countrey warres (Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel, 1632). 18 19

introduction

9

can we see Englishmen being isolated from the expanding library of European military books. The first efforts to link early Stuart military books, European military culture, and the wars of the Three Kingdoms can be found in Donagan’s “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War.” Donagan found that despite the years of peace that marked the 1630s, Englishmen were “neither ‘utterly unprepared’ for war . . . nor unshakably civilian.”21 Her article contends (and this author agrees) that the early Stuart soldier-authors writing about the state of military affairs were serious professionals, whose observations were anchored in reality and not in the traditions of the medieval chivalric romance.22 While she did not deny that some authors were hacks, more interested in profit than advancing military theory, Donagan observed that most of these writers were former professional soldiers, fresh from European service and happy to engage in polemical discussions about the nature of modern warfare. Military books, by her estimation, were an integral part of English military culture and very influential in helping prepare men for war in the summer of 1642. Charles Carlton also touched on the influence of military books in Going to the Wars, his study of soldiering in the wars of the Three Kingdoms. Carlton found that alongside the books of merit, works like John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the cavallrie (1632) and William Barriffe’s Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man (1635) there were a number of English works that he deemed “next to useless.”23 Included in this list were Gervase Markham’s The Souldier’s Exercise (1639), a compendium of two of Markham’s early works, The Souldier’s Grammar (1625) and The Souldier’s Accidence (1628), and Edward Cooke’s The Character of Warre (1626) and his Prospective Glasse of Warre (1628).24 Carlton also noted that gentlemen found the longer analytical treatises (books that covered all aspects of war, from infantry tactics to siegecraft) to be of greater value in the field, owing to the fact that these books covered a wider range of possibilities that soldiers might confront in war. While this may well have been the case for officers, we should not overlook

Donagan, “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War,” 67. Ibid., 99. 23 C. Carlton, Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638–1651 (London: Routledge, 1992), 71. 24 Ibid., 71–2. 21 22

10

introduction

the significance of the drill manual in training English soldiers in the lower ranks, a subject that, until now, has been overlooked.25 As studies of the wars of the Three Kingdoms continue to multiply, attention is now being paid to areas of the conflict that have been neglected by historians, particularly matters related to military leadership and siege warfare. Though narratives and battle studies remain popular with amateur historians, re-enactors, and members of the academic community, many of these new studies have seen fit to build on the work of Donagan and others, including discussions of the influence of military books on the education and training of soldiers recruited to fight in the English Civil War. Roger Manning has recently argued in favour of a robust aristocratic military ethos in early modern England, one that includes rather than excludes members of the aristocracy. Manning’s English “swordsmen” not only educated themselves in the martial arts by serving abroad, but they also spent time reading a wide variety of titles related to warfare and the military arts. Citing the explosion of military books in the period, Manning points out that, military treatises, manuals on the exercise of arms, translations of classical writers and historians on military topics, newsbooks and newspapers, sermons preached to military societies, depictions of war in graphic arts, not to mention chivalric romances—all testify to the spreading militarization of both aristocratic and popular cultures.26

This interest translated into more effective soldiers and more effective leaders on the battlefield, a point that Stanley Carpenter has examined in his Military Leadership in the British Civil Wars, 1642–1651. Carpenter explores the factors affecting military leadership during the war, a subject he describes as the “missing link” in the historiography of early Stuart England.27 Carpenter, like Manning, argues that members of the aristocracy and gentry read military books in the 1620s and 1630s, making England home to “a vibrant literary tradition about military matters on the eve of the wars.”28 Book study, Carpenter asserts, exposed experienced and amateur officers to the “latest thinking on drill, tactics,

25 See Chapter 3 for a detailed study of the evolution of the printed drill manual in England. 26 R. Manning, Swordsmen: The Martial Ethos in the Three Kingdoms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 35. 27 S. Carpenter, Military Leadership in the British Civil Wars, 1642–1651 (London: Frank Cass, 2005), 2. 28 Ibid., 55.

introduction

11

and training.”29 In All The King’s Armies, Stuart Reid goes even further, contending that printing and the availability of analytical treatises and drill manuals “revolutionised warfare,” often giving inexperienced officers a valuable (and possibly life-saving) resource on which to draw as battle neared.30 More recently, in his Rethinking Military History, Jeremy Black made the case that books on war not only influenced the evolution of the military profession, but had a significant impact on public opinion. Printing and literacy, Black claims, contributed to the development of a military public, in the sense of a public informed about military affairs and a military interested in public comment on their activities . . . Printing, nevertheless, was important in strengthening the consciousness of a specific military tradition, not the least as printed manuals on gunnery, tactics, drill, siegecraft, and fortification spread techniques far more rapidly than word of mouth or manuscript. Manuals also permitted a degree of standardization that both helped to increase military effectiveness and was important for cohesion and utilization of military resources. More generally, printing and literacy fostered discussion of military organization and methods, and encouraged a sense of system.31

As I noted, historians of print culture have also provided us with some useful tools for understanding how military books were disseminated and received by soldiers and the public. These scholars are exploring military books as objects and as products of early modern print culture, and are also examining soldiers and statesmen as readers of these works. Anna Simoni has written a number of bibliographical studies of late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century military literature that address patronage and production of military books, the printing of newsbooks and maps related to war, and the printing of foreign military books in the Low Countries.32 In “A Present for a Prince” she described the editions of Jacques De Gheyn’s Exercise of Armes (1607/08) that were dedicated to Prince Henry and the appeal of the new drill manual in the

Ibid. S. Reid, All the King’s Armies: A Military History of the English Civil War 1642–1651 (Stapelhurst, UK: Spellmount, 1998), 3. 31 J. Black, Rethinking Military History (London: Routledge, 2004), 151–2. For a discussion of the influence of printed newsbooks and manuscript works on warfare on public attitudes towards English participation in continental warfare in the period 1477–1559, see S. Gunn, D. Grummitt, and H. Cools, War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, 1477–1559 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 257–72. 32 A. Simoni, The Ostend Story: Early Tales of the Great Siege and the Mediating Role of Henrick van Haestens (’t Goy-Houten: Hes & de Graaf, 2003). 29 30

12

introduction

Low Countries and in England.33 In her “Soldier’s Tales: Observations on Italian Military Books Published at Antwerp in the Early 17th Century,” Simoni weighed the international dimensions of Low Countries printing, citing the Italian, English, Spanish, and Dutch military books that were being produced in the Netherlands for the express purpose of meeting the demands of soldiers fighting there.34 Like González de Leon’s Spanish soldiers, Simoni found that Italian soldiers serving in the Spanish army were both authors and readers and that printers in Antwerp were keenly aware of the fact that foreign military books were marketable to soldiers of all nations who were fighting in the Dutch Revolt. Similarly, Jean Tsushima’s important study, “Members of the Stationers’ Company Who Served in the Artillery Company before the Civil War; Ralph Mabbe and his Network,” describes a similar awareness of the marketability of military books by London printers, a number of whom were also members of the Honourable Artillery Company. These printers published military books and manuals for members of the Artillery Company and the other London artillery gardens, as well as printing books intended for an audience of volunteer soldiers who were making their way to the United Provinces.35 Tsushima reveals that the London printers she investigated were training with the Artillery Company and were also responsible for shepherding the works of their fellow soldiers into press. Others scholars of print culture have been looking more closely at the ownership of books by soldiers and how military books may have been read by statesmen or by secretaries who served the great men responsible for the formulation of state policy. Vernon Snow’s “Inventory of the Lord General’s Library, 1646,” revealed that Robert Devereux, the third earl of Essex had a large library, numbering 157 books.36 Essex’s library included works on classical warfare, such as Caesar’s Commentaries, books on chivalry, histories of the Low Countries wars, and works on personal 33 A. Simoni, “A Present for a Prince,” in Ten Studies in Anglo-Dutch Relations, ed. J. van Dorsten, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 51–71. 34 A. Simoni, “Soldiers’ Tales: Observations on Italian Military Books Published at Antwerp in the Early 17th Century,” in The Italian Book 1465–1800, ed. D. Rhodes and D. Reidy, (London: British Library, 1993), 255–90. 35 J. Tsushima, “Members of the Stationers’ Company Who Served in Artillery Company before the Civil War; Ralphe Mabbe and his Network,” in The Stationers’ Company and the Book Trade 1550 –1990, ed. R. Myers and M. Harris, (Winchester: St. Paul’s Bibliographies, 1997), 65–92. 36 V. Snow, “An Inventory of the Lord General’s Library, 1646,” The Library, 3rd series, 21, (1966): 115–23.

introduction

13

defence, though the earl does not appear to have owned any works specifically dedicated to modern warfare. Walter Oakeshott, “Sir Walter Ralegh’s Library” and G.R. Batho’s “The Library of the ‘Wizard’ Earl: Henry Percy Ninth Earl of Northumberland (1564–1632)” found that military books were present in the libraries of both men and that Ralegh most likely borrowed military books from Northumberland while the two were imprisoned in the Tower by James I.37 Recent studies by Lisa Jardine, written with Anthony Grafton and with William Sherman, have shown that late Elizabethan secretaries, such as Gabriel Harvey and Henry Wotten, often turned to classical and modern military books as part of their “goal-directed” studies which were meant to better inform their noble patrons when they made policy decisions. Jardine and Grafton’s article, “How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy” is one of the best studies to date on how the secretary acted as an intermediary between the book and the patron, and how men like Harvey drew on the lessons found in military books to influence and assist those they advised.38 Jardine and Grafton demonstrate that Harvey, the secretary to the earl of Leicester, read from a range of English and European books on the arte militarie and shared his knowledge of military strategy not only with Leicester, but with other members of Leicester’s circle who came to the earl’s household to debate military and foreign policy. Jardine and Sherman’s article “Pragmatic readers: knowledge transactions and scholarly services in late Elizabethan England” further adds to our understanding of the court circles and the military discussions that took place among public figures. Jardine and Sherman note that towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, “efficient knowledge gathering was an integral part of the activities of those jostling for power, and scholarly readers and their ‘knowledge transactions’ had become a recognized part of these bids for power.”39 When it came to offering advice on military affairs, those eager to engage in these knowledge

37 W. Oakeshott, “Sir Walter Ralegh’s Library,” The Library, 5th series, 23 (1968): 285–327. G. Batho, “The Library of the ‘Wizard’ Earl: Henry Percy Ninth Earl of Northumberland (1564–1632),” The Library, 5th series, 15 (1960): 246–61. 38 L. Jardine and A. Grafton, “How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy,” Past and Present 129 (Nov. 1990): 30–78. 39 L. Jardine and W. Sherman, “Pragmatic Readers: Knowledge Transactions and Scholarly Services in Late Elizabethan England,” in Religion, Culture and Society in Early Modern England: A Festschrift for Patrick Collinson, ed. P. Roberts and A. Fletcher, (Cambridge University Press, 1994), 106.

14

introduction

transactions naturally turned to works by well-respected English and foreign military authors. With The Complete Soldier, I build on the work carried out by military historians and historians of print culture and book history in the examination of the influence of military books and manuals on shaping military practice in the early Stuart period. I am concerned with how books on the military arts informed English readers about the changes shaping continental warfare, about their use in the knowledge transactions taking place in military circles in England and on the continent and the contributions made, and connections forged, by the veterans who authored these works, the London military societies where they often trained, and the members of the London book trade who printed their books. If we are to fully understand how the theory and practice of war was formulated by Englishmen in the years leading up to the Civil War, we cannot weigh military books in isolation, but we must see them as products of the relations between these various groups. The first two chapters of this book provide an overview of military culture in late Tudor and early Stuart England. Chapter One examines the military circles of gentlemen soldiers formed in the late Tudor period and the education of soldiers who were fighting in the Low Countries and in Ireland before the accession of James I. The English decision to enter the Low Countries wars in 1585 had far-reaching implications for English military culture and I have examined it for that reason. Many of the country’s leading nobles, such as the earls of Leicester, Essex, and Oxford made their way to the Netherlands to fight for the Protestant cause, and in no time, the Low Countries became the place where most English soldiers received their baptism of fire. English entry into the war in the Low Countries also led to the production of a number of late Elizabethan military treatises which were meant to assist soldiers headed for the Netherlands. By the 1580s and 1590s, instructional literature was being seen as a useful aid in military training, a development similar to the use of didactic manuals in other fields and professions in England. As Chapter One will show, Englishmen had no problems finding and purchasing the latest foreign military literature which they read along with works printed in England. Chapter Two explores the important English military circles formed from 1603–1625. Veterans of the Elizabethan wars remained in the Low Countries after James I came to the throne in 1603 and many of the gentlemen soldiers who had relied upon the military patronage of the earls of Leicester and Essex now sought out new military patrons.

introduction

15

This new generation of military patrons included the Veres, Francis and Horace, and James I’s eldest son, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales. The Vere circle could be found in the Low Countries, while Henry’s court at St. James’s Palace became, for a short time, England’s answer to the continental military court. Though Henry’s court never rivalled the courts of Henri IV or France or the Stadtholder of Orange, Maurice of Nassau, it did become home to many soldiers who hoped that England might adopt a more bellicose foreign policy. With the death of Henry in 1612, his court dispersed, but many of those who had attended the prince, notably Sir Horace Vere, Sir Edward Cecil, and Sir Edward Conway, remained influential in shaping military policy and went on to advocate the introduction of the Jacobean government’s drill manual, the Instructions for Musters and Armes, And the use thereof, in 1623. This chapter assesses how books were part of the education of these soldiers and how the young prince, in particular, began to amass an extensive library of works on military subjects and become a patron of military authors and soldiers alike. Chapter Three describes the evolution of the early Stuart drill manual. A product of the Dutch reforms in infantry drill that marked the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the first printed drill manuals in the English language were introduced by private authors, eager to see Netherlandish drill assimilated into English practice. The first detailed description of Dutch drill can be found in Clement Edmondes, The Maner of Our Moderne Training (1600), an appendix to his Observations vpon the five bookes of Caesars Commentaries which appeared in print three years before the The Exercise of Armes, the English translation of Jacques de Gheyn’s Wapenhandlinghe van roers musquetten ende spiessen, printed in The Hague in 1607. A number of copies of de Gheyn’s postures for musket, caliver, and pike soon appeared on broadsheets and in manuals that were products of the exercises taking place at the muster grounds of London’s military companies. Low Countries veterans often returned to London, the heart of early Stuart military culture, and trained alongside gentlemen soldiers at the artillery gardens and military yards at Bishopsgate, Cripplegate, and Westminster. It was in these military societies that friendships and business relations were forged between London’s soldiers and London’s printers; relationships that facilitated the publication of a range of military books. The appearance of private manuals in the early 1620s spurred on the Jacobean Privy Council, backed by members of the Council of War, to print and distribute the Instructions for Musters and Armes in 1623. This manual

16

introduction

became the foundation for later English manuals of arms that formed the basis for infantry practice throughout the Civil War. Chapter Four examines the analytical treatises dedicated to infantry warfare. Works on infantry warfare accounted for the bulk of the books and manuals that could be found in the complete soldier’s library. The English considered themselves foot soldiers, and military writers, wary of market forces, produced most of their titles for an audience of infantrymen. Analytical treatises were books that set out the general rules and precepts on all facets of the art of war, and while some works were dedicated solely to infantry, and to a lesser extent cavalry tactics, other more comprehensive books, such as Robert Ward’s Anima’dversions Of Warre (1639), addressed infantry, cavalry, gunnery, and siege warfare. These longer, detailed works were popular before and during the Civil War, especially among gentlemen officers who believed, as Carlton notes, that the answers to many of the questions that might be faced in the field could be found in the pages of these treatises. Chapter Five details the futile efforts to reform the English cavalry in the early seventeenth century and the limited impact that printed instructions appear to have had on the training of the militia. The matter of mounted warfare in early Stuart England is a complex one. At home, interest in improving the state of the horse companies in the trained bands was lackluster if not downright abysmal between 1603 and 1642, with gentlemen quite content to neglect their duties in this regard. While the elite enjoyed riding horses for pleasure—both James I and Charles I were avid horsemen—there was little impetus in the provinces to improve the horse companies of the trained bands or to develop martial prowess on horseback. This disinterest translated into a dearth of military books on the subject of cavalry, though it should be said that some authors did broach the topic in their analytical treatises. Not surprisingly, there were only two books on mounted warfare, Cruso’s Militarie instructions for the cavallrie (1632) and John Vernon’s The Young-Horseman or the Honest plain-dealing Cavalier (1644) that were printed during the period covered by this study. This is the only area where printed matter appears to have had little or no influence on the evolution of English military practice before 1645. Yet when one looks at the state of English cavalry abroad, in the Low Countries and in Ireland, we see its regular, and even its successful employment in battles and skirmishes. While it has been called the trump card in Ireland in the Nine Years’ War, another study of the English army in the early modern period claimed that both England and Scotland “supplied insignificant

introduction

17

numbers of cavalrymen” to the Dutch army in the Netherlands.40 The English cavalry that did fight at the battles of Turnhout and Nieuwpoort did so with distinction and cavalry detachments continued to serve in the Dutch army throughout the early Stuart period. But we do not see the same emphasis on improving training using the Dutch methods of cavalry in quite the same way that we see that influence impact on infantry training. Finally, Chapter Six discusses the English books on siegecraft printed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. Unlike their European neighbours, the English did not see the need to construct elaborate fortifications to protect their towns, owing primarily to the natural defences the country was afforded as an island nation. But over the course of the period examined in this study, English volunteers increasingly faced bastioned fortifications on the continent and when they returned home, some wrote of their experiences and informed their countrymen of the methods used to attack and defend these great siege works. Sieges in the Low Countries caught the attention of English audiences, and amateur and professional soldiers alike began to realize that knowledge of siegecraft and gunnery were essential for those who followed the wars.

40 For the discussion of cavalry in Ireland, see D. Trim, “Fin de siecle: The English Soldier’s Experience at the End of the Sixteenth Century,” Military and Naval History Journal 10 ( July 1999), 8. On the effectiveness of English cavalry in the Low Countries see R. Manning, An Apprenticeship in Arms: The Origins of the British Army 1585 –1702 (Oxford University Press, 2006), 55.

CHAPTER ONE

“CAESAR TO THIS PRESENT DAY OF KING JAMES”: MILITARY BOOKS AND MILITARY CULTURE, 1572–1603 I pray GOD rayse vp many such mindes, to make our Country of all Nations the most happy: and also that thys worke may stirre vppe the harts of all Noble men, Gentlemen, and all other her Maiesties subjects that minde to professe Armes, that by the exercise of the same they may be better instructed with greater skill, and so with theyr manly and valiant mindes, to the defence of our most gracious sovereigne. Thomas Garrard’s Dedication to Robert Devereux, the 2nd earl of Essex in William Garrard’s The Arte of Warre (1591)

The proliferation of military manuals in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England was part of an ongoing effort taking place across the European continent to quantify the known military world. Analytical treatises and drill manuals dedicated to the arte militarie provided readers with a body of knowledge and a set of rules on a broad range of military activities. But who used these books and what role did military literature play in the education of the “complete” English soldier in this period? I begin to answer this question by exploring the relationships that were established and fostered among gentlemen soldiers in England and on the continent and by examining the books that soldiers possessed and the titles they recommended to friends and comrades. As we will see, men of noble birth dispensed their patronage to scholars and writers and allowed their homes to become centres of learning and repositories for large libraries that included the latest works on military affairs. While we know that books are not always read by their owners, we can get a picture of which titles were influential by examining library catalogues, estate inventories, personal letters, and contemporary accounts and then recording those books repeatedly singled out by English readers. As I demonstrate in this chapter, books on the military arts were easy to acquire and letters often record friends offering advice and suggestions on new titles and recommendations of passages or chapters that illuminated specific tactics, practices, or theories on the art of war. Secretaries cited examples from ancient and modern military

20

chapter one

books in support of the foreign and domestic policies carried out of by their influential patrons. Circles of soldiers and scholars discussed the changes shaping warfare and arranged for young sons or relatives to meet with leading continental generals or captains when they were on their European tours. As one might expect, different readers could draw entirely different lessons from these books. Soldiers headed for the continent read in order to understand more about the tactics and weapons of their allies and their enemies, captains and lieutenants in the trained bands took what they could from these books to assist them in training the young men in the county militias, while courtiers, diplomats, and scholars searched the pages of military books for advice on just war, foreign policy, and, if I might use a truly modern term, the improvement of homeland security. The transformation of European warfare during the sixteenth century required that soldiers learn the new lexicon of warfare and those assigned the task of commanding armies were expected to adapt to the various changes to technology and tactics.1 These “moderne” principles and practices of warfare, described by many contemporaries as “newfangled,” fostered the development of a new aristocratic military ethos, an ethos that was an intermediary step between the agonistic warfare of the medieval period and the more formalized, professionalism of the

1 The transformation of European warfare, more popularly known as the early modern military revolution, continues to be debated among historians and this study was greatly influenced by the seminal works on the subject, including Michael Roberts’s “The Military Revolution, 1560–1660,” in The Military Revolution Debate, ed. C. Rogers (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995); Gustavus Adolphus: A History of Sweden 1626–1632, vols. 1–2 (London: Longmans, 1957); and “Gustav Adolphus and the Art of War,” in Essays in Swedish History, ed. M. Roberts (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967). Geoffrey Parker’s The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567–1659 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) and his influential The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) set the tone for the debate and sparked a cottage industry devoted the subject of the military revolution. A detailed discussion of these debates falls outside the focus of this study, though the conclusions drawn in the pages that follow suggest that the English were eager to keep pace with the changes in military technology and tactics, though I believe those changes to have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. For a discussion of England’s role in the transformation of European warfare during this period, see G. Phillips, The Anglo-Scots Wars 1513–1550 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1999); D. Eltis, The Military Revolution in the Sixteenth Century (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 1995); and M.C. Fissel, English Warfare 1511–1642 (London: Routledge, 2001).

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

21

state-commission armies of the eighteenth century.2 This new ethos took shape over the course of the sixteenth century and represented a change in the nature, but not necessarily the meaning, of military leadership. As war grew in complexity, members of the military profession where expected to be familiar with all aspects of the art of war, be it infantry and cavalry tactics, siegecraft, the placing of artillery or encamping, and victualling. Those in command were increasingly being called upon to lead and equally important, to manage armies. Thomas Arnold has suggested that warfare in the early modern period had become an intellectual problem and it was expected that task-oriented officers would be able to draw up orders, read maps, oversee the recruitment and maintenance of armies, and work alongside engineers and gunners during siege operations. According to Arnold, “the moment infantry tactics became a problem for educated military men, as happened in Italy for the early sixteenth century; they naturally went about the problem in the manner of intellectuals; they talked, they corresponded, they wrote and they published.”3 By the late sixteenth century, Englishmen were enthusiastically embracing the intellectualization of warfare and advocating the study of the military discipline and the establishment of academies devoted to the training of young noblemen for war. In 1570 Sir Humphrey Gilbert, in an early attempt to facilitate the transformation of warfare in England, proposed a curriculum for educating wards and the sons of nobles and gentry at his Queen Elizabeth’s Academy. Gilbert’s programme was meant to prepare young students for civil and military service. Well educated and praised for his intellect, Gilbert attended Eton and at Oxford in the 1550s before going to war on the continent. The half-brother of Walter Ralegh, Gilbert was a hardened veteran by 1570 when he drew up the curriculum. He had first served the Huguenot cause in France in 1562 before making his way to Ireland where he earned a reputation for his brutality against the Irish rebels and the native population. Following his service in the Irish wars, Gilbert took command of the second volunteer force that arrived in Netherlands in 1572. Gilbert’s days at Oxford taught him that it was the job of

2 A description of the characteristics of the aggregate contract and state-commission armies can be found in John A. Lynn’s, “The Evolution of Army Style in the Modern West 800–2000,” International History Review 18, no. 3 (Aug. 1996): 505–45. 3 T. Arnold, The Renaissance at War (London: Cassell & Co., 2001), 64.

22

chapter one

university to train scholars, not soldiers or statesmen. “Schole clerkes,” he wrote, were “not always the wisest men” with their days at Oxford and Cambridge often spent in “idleness and licentiousness.”4 Military service on the continent and in Ireland had shown Gilbert that practical skills were also essential to a gentlemen’s education and for this reason, students at the academy were expected to study “matters of accion meet for present practize, both of peace and war.”5 Those who did not wish to pursue an education in letters would be expected to study martial activities. In the end, Gilbert’s proposal for the academy failed, but its curriculum, innovative by the standards of the day, reflected an understanding of the growing complexity of warfare and recognized the importance of teaching warfare’s theoretical and practical aspects. Military history and modern military theory were to be taught, as were subjects related to siegecraft and military architecture. Students were expected to understand the “manner of forces they had and have, and what were and are distinct disciplines and kindes of arminge, training and maintaining, of their soldiers in every particular kind of service.”6 One of the goals of the academy was to produce perfect or complete soldiers, versed in theory and skilled in arms of various sorts. Gilbert’s young charges were to be taught to handle the harquebus, to practize in the said Achademie all kindes of Skirmishinges, Imbattelinges, and sondery kindes of marchinges, apointinge amonge them, some one tyme, and some another, to supply the roames of Captaines and other officers, Which they may very well exercise without armes and with light staves, in steade of Pikes and Holbeardes, being yearely allowed for the same.7

Gilbert’s academy may well have failed because it was ahead of its time. Academies to train young nobles and provide officers for the army opened in Italy and Germany in the first decades of the seventeenth century with curricula similar to Gilbert’s.8 All these schools were short lived, closing in most cases because of a lack of funding. 4 H. Gilbert, Queene Elizabethes achademy: a booke of precedence, etc. (Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint Co., 1973), 3 and 10. 5 Ibid., 10. 6 Ibid., 2–3. 7 Ibid., 5. 8 See J.R. Hale, “The Military Education of the Officer Class,” 228–9. Hale notes the creation of four schools in Italy between 1608 and 1610. These were located in Padua, Verona, Udine, and Treviso.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

23

Consequently, gentlemen intent on volunteering for service abroad and eager to learn more about the arte militarie were best served by turning to military books. Ancient military writers had long been considered the best source of information on military affairs but by the end of the century, tutors were increasingly recommending works by modern military theorists. This chapter examines the development of English military culture in the period 1572 to 1603, looking at the circles of English gentlemen soldiers who served abroad in the “schooles of warre” in the Netherlands, Ireland, France, and Germany and the influence that military books and manuals had on shaping their knowledge of military discipline. A cursory examination of the late sixteenth century in this first chapter is necessary to establish the connections (and continuities) between military practice and military culture in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. The military circles formed at the end of Elizabeth’s reign continued to be influential in the first decade of Jacobean rule and the military writers who were part of these circles continued to contribute to discussions about the military arts well into the first quarter of the seventeenth century. Matriculating in the Schoole of Warre: English Entry into the Low Countries War At the end of the 1570s, three English soldiers serving in the Netherlands took a respite from the fighting and put down their swords to take up pen and paper, each urging his fellow countrymen to take heed of the struggle occurring in the Low Countries between the Dutch rebels and their Spanish overlords. Two of the three, Geffrey Gates and William Blandy were at the time serving together as volunteers, while it is unclear whether the third, Thomas Churchyard, was familiar with either Gates or Blandy. Churchyard, then in his fifties, had been a soldier since the late 1530s, fighting with the earl of Surrey in France in 1537 and later in Scotland and Germany in the 1560s, before eventually making his way to the Netherlands.9 Gates, the son of an Essex gentleman joined the ranks of Sir John Norris’s company that left for the Low Countries

9 R. Lyne, ‘Churchyard, Thomas (1523?–1604)’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., May 2006.

24

chapter one

in 1578. We know little of Gates’s early life beyond the fact that he, like Blandy, was educated at the Inns of Court. Gates matriculated at Lincoln’s Inn in 1566 while Blandy arrived at the Middle Temple in 1571. By the late 1570s all three men could be counted among the hundreds of English volunteers serving in companies supporting the Dutch rebellion. Their treatises, Churchyard’s A Lamentable, and pitifull Description of the wofull warres in Flanders (1578), Gates’s The defence of militarie profession (1579), and Blandy’s The Castle, or picture of policy . . . (1581) were polemical, written to warn English readers that the war in the Netherlands could have far-reaching implications not only for the Protestant faith and the Dutch people but also for the English Queen and her subjects. The English, they urged, must prepare themselves for war or they too might soon fall under the Spanish yoke. Thomas Churchyard contributed two works to the discourse on the Low Countries war, A Lamentable, and pitifull Description of the wofull warres in Flanders printed in 1578 and A generall rehearsall of warres, which followed a year later.10 Both tracts justified English participation in the conflict, with the Description of the wofull warres in Flanders giving a history of the military campaigns in the Netherlands dating from the wars of Charles V in the 1540s and A general rehearsall of warres offering an account of the events surrounding the outbreak of the Dutch Revolt and its progress up to 1579. Churchyard was an experienced soldier and he showered great praise on the English soldiers for their repeated acts of valour in combat, singling out those gentlemen who, “without the knowledge of our Prince, and hir highnesse honorable Council, stole by secreate meanes, out of England to Flushing, for the whiche at their returne home againe, they were a long while frowned upon, and could not come in Court.”11 At the time Churchyard’s treatises were being printed, Elizabeth I had yet to commit an army to the Netherlands though many of her loyal subjects had already volunteered for service with the Dutch. The intention of Churchyard’s treatises was to herald the success of these men, describing the contributions of Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Captain Thomas Morgan, each of whom led companies to the Low Countries in 1572, as well as “many other Captaines and

10 T. Churchyard, A Lamentable, and pitifull Description of the wofull warres in Flanders (London: Henry Bynneman for Ralph Newberry, 1578) and A generall rehearsall of warres, called Churchyardes choise wherein is fiue hundred seuerall seruices of land and sea as seiges, battailes, skirmiches, and encounters (London: John Kingston for Edward White, 1579). 11 Churchyard, A Lamentable, and pitifull Description, 54.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

25

Gentlemen” who followed them and served with valour and honour. Churchyard had great admiration for these gentlemen volunteers who had risked their lives, and it was believed, their position at court by aiding the Protestant cause abroad. In A generall rehearsall of warres Churchyard linked the contingents serving in the Low Countries in the 1570s with their countrymen who fought with Henry VIII, looking back on the bygone age as a time when “all Chevalrie was cherished, Souldiers made of, and manhoode so much esteemed, that he was thought happie and most valiaunt, that fought credite by the exercise of Armes, and discipline of warre.”12 Geffrey Gates issued his own warning cry to the English people in his The defence of militarie profession, advising his audience that the oppressive treatment of the Dutch citizenry by the army of the duke of Alva, whom Gates described as the “dreadful and renowned chieftaine of the Papists,” was just a glimpse of the fate awaiting England if her soldiers were not trained up in the military discipline. The occupation of the Low Countries by Spanish forces, the execution of the Dutch nobles Egmont and Horne and the introduction of the Inquisition into the Netherlands was further evidence of the “arrogant domination of so implacable people as bee the Spanyards.”13 As Gates saw it, the English Church and English liberties were threatened by this foreign evil, and his pamphlet was meant to “warneth England to waken it selfe out of securitie, and to be watchfull, and wisely to take it selfe.”14 Gates believed that the only way that the English could be assured of security in the future was to improve their military capabilities in the present. Only by advancing the military profession at home could England repress and restrain the “tyrannies and noyfull malice of the wicked.” His months of service had taught him “to love and to honour armes, and in zeale of a good heart to covet the advancement of martial occupation.” So angered was Gates by the tyrannies he witnessed, that his inability to write did not deter him from calling upon a notary “to sette down in writing this draft in the defence and praise of warlike prowess.”15

Churchyard, A generall rehearsall of warres, sig. A.i. G. Gates, The defence of militarie profession, Wherein is eloquently shewed the due commendation of martiall prowesse, and plainly proved how necessary the exercise of armes is for this our age (London: Henry Middleton for John Harrison, 1579), 26. 14 Ibid., 6. 15 Ibid. 12 13

26

chapter one

William Blandy agreed with both Churchyard and Gates that the military profession and martial prowess must be put to better use in defence of the Protestant faith and England’s sovereign prince. In The Castle, or picture of policy . . ., a dialogue with his comrade Gates, Blandy wrote that those who had made the sacrifice in the “cause of our countrye” were to be considered truly honourable men. They that venture theyr lives for these poyntes, are appointed in the right course and race of true honor: for that they obtayne the true and undoubted end of vertue: wherefore all other that purpose unto themselves riches fame and glory depending on the content of the unlettered multitude, and respect not the true soveraygne good, they are rather to be accompted men puff upp with vayne desire, and ambition, then valiant and courageous men.16

In his treatise, Blandy sought to more closely tie the fate of the Prince with that of the soldier. Without the military profession, the state could easily fall into decay and those states on the brink of extinction could only be brought back to life when stability was restored. This could only be done through the establishment of law and order, accomplished under the firm rule of the prince and aided by a well-armed and well-ordered army. For Blandy, the soldier served two purposes, first executing the sovereign’s will “upon the offender at home, and in the Citty” and second, by wreaking “the indignation of the Prince in the field, upon the body of the enemy.”17 Order at home and protection against external threats were thus the only means of securing and preserving the commonwealth; a failure to secure either threat could have dire consequences for the sovereign and her people. Churchyard, Gates, and Blandy recognized that the Englishmen who had already volunteered for service in the army of the States General were helping to turn back the Spanish threat before it reached England’s shores. Their call to arms was meant to attract more gentlemen volunteers to serve in the Netherlands but also bring about improvements to military training in England. From their vantage point all three believed the time for talk had ended and the time for action had arrived. Gates best summed up those feelings, urging that

16 W. Blandy, The Castle, or picture of policy shewing forth most lively, the face, body and partes of a commonwealth . . . (London: John Daye, 1581), 12. 17 Ibid., 15.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

27

when Preaching, professe, plee or persuasion cannot prevaile, in reforming the evils and outrages of the wicked: then must the sword of violence be put in execution, by the hands of them that are able and skilfull to abate and to extinquish the furies of tumults and Rebellions and either to bring to obedience the disordered multitude or else to cut them off from the earth, that peace and civill justice may possesse and rule all the lande, to the restitution and preservation of domestical concord and Societie, without the which mankinde should decay from the face of the earth, & the rest that remained in the worlde, should be in more miserable state then the wild beasts of the desert.18

Many Englishmen heeded the call and over the next forty years thousands of gentlemen volunteered for service in the Low Countries and other foreign fields, in effect forming the core of an English standing army. The constant presence of these soldiers on the continent helped to maintain and shape English military culture at home, infusing it with new tactics and techniques. That army began to take shape on December 9, 1585, the day two fleets set sail from England bound for the Low Countries. A Dutch fleet, recently arrived from the Netherlands, departed from London carrying companies of soldiers raised from the English counties, while an English fleet, under the command of Admiral William Borough, left from Harwich carrying Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, his servants, and a contingent of 1585 English troops.19 Among the soldiers accompanying the English fleet were ninety-two gentlemen of quality, men who would serve as regimental colonels and company captains, some of whom would distinguish themselves on the battlefield, while others who would not.20 As Churchyard had reminded his readers six years earlier, the first gentlemen who made their way to the Low Countries had done so for the sake of “knowledge, fame and entertainment” and those travelling with Leicester’s force were no different. Elizabeth’s decision to send the expeditionary force had been a difficult one for the Gates, The defence of militarie profession, 10. G.B. Harrison, The Life and Death of Robert Devereux Earl of Essex (New York: Henry Holt, 1937), 11. 20 For a list of those gentlemen who were part of Leicester’s expedition see R. Strong and J.A. Van Dorsten, eds., Leicester’s Triumph (Leiden: Thomas Browne Institute, 1964), appendix 3, 108–134. Included among the ranks were the Elizabethan figures such as Peregrine Bertie, Christopher Blount, Sir John Conway, father of Edward Conway, Sir Thomas Heneage, William Knollys, Sir Robert Jermyn, William Russell, Robert and Philip Sidney, Sir Henry Unton, Sir Edmund Uvedale, and the writer George Whetstone, who died in a duel with Uvedale outside of Bergen-Op-Zoom in the Netherlands in 1587. 18 19

28

chapter one

Queen. She was wary of openly supporting rebellion against a fellow monarch, Philip II, and she also feared that entering into a lengthy war with Europe’s most powerful state might drain the treasury in much the same way it had depleted her father’s coffers. Yet the encirclement of Antwerp by the duke of Parma’s army in the summer of 1585 had left Elizabeth with no choice but to send troops to the Low Countries in support of the Dutch cause, a decision that was formally ratified with the signing of the Treaty of Nonsuch in August, the same month that Antwerp fell to Parma. The treaty, later described by Thomas Digges, Leicester’s muster-master general, in his Briefe Report of the Militarie Services Done in the Low Countries (1587) as a grant unto the States General of a “large and bountifull aide of men and money,” set the size of the English expeditionary force at 5000 foot and 1000 horse and had also named Leicester as the expedition’s lord general. The signing of the Treaty of Nonsuch was a victory for the militant “political Puritans” in Elizabeth’s Privy Council, men like Leicester, Philip Sidney, Francis Walsingham, the earl of Bedford, Francis Knollys, and Walter Mildmay, who were able to convince Elizabeth that the Spanish military presence in the Low Countries could no longer be ignored and had to be confronted.21 After more than a decade of indecision regarding English military involvement in the Dutch Revolt, the signing of the Treaty of Nonsuch and the decision to dispatch Leicester’s expeditionary force had finally formalized the Anglo-Dutch military relationship. A “small and little troupe” of English volunteers initially arrived in the Low Countries in June of 1572, disembarking in Flushing to assist in the defence of the town. That force, described by Churchyard in A generall rehearsall of warres, was composed of 300 men led by Thomas Morgan, recruited and paid for by Walloon and Fleming exiles living in London.22 A second, larger force of 1100 men commanded by Sir Humphrey Gilbert arrived a month later, and included in its ranks Roger Williams, who would later go on to write two accounts of his long service in the Low Countries. Though Elizabeth publicly denied providing support 21 For a discussion of the debates surrounding the political and religious implications of English engagement in the Netherlands, see H. Dunthorne, “Resisting Monarchy: The Netherlands as Britain’s School of Revolution in the Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Royal Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe, ed. R. Oresko, G.C. Gibbs, and H.M. Scott (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 125–48. 22 J.A. Dop, Eliza’s Knights: Soldiers, Poets, and Puritans in the Netherlands, 1572–1586 (Alblasserdam: Remak, 1981), 142.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

29

for the force, Lord Burghley, Elizabeth’s principal secretary, was kept well informed about its activities through letters sent by Morgan and Gilbert.23 The government, though clearly interested in the impact these mercenaries might have on the situation in Flanders, took care to distance themselves from publicly backing the venture. Rather than engage in supporting the Dutch rebels in their fight with Philip II, the English mercenaries were instructed to stymie French interests in the region. With the intensification of the French wars of religion in the early 1570s, the threat posed to Flanders by the French dissipated, leaving the English with little option but to sell their services to either the Dutch or the Spaniards.24 This initial foray by English soldiers into the Low Countries met with little success, though there are repeated references to the valour of the English soldiers who served in support of rebels. The troops that were sent to Flushing were, for the most part, inexperienced and ill equipped to handle the rigours of war, especially against opponents as seasoned as the Spanish tercios. An anonymous soldier, writing in 1600, described the arrival of many young men and gentlemen from England, France, and Scotland shortly after the revolt began. These men were “no soldiers but onely rich merchants and artificers who both would and could give great entertainment unto such as would fight for them, for seldom valour and riches joyne together in one person except be he Noble.”25 The veteran Roger Williams, also writing some years after the fact, reported that about a third of Morgan’s men had served in Ireland, Scotland, or France, but described the rest as “rawe, look[ing] for no more than bare victuals, lodging, and promise of pay.”26 Williams spoke of the disorder in the ranks and also the fear among many soldiers during the surprise attack launched by the Spanish at Ter Goes in 1572. He blamed the failure of the English to take Sluys and Ter Goes as a product of the ignorance of the English commanders, who knew neither their “own estate, much lesse the enemies.”27 Yet the lack of success of these first contingents and the return of many of these troops to England at summer’s end did not seem 23 D. Caldecott-Baird, ed., The Expedition in Holland, 1572–1574 (London: Seeley Service, 1976), 6. 24 Ibid. 25 BL, Add. MS, 41615, ff. 8–9. 26 R. Williams, The Actions of the Lowe Countries (London: Humphrey Lownes for Mathew Lownes, 1618), 63. 27 Ibid., 76.

30

chapter one

to dampen the enthusiasm of the volunteers who followed in their footsteps, many of whom were motivated as much by religious ideology and the defence of Protestantism as they were by their thirst for adventure or the promises of wealth and glory. As David Trim has asserted in his article on the conduct of English soldiers in the Netherlands, among “many foreign Protestant soldiers in Dutch service, [the English] willingness to serve, their dedication to the cause, and their combat effectiveness all arose from religious conviction and apocalyptic, millenarian beliefs.”28 It was this ideological conviction, so evident in Gates’s The defence of militarie profession, that led the thousands of English volunteers to commit themselves to the cause of the Dutch rebellion in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Religion acted as the glue that bound together many of the volunteers and it was also a significant factor in forging the circles of gentlemen soldiers who are the focus of this chapter. The bloody struggle between Catholic and Protestant on the continent in the 1570s, marked by the horrors of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in August 1572 and Alva’s sack of Antwerp in 1574, heightened fears among England’s Protestants and strengthened their resolve to defend the reformed church through the exercise of arms. Between 1572 and the decision by Elizabeth to send troops to the Netherlands, English volunteers enlisted in the States army to defend the Protestant faith. John Lingham, clerk to Captain William Martin, wrote in 1584 that the English captains he had the pleasure to serve with in the Netherlands fought “for their conscience sake, & the glory of the Gospell.”29 Even before the arrival of Leicester’s expedition in 1585, Lingham could list thirty-seven captains who died in battles and skirmishes with the Spanish who had “spent their dearest blood” for the defence of England and the cause of Protestantism.30 While religion inspired many to volunteer for service abroad, the defence of the Elizabethan state also required that the ranks be filled by those who were not so enthusiastic about donning the corslet and taking up the pike. Contemporary observers could praise the worthy, 28 D. Trim, “Ideology, Greed and Social Discontent in Early Modern Europe: Mercenaries and Mutinies in the Rebellious Netherlands, 1568–1609,” in Rebellion, Repression, Reinvention: Mutiny in Comparative Perspective, ed. J. Hathaway, (London: Praeger, 2001), 47–61. 29 J. Lingham, A True Relation of all English Captains and Lieutenants as have been slain in the Low Countries, together with those now living: as also of such as are fled to the Enemie (London: Roger Ward, 1584). 30 Ibid., sig. A.2v.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

31

as Lingham did, but they could just as easily voice their unease over the quality of soldiers being sent abroad. It was common practice for county officials to clear the prisons and gaols of men when the call for new recruits went out, and while there were many who scorned the practice, it had long been the preferred method of ridding the counties of the unwanted, thereby saving those who contributed to the local economy from being sent off to war. Gates, for one, vigorously condemned the pressing of criminals and vagabonds, despising the fact that the English had, on more than one occasion, called out “the refuse of the people to be soldiers for the service of their Prince and countreie.”31 By drawing on the “worse sort of men,” the reputation of the military profession suffered and the English state, as Gates saw it, faced ruination if such scoundrels continued to be used to defend the country. A year before the Spanish Armada set sail the veteran Barnabe Rich, a vocal proponent of improving military training and a good friend of Churchyard’s, lamented that, when service happeneth we disburthen the prisons of Theeves, we robbe the Tavernes and Alehouses of Tolpottes, and Ruffines, wee scoure both Towne and Cuntrie of Rogges and vagabons. And is not a Captaine that is furnisht with such a company like to do great service, and to keepe them in good discipline. In other Countries where they use the service of malefactours, they admit them not for souldiours, but they send them to theyr Gallies and to other paces of like slavery.32

The Elizabethan government found, just as the Jacobean and Caroline governments would, that the task of finding quality recruits for military service, training them and keeping them in the ranks was fraught with an array of problems. Warfare Abroad and Reform at Home The presence of a large Spanish force in the Netherlands prompted concerns in England over the state of the militia—the force expected to repel any threat from abroad. As Lindsay Boynton and others have shown, Elizabeth’s government established the foundation for an effective

Gates, The defense of militarie profession, 18. B. Rich, A Path-Way to Military Practise (London: John Charlewood for Robert Walley, 1587), sig. C3v. 31

32

32

chapter one

militia system when the trained bands were introduced in 1572–3.33 The threat of foreign invasion was hardly a new concern for the English and prior to the creation of the bands various schemes and recommendations had been put forward to improve the arming and training of the county militias. The push for a change in the early 1570s had come as the result of the Dutch Revolt; the creation of the trained bands, a force that was to be better armed and better trained then its predecessor, was expected to defend the nation against the Spanish tercios, if and when they arrived on the English coast. Traditionally, the militia was composed of men ages sixteen to sixty and it mustered once a year, its ranks brought together and paraded before the sheriff and local commissioners of musters over a two-day period, after which the men were sent back to their homes. The muster did have a training element, which usually took place on the second day of the gathering and involved marching, forming companies into squares, and manoeuvring them about the muster ground. These drills were occasionally followed by mock battles that might involve both foot and horse troops, if the latter were raised in adequate numbers. Yet general musters tended to be administrative in nature, with the counting of men and their weapons and the recording of those not in attendance. The real training of the militia was to take place at home where men engaged in “special” or “private musters.” It was at these gatherings that members of the militia were expected to learn how to use their weapons, how to march in files, and in the case of mounted troops, how to charge the enemy. Between 1569 and 1572 the Privy Council issued orders to rectify some of the shortcomings of the traditional militia system. Instructions from the Council in 1569 expressed the government’s interest in seeing the militia armed with the best weaponry, an almost impossible undertaking considering the difficulty that most counties had in convincing their wealthy inhabitants to contribute to the defence of the shire, not to mention the ongoing problems in maintaining the same weapons over the course of years, if not decades, of use. In June 1569 Council instructions called on the commissioners of musters to increase the number and quality of harquebuses and to procure as For discussions of the creation, see L. Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia 1558–1638, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967, C.G. Cruickshank, Elizabeth’s Army, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966 and M. Fissel, English Warfare 1511–1642, London: Routledge, 2001. 33

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

33

many calivers as possible. The caliver was an improvement over the harquebus; it was shorter and easier to handle, but was less powerful than the musket that would eventually become the preferred weapon of the English armies in the early seventeenth century. As far as training was concerned, the counties were left, for now, to their own devices. According to the instructions, commissioners were to “devise how more men may be taught to use” their newly acquired [gunpowder] weapons, with “a number of places . . . chosen for exercises, which they may rent at limited times, as near as possible to market towns, &c., where the conflux of people may be most convenient, and where the harquebuses with their furniture may be most safely kept and preserved in a storehouse.”34 The exercise grounds were to have an enclosed area, at least 120 yards long and wide enough “for persons to assemble in,” which was set aside for target practice with gun and bow. The training grounds were to act as the place where members of the hundred or wapentake might regularly meet to practise their martial skills, and the grounds also were designated as the central location where, in the event of invasion, members of the militia might congregate, collect their arms, and head for pre-established mustering points. The government wished to see training at these grounds carried out at least twice a month, possibly on Sundays or on holidays, with the local justices or captains present to oversee the exercises and to offer prizes to the best shot with harquebus and with bow and arrow.35 The introduction of the trained bands in 1572–3 built on these earlier instructions, stipulating that the members of the bands, while continuing to be drawn from those sixteen to sixty, should be raised from the county’s “better sorts,” particularly yeomen farmers, artisans of good standing, or their sons. These men were to be commanded by gentlemen of the shires and trained by muster masters or veterans who had gained experience in foreign wars. The bands, unlike the militia, were expected to gather together and train at least ten times a year,

CSPD Elizabeth I Addenda, 1566–1579, 79. Directions issued in 1585 called upon band corporals to have a 20 ft. wide and 16 ft. high butt constructed, “remote from the hygh way or other common frequented place, and in the midst thereof to sett a rundell of boorde of a yard and a half braode, with certayne black rundelles and whyte amidst, against which the souldyer is to levell his peece for his better ayme and ready discharginge. According to the instructions, soldiers were to stand at least 150 yards from the butt. J. Goring and J. Wake, eds., Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers and Other Documents 1580–1614 (Gateshead, UK: Northamptonshire Record Society, 1975), 18. 34 35

34

chapter one

with the local elite continuing to provide weaponry for those serving in the ranks. Training and outfitting the bands remained the responsibility of the individual shires with the Privy Council continuing to issue instructions to the lords lieutenant and their deputies on the calling of musters, the procurement of weapons, and the methods of training. Once the bands were established the Elizabethan government issued directives on training piecemeal, with instructions issued in the 1580s and 1590s that offered muster commissioners and lieutenants some advice on how to train new members of the bands in the use of shot and in very rudimentary motions. In a letter to lords lieutenant dated May 1584, the Council directed the leaders and captains of the bands to set up a halberd in the plain, whereby everie shot maie passe in that order which the French men call a la file and, as we term it, in ranke as wild geese, and so passing by the halberd to present his peece and make offer as thoughe would shoote. And those which doe not behave them selves with their peeces as they ought maie receave particular instruction and teaching. This exercise would be vsed twoe or three meetings at least for ignorant people, in which time maie bee discerned those that cannot frame themselves in anie likelihood to prove shott, in whose roomes the captaines maie require others to bee placed who are apt therevnto.36

Once all those capable of marching in ranks and carrying their harquebuses were identified to the captains, they were taught to safely hold and load their weapons in unison. The instructions encouraged captains to educate their men in giving false fires, the process whereby the pan was primed but the muzzle was not loaded with powder or shot. False fires were used to give soldiers a small taste of what they would experience in battle, with the “flash of the fyre” expected to “embolden the parties, and make evrie thing familiar and readie vnto them.”37 After recruits felt comfortable priming and firing their weapons with false fires, they were given the chance to add powder to the barrel, and brought forward in ranks to skirmish and then retreat to reload. Only after these steps were mastered were the bands allowed to add a bullet to the mix and compete with one another by shooting at the mark. Using false fires and restricting the amount of target practice saved powder and reduced the costs of training. The Privy

36 37

Ibid., 36–7. Ibid.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

35

Council calculated that two pounds of powder was sufficient for one man over four days of exercising, and with forty shot in each company of one hundred men, eighty pounds of powder would be expected to be consumed at two musters. In another letter from the Privy Council dated March 1597/8 and drawn up by the clerk of the Council, William Waad, the bands were finally given more specific instructions on how to carry out training. The directions provided spelled out which men should receive which weapons, the strongest were to be give pikes, the squarest, muskets, the nimblest, calivers. There was, however, a further suggestion that all men should be familiar with the most common weapons in the early modern arsenal, the pike, harquebus, musket, and caliver. Waad’s letter did not provide any other information on how weapons training was to be carried out, though the letter did point out that companies should be divided into smaller groups to assist in the carriage and use of arms, marching and carrying out the motions of war, and gaining an understanding of “all the formes of armes and wordes of direction.”38 Included in the letter was a list of the words of command for opening, closing and advancing files, making this one of the first attempts by the English government to standardize commands for the militia and for continental-bound contingents.39 Beyond these brief hand-written instructions to the lords and deputy lieutenants, the Privy Council issued no printed instructions to assist with training at musters in the last decade of Elizabeth’s reign. A set of printed instructions, the Ordonances and instructions for musters were issued to English troops serving in the Low Countries in 1590 but they were concerned with the administrative aspects of the musters, particularly the duties and responsibilities of the governors, officers, and soldiers serving in the cautionary towns and not with matters related to the drilling of companies.40 The Ordonances addressed the “many grosse

CSPD SP/12/266, f. 139. Harald Kleinschmidt explores the matter of words of command and the crosscurrents between England and the Low Countries in Tyrocinium militare: militärische Körperhaltungen und -bewegungen im Wandel zwischen dem 14. und dem 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Autorenverlag H. Kleinschmidt, 1983), 111–15. Stuttgart: Autorenverlag H. Kleinschmidt, c. 1989, Stuttgart: Autorenverlag H. Kleinschmidt, c. 1989. 40 Ordonances and instructions for musters, to be obserued by the gouernors, chiefe officers, captaines and souldiers, in her Maiesties pay in the Lowe Countries and to be put in execution by the officers and commissaries of the musters resident in the garrisons, and attendant on the companies employed in the field: established by her Maiestie, and the Lordes of her Highnesse priuie Counsaile for reformation of 38 39

36

chapter one

and manifest frauds and deceipts” practised by English officers at the mustering in the Netherlands. The Council wished to reform the system by making sure that the officers present at musters root out “abuses and disorders” by ensuring that vagrants and camp followers were not used to fill the ranks and that all soldiers mustered were in possession of their own weapons and not those borrowed from other companies. Despite its efforts to improve the militia, the Elizabethan Privy Council failed in the end to introduce a standardized and codified system for training the bands, leaving it up to individual company captains and muster masters to decide how their men should be drilled. As Boynton noted, the trained bands in 1572–3 had come with the “acceptance of the imperative need for a professional attitude, based on continental standards, in military affairs,” but the Council had failed to establish a set of training instructions that could have assisted in instilling a sense of professionalism among the ranks. Instead, the task of producing a set of instructions fell to veterans and private citizens who were concerned about the poor state of the English soldiery. Books, Learning, and Military Culture The method many would-be reformers used to suggest improvements in training was the military book, which became increasing popular in England during the 1570s and 1580s. The first influential military book of the Elizabethan period, Peter Whitehorne’s Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers in battelray was printed in 1560.41 The work, which accompanied Whitehorne’s translation of Machiavelli’s Arte of warre, came from the press of London printer John Kingston for Nicholas England. Like so many of the military authors, Whitehorne was a veteran, a former soldier in the army of Charles V, the King of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor and he served throughout the Mediterranean during Charles’s campaigns against the Turks in the 1550s. Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers in battelray opened with a discussion such disorders as are growen by lacke of discipline among her martiall men (London: Christopher Barker, 1590). 41 P. Whitehorne’s Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers in battelray is found in The arte of warre, written first in Italia[n] by Nicholas Machiauell, and set forthe in Englishe by Peter Whitehorne, studient at Graies Inne: with an addicio[n] of other like marcialle feates and experimentes, and in a table in the ende of the booke maie appere, (London: John Kingston for Nicholas England, 1562).

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

37

of how to organize men into battle squares and also included chapters on fortification, siegecraft, and artillery, the first in English to address the transformation of siege warfare that had been taking place on the Italian peninsula.42 The book, written with the express purpose of training the ranks to operate as a cohesive unit in the field, was also one of the first English military books to include text and diagrams depicting various infantry formations used on the continent. New editions of Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers in battelray appeared in 1573 and 1588, each being printed with Machiavelli’s treatise on war. Also accompanying the second and third editions of the English translation of Arte of warre was Henry Grantham’s translation of Girolamo Cataneo’s Most briefe tables to knowe redily howe manye ranckes of footemen armed with Corslettess vnarmed, go to the making of a iust battyle, from an hundred vnto twentye thousande.43 Cataneo’s tables were useful in the organizing of large numbers of men into squares or battles and when printed with Whitehorne’s works, the three books created an extensive compendium on the martial arts. Whitehorne’s translation of the Arte of warre proved a popular work and it could be found in the libraries of many gentlemen soldiers well into the seventeenth century. In the dedication to Queen Elizabeth found in the 1562 edition, Whitehorne described his translation of the Arte of warre as a gift to the English people. He explained that he had found much in reading Machiavelli that was profitable to a soldier and had decided that it must be translated to “communicate the same to many,” our Englishmen finding out the ordering and disposing of [the] exploides of warre therein contained, the aide and direction of these plaine and briefe precepts, mighte no lesse in knowledge of warres become incomparable, then it provides also an exercise of the same altogether invincible . . . together with such other things [Certain waies], as by me hath beene gathered, & thought good to adde thereunto.44

The reprinting of Machaivelli’s Arte of warre and the addition of Grantham’s translation of Cataneo’s Briefe tables in 1573–4 does not seem to have been an arbitrary decision on the part of the printer,

42 See Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion of Whitehorne’s chapters on siegecraft. 43 G. Cataneo, Most briefe tables to knowe redily howe manye ranckes of footemen armed with Corslettes, as vnarmed, go to the making of a iust battyle, from an hundred vnto twentye thousande, trans. Henry Grantham (London: W. Williamson, 1574). 44 Whitehorne, The arte of warre, The Epistle Dedicatorie.

38

chapter one

coming only a year after the establishment of the trained bands. The year before, John Sadler had published a translation of The Four Bookes of Flavius Vegetius Renatus, the fifth century work on the military arts that was consistently quoted by late Tudor and early Stuart military writers, especially those sections that Vegetius devoted to physical fitness and training. Sadler opined that his book was not meant to replace experience, but to augment it, a claim that was to be reiterated by most authors of military books over the next seventy years. “It seemeth a farre better and shorter waye to attaine to the name of a worthye and perfect Captaine,” Sadler asserted, to joyne experience unto knowledge, then to get knowledge by experience. For mans life being short and subject to many casualtyes, oftentimes is cutte before it can come to any such perfection as is required in an excellent man of warre: whereas small experience with vigilente reading and perfecte learninge of the feates of warre, may frame and make many politticke Captaynes in a shorter space. I do not meane that knowledge withoute experience, can do anye great thinge at all; but beinge joyned together, doubtless they may be able to bringe to pass as great and marvelous thinges in valiant men in these our dayes.45

The production of English military books at the end of the 1570s and again in the late 1580s was the result of the growing European tensions and the English decision to become fully engaged in the Dutch revolt and in a war against Spain. A number of these works were modelled on classical military treatises, particularly Vegetius’s manual, while others drew their inspiration from continental treatises that were available through booksellers in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Late Tudor works, such as Thomas Proctor’s Of the knowledge and conducte of warres (1578), Thomas Digges’s An arithmetical vvarlike treatise named Stratioticos . . . (1579), and Thomas Styward’s The Pathwaie to Martiall Discipline (1581) were all popular with English readers and when the war with Spain intensified in 1588 a second wave of English military books, notably Giles Clayton’s Approved order of martiall discipline (1591), William Garrard’s The Arte of Warre (1591), Matthew Sutcliffe’s The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes . . . (1593), and Robert Barret’s The Theorike and Practike of Moderne Warres (1598), were printed to meet

J. Sadler, The foure bookes of Flauius Vegetius Renatus briefelye contayninge a plaine forme, and perfect knowledge of martiall policye, feates of chiualrie, and vvhatsoeuer pertayneth to warre. Translated out of [sic] lattine, into Englishe, by Iohn Sadler. Anno. 1572. Seene and allovved, accordinge to the order appointed (London: Thomas Marshe, 1572), To the Reader. 45

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

39

the needs of English soldiers.46 By the end of Elizabeth’s reign, seventeen works devoted specifically to the military arts had been printed in England. If translations of continental works are also included, works such as Francois de La Noue’s The Politike and Militarie Discovrses (1587) and Raimond de Fourquevaux’s Instructions for the Warres. Amply, learnedly and politiquely, discoursing the method of Militarie Discipline (1589), as well as those books by English commentators on military affairs, such as those by Blandy, Gates, and Rich, the number of works on the arte militarie rises to thirty-three. A detailed study of these late sixteenth-century works, however, falls outside of the scope of this study and, though I examine some of these titles in later chapters, readers should consult Langsam, Webb, Hale, and Eltis for a more complete picture of Tudor military literature.47 The increased production of military books and manuals in the late sixteenth century was also part of the broader “educational revolution” that was taking place in England. The revolution, which had far-reaching implications for the professions of law, seafaring, and business, also benefited the profession of soldiering.48 Since the 1550s there were increasing numbers of gentlemen in attendance at Oxford, Cambridge, and the Inns of Court. The literacy rate among the nobility continued to rise in the late sixteenth century and there was a concomitant increase in the ownership of books among the elite.49 The late Tudor and early 46 T. Styward’s The Pathwaie to Martiall Discipline (London: T.E. for Myles Jenyngs), went to three editions, the first in 1581, the second in 1582 and a third in 1585. A second edition of Thomas Digges’s An arithmetical vvarlike treatise named Stratioticos (London: Henry Bynneman, 1579), appeared in 1590. 47 G.G. Langsam, Martial Books and Tudor Verse (New York: King’s Crown Press, 1951); H.J. Webb, Elizabethan Military Science: The Books and Practice (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965); J.R. Hale The Art of War and Renaissance England (Washington, DC: Folger Library Press, 1961); and D. Eltis, The Military Revolution in the Sixteenth Century (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 1995). 48 See F. Caspari, Humanism and the Social Order in Tudor England (Chicago: Teachers College Press, 1968); J. Simon, Education and Society in Tudor England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); K. Charlton, Education in Renaissance England (London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1965); and D. Cressy, Literacy and Social Order, Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). 49 J.H. Hexter found that lord and deputy lieutenants in the early Stuart period were very likely to have attended university and J.H. Gleason uncovered a similar trend among justices of the peace. In an investigation of the lieutenancy commission of Northamptonshire, Hexter found that between 1607 and 1619 the commission was composed of nineteen men. Of those nineteen, information on the educational backgrounds of fifteen is extant. Out of those fifteen, “eleven matriculated at Oxford or Cambridge, and of the eleven, seven were admitted to the Inns of Courts. Four others, who do not appear on the university registers, also went to the great English

40

chapter one

Stuart periods were marked by what Kenneth Charlton has called “a passionate regard for education” among the English elite that not only saw improvements to education and increased attendance at universities but also greater access to books from foreign and domestic printers (including English translations of foreign works). Travel to European centres of learning also enhanced the education of young Englishmen and gave them the opportunity to study continental warfare first hand. Education gained by study at home or travel abroad was no longer solely for the purpose of scholarship and contemplation, it was also expected that it would be used in the service of the state, making it a virtuous and worthwhile endeavour for all gentlemen.50 This pool of educated gentlemen produced what Wallace MacCaffrey has described as “a corps of talent that no monarch could ignore.”51 This flowering of education also precipitated attempts to standardize knowledge across a range of secular fields, including soldiering.52 At the centre of this transformation was the vernacular manual literature, which has been described as “the supreme exemplification of the modern notion that knowledge should be shared, and that such sharing, far from jeopardizing the interests of the few, would benefit the community at large.”53 By the late sixteenth century, English gentlemen could consult a range of didactic and instructional manuals to answer questions on a variety of subjects that included but were not limited to the law, local administration, navigation, personal defence, horsemanship, and animal husbandry. Manuals such as Anthony Fitzherbert’s The boke of iustyces of peas (1506), L’office et authoryte de Justyces de Peas (1538), and In this booke is contayned the offices of sheryffes, bailliffes of liberties, escheatours co[n]stables and coroners (1538); William Lambarde’s popular and well-respected

schools of law, and one of the four traveled on the Continent under the supervision of a tutor.” Similarly, in a study of early seventeenth-century gentry families in Yorkshire who became justices of the peace, J.H. Levy found that over three-quarters had attended university; see J.H. Hexter, “The Education of the Aristocracy in the Renaissance,” in Reappraisals in History (London: Longmans, 1961), 45–7; J.H. Gleason, The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558 to 1640: A Later Eirenarcha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 83–4; F.J. Levy, “How Information Spread Among the Gentry, 1550–1640,” Journal of British Studies 21 (Spring 1982), 12. 50 Charlton, Education in Renaissance England, 298. 51 W. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I: War and Politics, 1588–1603 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 456. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

41

Eirenarcha (1582); and Michael Dalton’s Countrey Justice (1635) offered justices of the peace useful advice on various points of law and local governance.54 There were similar efforts to quantify navigation and seafaring that was to produce a large library of maritime instructional literature between 1528 and 1640.55 Before the mid-sixteenth century, sea captains, navigators, and pilots did not require books on navigation owing to the fact that most ships skirted the coastlines with sailors relying on terrestrial navigation to guide them to their destination. As shipbuilding improved and seafarers took longer journeys across the world’s oceans, books on celestial navigation were soon accompanying sea captains on their voyages. Instructional manuals that relied heavily on mathematical formulae and astronomy were now being purchased along with compasses, astrolabes, and cross staffs to aid in sea-borne navigation. Included among the authors of the first navigational manuals in English was William Bourne, who also authored The Arte of Shooting in great Ordnaunce (1578) a popular work on gunnery. Bourne published three works on navigation in the second half of the sixteenth century, An Almanacke and Prognostication (1567), A Regiment for the Sea (1574), and Inventions and Devices (1590).56 Manuals on personal defence also found wide readership with late Elizabethan and early Stuart readers. Fencing and swordsmanship were integral parts of aristocratic culture and the publication of fencing manuals helped to popularize the techniques of foreign and indigenous fencing masters. Jay Anglin has suggested that during the sixteenth century the defensive arts required greater regulation as they grew in popularity, with leading instructors establishing strict guidelines for governing the use of weapons in mock combat. 57 As the art of fencing evolved and developed in England in the sixteenth century, Anglin points out that English fencing masters followed the traditions of personal combat that had their roots in the Middle Ages. For a time, instructors stifled the development of manuals since they were instruments for perpetuating traditional methods, rather than for introducing innovation. When that innovation did arrive in the Elizabethan period,

Ibid., 191. T. Adams, “The Beginnings of Maritime Publishing in England, 1528–1640,” The Library 14 (1992): 207–8. 56 Ibid., 214. 57 J.P. Anglin, “The Schools of Defense in Elizabethan England,” Renaissance Quarterly 37 (Winter, 1984): 393–410. 54

55

42

chapter one

it came via Spanish and Italian treatises imported into England. The first of these works to be translated into English was the Italian master Giacomo di Grassi’s Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l’Arme si da offesa come da difensa (1570), which was published in London in 1594 as Giacomo di Grassi his true Arte of Defence.58 A year later, London fencing master Vincentio Saviolo’s Vincentio Saviolo his Practise In two Bookes was printed by Thomas Scarlett for John Wolf. The first two decades of the seventeenth century saw the publication of a number of English fencing manuals championing the indigenous schools of defence. George Buck, in his treatise on education in the capital, The Third University of England (1615), described “diverse Schooles in London kept by Maisters of defence” in the early Stuart period that were home to manie professors therof and very skilfull men in teaching the most offensive and defensive vse of verie many weapons, as for long sword, the backe sword, the Rapier and dagger, the single Rapier and dagger, the case of Rapiers, the sword and buckler or Targate, the Pike, the Holdbord, the long staffe, and other.59

Buck noted the influence of foreign treatises, as well as English works, on the development of the fencing schools in London directing his readers to Achille Marozzo’s Opera nova dell’ Arte dell armi (1568) and Englishman George Silver’s Paradoxes of Defence (1599).60 Other English manuals on fencing soon followed Silver’s, including John Seldon’s The Duello Or Single Combat (1610), George Hale’s The Private Schoole of Defence (1614), and Joseph Swetnam’s The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence (1617).61 Like military writers, fencing masters such as Silver and Swetnam argued the merits of various weapons and the methodologies of the different schools of instruction, measuring English technique against that of the Italians and Spanish.62

58 G. Grassi, Giacomo di Grassi his True arte of defence. . . . First written in Italian by the foresaid author, and Englished by I.G. gentleman. (London: G. Shaw? for I. I[aggard], 1594). 59 G. Buc[k], The Third University of England (London: Thomas Dawson, 1615), 985. 60 G. Silver, Paradoxes of defence wherein is proued the true grounds of fight to be in the short auncient weapons . . . (London: Richard Field for Edward Blount, 1599). 61 J. Seldon, The Duello Or Single Combat (London: G.E. for John Helme, 1610), G. Hale, The Private Schoole of Defence (London: John Helme 1614), and J. Swetnam, The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence (London: Nicholas Okes, 1617). 62 See S. Anglo, The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

43

The attempt to codify and standardize practice across a range of fields was not without its problems. Any attempt to establish hard and fast rules for such fluid types of activities as fencing and the military arts could just as easily stifle innovation as it could foster efficiency and order, something recognized by some soldiers who were contemptuous of any connection between the realities of war and the lessons that could be learned from the pages of a book. There was no denying the fact, however, that the military treatise offered a window into a profession that was literally and figuratively becoming regimented. As the organization and battlefield tactics of continental armies underwent a process of modernization over the course of the sixteenth century, the military tasks that accompanied this transformation became increasingly standardized and regularized.63 As drill and military organization were codified on the continent, English officers and administrators would also come to rely on this uniform set of martial practices to guide their own training and that of their men. This meeting and concurrence of learning and arms was reflected in the ever-increasing list of military books printed in English beginning in the 1570s. Printers and booksellers realized that there was a sizable market for this type of literature, particularly among those who were deemed as “souldiers and professours of the art military.” William Eamon, in his study of sixteenth-century scientific “book of secrets” describes the period as one that saw “a growing demand for inexpensive vernacular literature on practical subjects” with printers across the continent paying “close attention to the popular market and adjust[ing] their operations accordingly, commissioning authors to write books for the common man and devising new marketing procedures to sell them.”64 Just as new forms of labour relations prompted the introduction of how-to books on everything from metallurgy and bookkeeping to printing and gardening, the transformation of warfare required its own instructional guides. The London bookseller Andrew Maunsell’s catalogue, which appeared in 1595, reflected this trend with readers being offered the choice of a wide range of books on mathematics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, astrology, music, the art of war, and navigation. Maunsell’s Arnold, Renaissance at War, 64. W. Eamon, “Arcana Disclosed: The Advent of Printing, the Books of Secrets Tradition, and the Development of Experimental Science in the Sixteenth Century,” History of Science 22 (1984), 114. 63

64

44

chapter one

catalogue listed books of self defence, such as di Grassi’s True Arte of Defense and Saviolo’s Practise In two Bookes alongside the respected English works on the military arts. The most recently printed manuals, such as Styward’s Pathwaie to Martiall Discipline (1581), Garrard’s Arte of Warre (1591), Clayton’s Approved order of martiall discipline (1591), Roger Williams’s Briefe discourse of Warre (1590), Barnabe Rich’s A Path-Way to Military Practise (1587) and John Smythe’s Certain discourses concerning the formes and effects of diuers sorts of weapons (1591) and Instructions, obseruations, and orders mylitarie (1594) and were all available to Maunsell’s customers, as were the classics of military thought.65 The ancients had been the first to offer a set of rules and precepts governing the art of war; adages and examples from the works of Greek and Roman military thinkers were to influence continental and English military writers well into the seventeenth century. Latin editions of ancient military writers were available to English readers from continental booksellers, such as the Aldine Press, in the early sixteenth century and English translations of classical military texts were available by mid-century. By the end of the century, Maunsell could offer his readers, both in London and in the provinces, all of the leading classical texts on warfare printed in English, including Frontinus’s Stratagemes (1539) translated into English by Richard Morysine, and Whitehorne’s edition of Machiavelli’s Arte of warre and his translation of Onosander’s General Captain, which was printed in 1563 by William Seres.66 Sadler’s edition of Vegetius, which was printed in 1572, remained an influential and oft-cited reference for Elizabethan and early Stuart military commentators, was also listed in Maunsell’s catalogue.67 Editions of the works of Julius Caesar were popular, with new editions and commentaries printed throughout this period. In fact, few of the late Tudor or early Stuart libraries examined for this study were without a Latin or English edition of one of the works of Caesar.68 An 65 A. Maunsell, The Second parte of the Catalogue of English printed Bookes (London: James Roberts for Andrew Maunsell, 1595), 25–7. 66 P. Whitehorne, Onosandro Platonico, of the Generall Captaine, (London: William Seres, 1563). 67 According to Gabriel Harvey in matters of the state and war, “we must put much trust in Aristotle’s and Xenophon’s politics, in Vegetius’ book Of Military Affairs and Frontinus’ Stratagems.” See L. Jardine and A. Grafton, “How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy,” Past and Present 129 (Nov. 1990), 41. See a more detailed discussion of Harvey’s interest in military books later in this chapter. 68 On the impact of classical military literature on English military thought, see Webb, Elizabethan Military Science, 3–16.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

45

English edition of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, translated by Arthur Golding, was first printed in 1565, but the second edition did not arrive until twenty-five years later. Clement Edmondes’ Oberservations vpon the five bookes of Caesars Commentaries, which will be addressed in more detail in Chapter Three, went through multiple editions in the first decade of the seventeenth century. Translations of other Greek and Roman writers, notably Xenophon, Tacticus, Polybius, Aelian, Polyaenus, and Leo the Issurian provided military, historical, political, and technical examples that English military writers and gentlemen soldiers could consult for advice on martial affairs. Though the classical works on the art of war remained popular, the introduction of greater numbers of gunpowder weapons on European battlefields in the sixteenth century prompted military writers and readers to move beyond the ancient to ponder the truly “moderne” nature of warfare. This modern phase had its roots in Renaissance Italy which witnessed a rapid rise in the number of works on both the art and the science of war in the first half of the sixteenth century. What started in Italy soon spread across Europe with popular Italian works being translated into French, Spanish, German, and English. J.R. Hale’s study of printing and Venetian military culture between 1492 and 1570 reveals that printers recognized that interest in military books was not limited to soldiers, but also included “patricians, foreign ambassadors, educated non-patrician Venetians, poliographi, . . . and engineers.”69 The influence of Italian military books, particularly those written on siegecraft and military architecture, extended beyond the domain of the soldier to other fields of study, most notably mathematics. English gentlemen, like their Europeans counterparts, found they too needed to have a familiarity with these contemporary military examples if they were bound for the wars. Consequently, by the end of the sixteenth century the vocabulary of war was very much a part of the privileged language of the elite and existed alongside a common literary culture in de disciplina militare that linked soldiers across the Europe.70

69 70

Hale, “Printing and the Military Culture of Renaissance Venice,” 436. Levy, “How Information Spread Among the Gentry, 1550–1640,” 12.

46

chapter one Procuring Foreign Military Books

Foreign military books could be procured by English readers with relative ease through a variety of means—through friends and acquaintances travelling on the continent, through agents, or from English and continental booksellers. As young men made their peregrinations around the continent, they purchased books to take home or they placed orders with agents or booksellers who sent the books on to England. Sir Charles Danvers sent two hundred books from Italy in the 1590s, Sir Thomas Bodley sent his agent, the bookseller John Bill, to Spain and Italy to buy the books that would eventually become part of the famous Bodleian Library, while Henry Percy, ninth earl of Northumberland and Henry Wriothesley, earl of Southampton, both used Bill’s services to acquire Italian and Spanish titles for their libraries.71 By the late sixteenth century it was possible for gentlemen soldiers who wished to procure books on the art of war, to peruse a continental catalogue that listed new and old titles along with forthcoming works, place their order with a London bookseller, and be fairly certain that their books would, barring any mishaps during shipping, arrive within the year. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the focal point of the European book trade was the Frankfurt Book Fair. The Frankfurt fair had its origins in the twelfth century and the book fair pre-dated the invention of printing in the 1450s, with manuscripts sold there a century before printed books came into being. The fair took place twice yearly, an Autumn Fair in late August or early September and a Lenten Fair, (though the dates tended to vary) in March or early April.72 The Frankfurt Fair had grown significantly in size by the end of the sixteenth century and was attracting buyers and sellers from all across Europe. It was not a market solely for those interested in books, and attracted merchants of all sorts, including those selling arms and armour.73 So a soldier shopping for armour, a horse, or a weapon might also have purchased a book to accompany him to the wars. But one need not attend the Frankfurt Fair to purchase books that were sold there. By the 71 G. Ungerer, “The Earl of Southampton’s Donation to the Bodleian Library in 1605 and Its Spanish Books,” Bodleian Library Record 16 (1997): 17–41. 72 J.L. Flood, “ ‘Omnium totius orbis emporiorium compendium’: the Frankfurt fair in the early modern period,” in Fairs, Markets and the Itinerant Book Trade, eds. R. Myers, M. Harris, and G. Mandelbrote, (London: Oak Knoll Press, 2007), 5–6. 73 Flood cites Henri Estienne II’s description of the fair as “a veritable workshop of war.” See Flood, “ ‘Omnium totius orbis emporiorium compendium’”, 8.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

47

mid-sixteenth century customers wanting to see at least a part of the fair’s inventory could consult the bookseller Georg Willer’s catalogues, which first appeared in the 1564 and continued to be printed annually until 1592.74 When Willer’s catalogues were introduced they included titles that he sold at the fair, but keen to attract more buyers he expanded the list to include most of the popular titles in the Frankfurt inventory. By the 1590s, other printers such as Johann George Portenbach, Tobias Lutz, Martin Lechler, and Georg Rab were offering catalogues similar to Willer’s, as were booksellers and printers who sold their books at the Leipzig and Augsburg Fairs, which took place just after the Frankfurt fair. English printers and booksellers attended both the Frankfurt and Leipzig fairs but as buyers rather than sellers, primarily owing to the expense of carrying their books to Germany. In 1598, by order of the Frankfurt Council, a Catalogus universalis was printed listing all of the works available at the Frankfurt Fair. The printing of the Catalogus universalis made it possible to review hundreds of titles that were loosely divided into categories based on language and or subject matter. The catalogue did not list all of the books available for sale at the fair, but those that might have the widest readership. In 1617, the first English edition of the Catalogus universalis was printed by John Bill. Bill, who had been in the business of purchasing books for his noble customers since the 1590s, continued to put out his Frankfurt catalogue until 1628. His editions of the Catalogus universalis offered English customers with a list of Latin, French, and Spanish titles, but he did not include works in German. This meant that some of the most important military books of the period, particularly those written by Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen, had to be purchased in French translation or obtained from Dutch booksellers who sold the works in their original German. Perusal of Bill’s Catalogus universalis offers some clues as to which military books were readily available to English readers. Books on military subjects could be found under the heading Libri Perigrini Idiomati, which is the heading used by Willer.75 The section included biographies, comparative grammars and dictionaries, letters, and miscellaneous titles, as the heading implies. In the late Jacobean and early Caroline period those buying continental military books J.W. Thompson, ed., The Frankfort Book Fair = The Francofordiense Emporium of Henri Estienne (New York, Burt Franklin, 1968), 29. 75 Catalogus universalis pro nundinis Francofurtensibus autumnalibus. . . . (London: John Bill, 1617–1628). 74

48

chapter one

could chose from the latest works by leading military writers such as Wallhausen, albeit in French translation, or some of the late sixteenth century books that were still popular with European readers. For instance, Bill’s 1617 catalogue listed three Italian titles, Carlo Theti’s Discorsi di Fortificationi, Flaminio Della Croce’s Teatro militarie, and Enea Cervellino’s Militar disciplina, along with L’art militarie pour l’infanterie and Art de Chevalerie, both of which were written by Wallhausen.76 Bill also offered classical military treatises like Peter Scriverio’s editions of Vegetius’s De re militari and Frontinus’s Strategemes that were printed in Leiden in 1607. Between 1617 and 1620, along with Wallhausen’s Art de Chevalerie, Bill’s catalogues listed two of the other well-respected works on cavalry, Lodovico Melzo’s Regole Militari sopra il governo e servitio particolare della cavalleria and Giorgio Basta’s Il governo della cavalleria leggiera. Bill lists only one English military book in his catalogue, William Neade’s Doublearmed Man (1625), but this did not necessarily mean that it was being sold at Frankfurt. John Flood points out that Bill also included titles from his London stock in the catalogue and this may explain why this particular book was included.77 Shipping costs to Frankfurt or Leipzig for English military books, and English books in general, meant they were not aggressively marketed on the continent. Consequently the trade in military books went in just one direction, from the continent to England.78 By the 1620s a number of English printers were following Bill’s lead and offering English readers catalogues of their foreign stock. Henry Featherstone, George Thomason, and Richard Whitaker all printed Frankfurt fair catalogues or catalogues advertising their own stock of continental books. There was a decline in the number of sellers and buyers attending the Frankfurt and Leipzig fairs, especially in the early 1630s following Gustavus Adolphus’s campaigns in Germany. Despite the impact of the war in Germany, foreign military books continued to be available to English customers via Dutch booksellers. The Elzevier Book Catalogues,

76 C. Theti’s Discorsi di Fortificationi, (Roma: Giulio Accolto, 1569); F. Della Croce, Teatro militarie, (Milano: B.Lantoni, 1613) and E. Cervellino, Militar disciplina (Venetia, s.n., 1617). J.J. von Wallhausen, L’art militarie pour l’infanterie (Oppenheim: Par Hierome Galler: Aux despens de Jean-Theodore de Bry, 1615) and Art de Chevalerie (Francfort: Par Paul Iaques, aux fraiz de Lucas Iennis, 1616). 77 For a comparison of English and continental books sold at Frankfurt, see Flood, “ ‘Omnium totius orbis emporiorium compendium,’” 25–7. 78 The Elzevier Catalogue for 1638 does list one military book, Digges’s Stratioticos, under its English books titles, but this was possibly a second-hand book.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

49

printed in Leiden and The Hague by the bookselling dynasty established by Louis Elzevier (c. 1546–1617) reveal no shortage of military titles in the family’s book inventories in the catalogues printed between 1627 and 1636.79 The Elzeviers were second-hand booksellers and the books in their catalogues came from their own stock, from works purchased from other booksellers, and from auctions of private libraries. Evidence from the titles found in their catalogues indicates that the various members of the family had newer military books, as well as older works from the turn of the century. The catalogues listed many of the same Italian and French titles that were found in Bill’s Catalogus universalis, together with the German titles that Bill did not make available in England. By the 1630s, the Elzevier catalogues included a number of books on military architecture and gunnery that had flooded the market during the Thirty Years’ War. These included Henrik Hondius’s Description & breve declaration des Regles Generales de la Fortification, de l’Artillerie (1625), Samuel Marolois’s Fortification ov Architectvre militarie tant offensive que deffensive (1627), Paolo Sarpi’s La simmetria dell’ ottima fortificazione regolare (1630), and Adam Freitag’s Architectura militaris nova et aucta, oder Newe vermehrte Fortification (1635). The Elzevier catalogues also listed a number of titles on siegecraft from the first two decades of the century, notably Jean Errard Bar-le-duc’s La Fortification demonstree et redicteen art (1604), Diego Ufano’s Tratado de Artilléria (1613), and Simon Stevin’s Castrametatio, Dat is Legermeting (1617). After Bill’s death in 1630 other English booksellers continued to publish catalogues of foreign books, some connected with Frankfurt, but others that only advertised Italian stock. In Henry Featherstone’s 1628 catalogue of Italian books, one could find fourteen military titles; the oldest was Lelio Brancaccio’s Della nuova disciplina & vera arte militare (1585), while the newest was the 1625 edition of Melzo’s Regole Militari sopra il governo e servitio particolare della cavalleria.80 In 1635, London 79 See D. Davies, The World of the Elsevirs 1580–1712 (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1954) and P. Morrish, “A Collection of Seventeenth Century Book Sale Catalogues,” Quaerendo 1, no. 1 (1971), 35–6. The Merton College Library, Oxford University has two bound volumes of the Elzevier Catalogues from Leiden, The Hague, and Amsterdam that were printed between 1627 and 1636. 80 H. Featherstone, Catalogus librorum in diuersis locis Italiae emptorum, Anno 1628 Qui Londini in officina Fetherstoniana, prostant venales (London: John Legatt, 1628). The first two editions of Melzo’s Regole Militari sopra il governo e servitio particolare della cavalleria were printed in 1611 and 1619. A German edition, Kriegs Regeln dess Ritters L. Meltzo . . . Wie eine Reuterey zu regieren, etc. Reigles Militaires . . . sur le gouvernement et service particulier et propre de la Cavallerie appeared in 1625.

50

chapter one

bookseller Robert Martin followed Featherstone with his own Italian catalogue and in the list of contents he established a separate heading for military books, De Architecture Machinis & ad Bell.[um] Spectan.[es].81 It is not surprising that Martin categorized the books under such a heading, particularly during the Thirty Years’ War, when the impact and influence of trace italienne fortifications on the military arts was being fully realized. While the bulk of the titles offered by Martin were on the subject of military architecture, he also sold titles devoted to infantry and cavalry warfare. Two years later, on the eve of the First Bishops’ War, George Thomason’s catalogue of Italian books was using the same category headings as Martin and offering a similar stock.82 By 1645, three years into the English Civil War, another London bookseller, Richard Whitaker was listing his Italian stock of books on military subjects alongside works on mathematics.83 That stock was far less extensive than either Martin’s or Thomason’s and only included Joseph Furtenbach’s Architectura Martialis (1630), Herman Hugo’s De militia equestri antiqua et noua ad regem Philippum IV (1630), and editions of Machiavelli’s Arte of warre. The introduction of booksellers’ catalogues made purchasing copies of the latest foreign military books fairly simple for English soldiers or scholars eager to study the arte militarie. New titles from Italian, French, Dutch, and German presses, or old titles printed in the last quarter of the sixteenth century were easily acquired directly from London printers through agents buying from European fairs or through continental booksellers like the Elzeviers. As we will see, gentlemen soldiers bought, read, and drew upon the lessons found within these books, while English military writers used these works as references in their own books. It

81 R. Martin, Catalogus librorum quos (in ornamentum reipublicae literariae) non sine magnis sumptibus & labore, ex Italia selegit Robertus Martine, Bibliopola Londinensis: apud quem in coemiterio Divi Pauli prostant venales (London: Augustine Matthewes, 1633); see also Martin’s Catalogus librorum, ex praecipius Italiae Emporiis selectorum. Per Robertum Martinum. Apud quem venales habentur (London: Thomas Harper, 1639) and Catalogus librorum, plurimis linguis scriptorum de omni ferè facultate tractantium; ac è diversis Europae regionibus congestorum: prostant venales apud Robertum Martinum (London: Thomas Harper, 1640). 82 G. Thomason, Catalogus librorum in diversis Italiae locis emptorum, anno 1636 Quorum facultatum indicem sequens pagina monstrabit. Qui Londini in Caemeterio Sancti Pauli ad insigne Rosae prostant venales (London: John Legatt), 1637. 83 R. Whitaker, Catalogus librorum quos de nundinis Francofurtensibus autumnalibus anni 1645. ac alibi comparavit Richardus Whitakerus bibliopola Londinensis: apud quem jam prostant venales (London: Richard Whitaker, 1645).

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

51

was through these knowledge transactions that military thought was rapidly transferred from one European country to another. England’s Worthies: Military Circles and Military Books in Late Elizabethan England Entry into the Dutch Revolt had many repercussions for military culture in England with one significant development being the formation of military circles in the 1580s. These circles were most often centred on a patron, either of noble birth like the earls of Leicester and Essex in the late sixteenth century or Prince Henry in the early seventeenth century, or a leading military patron like Francis Vere. Military patronage took the place of a system of military hierarchy in early modern England, as it did on the continent. But, as important as the elite or military patron at the centre of the circle was to military command, I want to emphasize the inclusion in these circles of both soldiers and scholars and also the English military authors who are discussed in this book. The military circle was more than just a haven for soldiers, it also served as a forum for discussion of military and political affairs and it is in these circles that we find evidence of the use of military books in knowledge transactions taking place between members of these groups.84 Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, and the man given command of English forces in the Netherlands, was at the centre of Elizabethan England’s most important military circle. As a boy Dudley took little interest in books, spending his time hunting, riding, and training for war. In time, thanks to his tutors, Roger Ascham, the author of Toxophilus, and John Dee, the scientist and conjurer, Dudley developed a love of mathematics and geometry that soon turned into a fascination with military architecture and siegecraft.85 Though his education never turned Dudley into a great lover of books or book learning, he did amass a large personal library over the course of his life, which included many works of Renaissance learning as well as works related to military subjects.

84 85

See Jardine and Sherman, “Pragmatic Readers,” 102–24. D. Wilson, Sweet Robin (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981), 16.

52

chapter one

Leicester’s tutorials with Dee also gave him access to the polymath’s extensive library, the Bibliotheca Mortlacensis, which was the largest in England numbering three to four thousand volumes,86 and home to a fine collection of books on the art of war, the majority of which were of Italian origin (a language Dudley could read). Dee’s military books were primarily dedicated to fortification and gunnery and included Theti’s Discorsi di Fortificationi (1572), Girolamo Ruscelli’s Precetti della militia moderna (1572), Girolamo Cataneo’s Ragionamisto del fabricare le fortezzo (1571), and Jacob Lanterius’s De forticacione (1563). Dee had also purchased a number of the popular analytical treatises on the art of war and single combat that were printed in France and Italy, including Philip, Duke de Cleves’s Instruction de guerre (1558), Marozzo’s Opera nova dell’ Arte dell armi (1568), and Cataneo’s Dell arte militare (1571).87 Leicester most likely furthered his interest in fortifications and siegecraft reading books from Dee’s library, a setting that William Sherman has described as England’s first think tank, as well as engaging in discussions with another of Dee’s students, the mathematician and military writer Thomas Digges.88 Dee, Digges, and Leicester all shared an interest in siege warfare and fortification design, a subject that Digges would later go on to explore in his Arithmentical Warlike Treaties named Stratioticos (1579). Digges completed the work first begun by his father Leonard, who died in 1559. It was Thomas Digges who dedicated the book to Leicester and in that dedication he paid tribute to his patron and to the “sundrie favours” that Leicester had given him.89 Leicester continued to bestow favours on Digges when in 1585 he was chosen to act as muster-master general during Leicester’s expedition to the Netherlands. When the expedition departed England for the Low Countries, the serious soldiers in the army were soon at odds with those who had little or no military experience, men who wished only to stay for a short time and profit as much as they could from their martial adventurers. The professional soldier Sir John Norris made a point of singling out and ridiculing Digges as an amateur, calling him a “paper soldier.” It has been speculated, however,

86 W. Sherman, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995), 31. 87 See J. Roberts and A.G. Watson, John Dee’s Library Catalogue (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1990). 88 Sherman, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing, xiii. 89 Blandy, The Castle, or picture of policy, 14.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

53

Figure 1. Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester as depicted in Edward Grimeston’s A Generall Historie of the Netherlands. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

54

chapter one

that this may not have been a fair assessment of Digges’s work, as he took his job seriously and appears to have been committed to running the campaign as parsimoniously as possible. In fact, it was his attempt to clean up the corrupt pay system in the Netherlands and not his inexperience that most likely raised Norris’s ire. Another military writer, Matthew Sutcliffe, author of The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes (1593), served alongside Digges and became part of Leicester’s circle after being given the post of judge-advocate general.90 Like Digges, Sutcliffe was more scholar than soldier. He was educated at Cambridge in the early 1570s, where he received his BA and MA degrees before deciding to study law. His early interest in law, and for that matter in military affairs, gave way to a pastoral calling, with Sutcliffe spending the rest of his life in the service of the English church, being named Dean of Exeter Cathedral in 1588. In his dedication in The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes to Robert Devereux, 2nd earl of Essex, Sutcliffe, a Hispanophobe and devout Protestant, deduced that since wars occur so frequently, was it not in the best interest of soldiers to “reason and talke of warre.” He tried to put to rest the notion that books on war were of little value to soldiers, calling it “notorious follie . . . to condemn Arte and reason” and echoing the refrain that one could “learne much by reading of Military discourses, more than ever his owne experience could teach him.”91 History had shown that the most famous captains, Scipio, Caesar, and others, had spent “much time in reading of ancient deedes of Armes” and Sutcliffe recommended that Englishmen should follow their noble example. This meant that those eager to travel to the wars should begin their studies with the ancient canon, Frontinus, Vegetius, Livy, Caesar, and Xenophon as it provided men with a set of clearly defined rules to follow in times of war, rules that tempered reckless or foolhardy actions on the battlefield. After reading the ancients, Sutcliffe thought it wise to take up La Noue’s Politike and Militarie Discovrses but warned against reading Machiavelli and Valturius, as neither had experienced the realities of war (as Sutcliffe

Manning, An Apprenticeship in Arms: The Origins of the British Army 1585–1702 (Oxford University Press, 2006), 6. 91 Sutcliffe, The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes. . . . (London: Deputies of Christopher Barker, 1593), The Epistle Dedicatorie. 90

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

55

had).92 Other writers, who went unnamed, should also be approached with caution, as they filled their works with divers formes of battles, some like stares, some like sheares, some like sawes, and some like winde-mill sailes, which never have vse but in mosters; and leave the most necessary pointes of warre, in preparing for the warres, choice of souldiors, marching, encamping, fighting, retiring, besieging, or defending of townes, ambuscades, stratagems, and such like necessary factions of armes.93

There were a number of men in Leicester’s circle, like Dee and Digges, who would not be considered martialists or swordsmen by contemporaries, but who took an interest in military affairs and consequently turned to military books to learn more about the art of war and its effects on domestic and foreign policy. J.R. Hale’s assertion that Italian military books were not only the preserve of the soldier but were read by members of the political and scientific elite was also true for the English. Gabriel Harvey, who held a secretarial post in the Leicester household, believed that the reading of military, historical, and political works enhanced the “trade of our lives,” that is the arts of political discourse and warfare.94 Lisa Jardine and Anthony Grafton have described how Harvey actively read books in order to engage in debates over matters of state with his patron. His library housed English and continental military books, as well as the ubiquitous classical works on warfare.95 Harvey’s writings and the marginalia found in his books and letters reveal how he used adages from military books to add weight to his arguments in support of Leicester and the Protestant war party. V.F. Stern’s study of Harvey’s marginalia found that the military books in his library were heavily annotated and indicated that Harvey closely watched the fighting unfold in the Netherlands. He tried to draw lessons from the ancient authorities and apply them to the contemporary military situation. In his English edition of Frontinus’s Strategemes, purchased in 1578, Harvey compared Philip II of Spain to Philip of Macedon, 92 Sutcliffe states that he spent many years observing the wars, and faced “dangerous experience both in France, Italy, Flanders and Portugal.” Ibid., Sig. B4v. 93 Ibid., The Epistle Dedicatorie. 94 Jardine and Grafton, “How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy,” 39. 95 Harvey’s library included copies of Frontinus’s Strategemes in English and in Italian (Stratagemi Militari . . . Venice: Bolognino Zalterio, 1574), Peter Whitehorne’s Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers, as well as his translation of Machiavelli’s Arte of warre. For a catalogue of the books and manuscripts in Harvey’s library, see V.F. Stern, Gabriel Harvey: His Life, Marginalia and Library (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 198–248.

56

chapter one

suggesting that the Spanish king had used bribery to win control of towns in the Low Countries, much like his ancient namesake had done. To meet the enemy at their own game, Harvey argued that the English commanders, Gilbert, Frobisher, and Drake, should use the same tactics to their advantage.96 In 1588, Harvey returned to his copy of Frontinus, this time making reference to the fireships used by the English fleet to disperse the Spanish off Calais, citing Cassius’ decision to “set fire to certain large but not too valuable ships” as further evidence of the effectiveness of the tactic and the value of the lessons of history. In his copy of Machiavelli’s Arte of warre Harvey listed the works that he would like to take to war if such an occasion arose (it did not). The passage, described by Stern and by Jardine and Grafton, provides a window into one reader’s sampling of the available military literature, revealing Harvey’s recognition of the authorities in the field. According to Harvey, his “principal Autors for war, after much reading, & long consideration” were Caesar, & Vegetius: Machiauel, & Gandino: Ranzouius, & Tetti: with owr Sutcliff, Sir Roger Williams, & Digges Stratioticos: all sharp, & sound masters of War. For ye Art, Vegetius, Machiauel. & Sutcliff: for Strategems, Gandino, & Ranzouius: for Fortification, Pyrotechnie, & engines, Tetti, & Digges: for ye old Roman worthie Discipline & Action, Caesar for ye new Spanish, & English excellent Discipline & Action, Sir Ro: Williams. Autors enowgh; with ye most cunning, & valorus practices in Esse. [another time] Owr English military Discipline, vnder General Norris, in ye Dialogue, intitulid, The Castle of Policy: Vnder ye Earle of Leicester, In his owne Lawes, & Ordinances. The Spanish Discipline under ye Duke d’Alua, & ye Prince of Parma, ye best Discipline now in Esse, newly discoouerid by Sir Roger Williams.97 Ibid., 142. Quoted in Jardine and Grafton, “How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy,” 74. Harvey refers to the military standards of the day, Caesar, Vegetius, and Machiavelli while Gandino, Ranzovius, and Tetti are Angelo Gambiglioni, the 15th century Italian jurist whose works explored just war, Heinrich Rantzau the German astrologer’s Henr. Ranzovii Produc. Cimbr. Commentarius Bellicus, Libris sex distinctus, præcepta, consilia, et strategemata, pugnæ terrestris ac navalis, ex variis Eruditorum collecta scriptis, complectens (1595), and the Italian Carlo Theti’s Discorsi delle fortificationi (1575). The English authors include Sutcliffe’s The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes (1593), Williams, A Briefe Discourse of Warre (1590), and Leonard and Thomas Digges’s Stratioticos (1579), while the Castle, or picture of policy is Blandy’s work noted above. Leicester’s Lawes and Ordinances are a set of the earl’s laws of war written prior to the Netherlands expedition of 1585. 96

97

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

57

From his position in Leicester’s household, Harvey had the opportunity to advise his patron on military and political affairs and bring these titles to the attention of others in the circle. As Stern, Jardine, Grafton, and others have asserted, reading in early modern Europe was often performed publicly rather than privately and this appears to have been the case for soldiers as well as for scholars. Even the terminology used by early modern soldiers mirrored that of the academy. Soldiers entered their respective schools of war, whether in the Low Countries, France, or Ireland, where they gained experience, often leaving as “professours,” and then returned home to write books and manuals to enlighten new students headed for those same theatres. The close-knit circles of soldiers—these bands of brothers bound by ties of kinship and friendship, shaped by the unique experience of war—advised their companions about titles they believed best suited the education of the soldier. The long hours spent in camp and in winter quarters offered these men the opportunity, as we will see in the next chapter with Sir John Ogle’s circle, to meet and discuss the theory and practice of war, share their experiences, and study and debate the latest military literature. Reading aloud would have been a common occurrence amongst groups of soldiers, where a variety of tongues may have been spoken and where some men were literate and some were not. Whether in the warm confines of an estate, on the muster ground or in the field, small group learning was as common for soldiers as it was for the scholar with it being an important part of the training of soldiers. On the muster ground groups of five or ten soldiers often came together to be instructed in the practices of marching or firing their weapons and it is undoubtedly how the first drill manuals were used (discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three). The gentlemen soldiers of the late sixteenth century appear to have shared the contents of military books among individuals and small groups, though it is less likely that the books available in late Elizabethan England were taken to the muster ground and used in the actual training of soldiers. The analytical treatises that were printed in the period were ill-suited to the purposes of training. Books like Garrard’s Arte of Warre, Sutcliffe’s The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes, and Barret’s The Theorike and Practicke of Moderne Warres did use illustrations and diagrams to depict methods and tactics, but as David Eltis has pointed out, late Elizabethan military books had their limitations, and “much of what was spelt out in seventeenth-century

58

chapter one

texts was left to the imagination of the reader in the previous century.”98 While one might, for example, find reference to the words of command used in infantry drills among the works of Garrard or Sutcliffe, it was only through closest of readings that these references might be revealed. The military books available to members of the Elizabethan circles had their value, and were most likely mined for the general rules found in their pages. Specific practices, particularly those that dealt with training could be found, if one first cleared away the chaff of ancient adages, historical references, and Biblical quotes. An examination of some of the gentlemen soldiers connected to the Leicester’s circle can give us a sense of how the study of military theory was used to enhance its practice. Leicester’s half-brother, Sir Philip Sidney, was a great lover of books who began his studies of the art of war while on his grand tour of Europe in the early 1570s. During his travels, Sidney visited France, Germany, and Italy and his letters to his brother Robert and to his tutor and mentor Hubert Lanquet reveal the importance he placed on book learning as an aspect of military training. When he arrived in Germany, not long into his tour, Sidney stayed with the émigré French printer Andreas Wechel and took time to visit the Frankfurt Book Fair where he purchased the wares of some of Europe’s leading printers. Throughout his trip Sidney was in contact with booksellers and agents, arranging for the purchase of old and new editions dedicated to a variety of subjects, including those related to military affairs. Lanquet maintained contact with Sidney, counselling him to devote his energies to those things that were most essential to a man of noble birth. This included the study of geometry, which Lanquet felt would “one day, be an ornament and a resource to you.” In a letter to Sidney dated January 22, 1573/74, Lanquet reasoned that geometry “may indeed, be of great use to a man of rank, in the fortification or investment of towns, in castremetation and all branches of architecture,” but mastering such a subject would require many hours of study. The work would only be justified if the knowledge was to be put to good use, and not “simply for display.”99 Lanquet took a great deal of interest in military affairs and his advice on books and learning appears to have had a positive influence on

Eltis, Military Revolution in the Sixteenth Century, 62. S.A. Pears, The Correspondence of Sir Philip Sidney and Hubert Lanquet (London: William Pickering, 1845), 25. 98 99

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

59

young Sidney. In letters to his brother Robert and to his friends, Philip passed on that advice, offering suggestions as to which books might profit the education of a soldier. Sidney wrote in the Defence of Poesie that “souldiers were the noblest estate of mankind, and horseman the noblest of soldiers,” and urged young Robert to “joyne the th[o]rough contemplation of it with the exercise, and so shall you profite more in a moneth than others in a year.”100 He went on to recommend that his brother read the well-respected continental treatises on horsemanship written by Frederick Crisone, Claudio Corte, and Pasqual Caracciolo.101 On matters pertaining to siegecraft, Sidney would repeat the words of his tutor some years later, this time to an acquaintance Edward Denny, a cousin of Walter Ralegh, who served in Ireland in the 1580s and 1590s. Sidney advised Denny to spend at least an hour of his studies on books of the art of soldiering as well as histories of war, “as the firste showes what should be done, the other what hath bene done.” He went on to recommend Machiavelli and many other authors wherof I will not take vpon me to judge, but this I thinke if you will study them, it shall be necessary for you to exercise your hande in setting downe what you reed, as in descriptions of battalions, camps, and marches [and] drawing of a plotte & practice of Arthmetike, which would be used in the art of siegecraft.102

These examples suggest that the gentlemen soldier read so as to understand how to organize men on the march, how to prepare armies to encamp or to encircle an enemy in a town. All of these activities, described by contemporaries as the preparations and actions of war, were, to a certain degree, manageable and quantifiable.103 These types of activities could be learned through book study whereas confronting the mayhem of battle and the horrors of war–be it the push of the pike or cold steel of the cavalry charge–were the product of experience alone. To better understand how the preparations and actions were carried out in the field, and to gain much needed experience, many 100 J.M. Osborn, Young Philip Sidney 1572–1577, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 82. 101 Frederick Grisone, A new booke containing the arte of ryding, and breaking greate Horses (London: William Seres, 1560); Claudio Corte, The Art of Riding, conteining diuerse necessarie instructions, demonstrations, helps and corrections apperteining to horssemenaship, not heretofore expressed by anie Author (London: H. Denham, 1584); Pasqual Caracciolo, La gloria del cauallo (Vinegia: Gabriel Giolito de’Ferrari, 1567). 102 Osborn, Young Philip Sidney, 539–40. 103 See Chapter 4, 294.

60

chapter one

men did as Sidney did, they travelled to the continent and spent time learning the military arts from an experienced veteran. In Sidney’s case, it was time spent with the Imperial commander, Lazurus von Schwendi. Lanquet believed it was important for a man of Sidney’s station to meet and possibly serve alongside the leading soldiers of the day. For this reason, he arranged a meeting between Sidney and von Schwendi in Vienna, forwarding a letter of Sidney’s to the Austrian soldier in the winter of 1573. Von Schwendi, who was considered one of the finest soldiers and military theorists of the day, went on to author a treatise on the art of war, Kriegs Discurs, von Bestellung desz gantzen Kriegswesens, that was printed in Frankfurt in 1593.104 Serving alongside Europe’s most renowned commanders and seeking out their patronage was as common for English soldiers as it was for gentlemen from other European countries. When Robert Sidney made his grand tour of the continent in 1579, he was introduced to Francois de La Noue, the Huguenot general, who like von Schwendi would also author a popular book on military affairs.105 Robert was never to acquire the military accolades that were bestowed upon his beloved brother, though he did go on to serve in the Netherlands as the governor of Flushing where he worked in close association with Maurice of Nassau and earned a reputation as a man who was knowledgeable in military affairs. In 1620/21, nearing the end of his life, Robert, then the earl of Leicester, was called upon by James I to serve on the Council of War that was confronted with the crisis over the situation in Bohemia and the Palatinate. Military circles, such as those connected to Leicester and Sidney, were to become commonplace among the English gentlemen serving in the Low Countries and in Ireland. These circles initially emanated out from the patronage dispensed by the earl of Leicester, and as Roger Manning has recently noted, the patron-client system was used in place of a hierarchical command structure, though sometimes to the detriment of operations.106 Simon Adams correctly asserts that these patron-client relationships played a significant role in shaping English military culture in the Elizabethan and early Stuart periods, owing to the fact that they replaced the military leadership and patronage role once carried out by

L. Von Schwendi, Kriegs Discurs, von Bestellung desz gantzen Kriegswesens, Frankfurt: Andre Wechels seligen Erben (Claudi de Marne vnd Johan Aubri, 1593). 105 M.V. Hay, The Life of Robert Sidney (Washington, DC: Folger Books, 1984), 60. 106 R. Manning, An Apprenticeship in Arms, 35. 104

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

61

the sovereign.107 An English monarch had not led an army into battle since the reign of the Henry VIII and no monarch would do so again until Charles I rode north with his army to fight the Scots at Kelso in June 1639. As Manning, Adams, and others have shown, there were clearly limits to the effectiveness of the clientage system, though it was to remain in place until the outbreak of the English Civil War. There is no doubt that Leicester, in particular, failed to make the best use of the subordinates in his circle and for that matter, his own military education. Even with his apparent interest in siegecraft, he overlooked the necessity of bringing pioneers and trenching equipment with him to the Netherlands and was forced, when confronted with Spanish siege works, to write to England in February 1585/6 to request that men and materials be sent forthwith to assist in the construction of saps and defences.108 With the death of Sidney in 1586 and Leicester in 1588, England lost its leading Protestant warriors and military patrons, leaving it to others to take up the mantle and continue the fight against Spain. The generation of patron-clients that followed Leicester was typified by the men who became part of the circle of Robert Devereux, the second earl of Essex. Included among this illustrious group were Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy, Henry Wriothesley, the earl of Southampton, Sir Roger Williams, and the Danver bothers, Charles and Henry. Essex’s patronage extended well beyond these names however, and his circle came to include Sir Francis Vere, Sir Robert Sidney, Sir Thomas Bodley, Sir Richard Bingham, Sir William Russell, and Sir Francis Aleyn. All of these clients benefited from the earl’s largesse while serving their patron in one capacity or another in the Low Countries and Ireland, 107 See S. Adams, “The English Military Clientale 1542–1618,” in Patronages Et Clientélismes, 1550–1750 (France, Angleterre, Espagne, Italie), eds. C. Giry-Deloison and R. Mettam. Lille, (Centre D’Historie De La Region Du Nord, 1995), 217–27. 108 For assistance, Leicester turned to Sir Walter Ralegh, then Lord Warden of the Stanneries, who was asked to send 1000 pioneers and miners from Devon and Cornwall. Despite initial support from Elizabeth and the granting of a commission to levy the men, the Queen soon changed her mind. According to Ralegh, the matter had been “stayed [and] I know not for what cause.” When the pioneers did not arrive, blame for the delay was placed on Ralegh’s shoulders, though it had been Elizabeth’s decision not to send them, possibly out of anger over Leicester’s decision to accept the governor-generalship of the States. Of course, much of the blame for such a grievous oversight should fall firmly at the feet of Leicester who should have known that siegecraft was integral part of the war in the Low Countries. See N.L. Williams, Sir Walter Raleigh (London: Penguin Books, 1962), 87; and R. Trevelyan, Sir Walter Raleigh, London: Allen Lane, 2002, 105.

62

chapter one

and many of them can rightfully be described as true soldier-scholars. Like Essex, these gentlemen made good use of military books and they appear, unlike Leicester, to have put their military education to good use. Essex was a particularly good role model in this respect; he was educated, a lover of books and first and foremost a soldier. While Leicester had been a creature of the court, Essex was, as Paul Hammer has pointed out, a man “impatient with life at Court and driven by the feeling that he must make his mark soon if the great events of the world were not to leave him behind.”109 Essex’s military career had an auspicious beginning when, at the age of twenty, he was named colonel-general of the horse for Leicester’s expedition to the Netherlands in 1585. Prior to this appointment Essex had had no military experience beyond exercising his horse in the ring and participating in the Accession Day tilts. While other young gentlemen took the grand tour, either observing or participating in the wars, Essex remained in England and continued his studies. Essex described himself later in life as having a “bookishnesse from my very childhoode,” which carried on into his later life.110 He has been proclaimed as one of the most learned nobles in sixteenth-century England and his circle was home to soldiers and to a number of illustrious scholars who advised him on political and military policy. As a young man Essex received a comprehensive education, studying Latin and French, and later learning Spanish. Following the death of his father, Walter Devereux, in 1575, Essex was made a ward of Lord Burghley and it was in Burghley’s home that he would meet some of the young men, such as Blount, who would later become his clients. His tutors instilled in him a love of learning, and unlike most of his contemporaries from the same social class, he remained in school matriculating at Cambridge in 1577 and then going on to take an MA there in 1581. Of that education, Gervase Markham would write, fifty years later, that Essex was “trained up both of Armes and Letters” and he spent his days at Cambridge dutifully studying and keeping “his acts or disputations more duly, freely, and out of his owne knowledge and

P. Hammer, The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 92. 110 Ibid., 299. 109

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

63

readings” than many of his fellow students.111 Unfortunately, Essex’s letters reveal little about his scholarly interests and even less about his reading habits. The seizure and sale of Essex’s library after his arrest in 1599 has made it difficult to determine which books may have been a part of his education. While we have some idea about the texts that interested him, we know less about specific areas of study, particularly those that related to the martial arts that may have been a part of his education in these formative years.112 After leaving Cambridge, Essex went to court to seek the favour of the Queen before taking up soldiering and joining Leicester’s expedition in 1585. It was during the fighting in the Low Countries, that Essex’s circle began to take shape, with Sir Roger Williams and Sir Edward Wingfield113 being two of its earliest members. In time, Essex was to become the “great patron of the warrs” and as his circle grew it began to incorporate a very learned group of men, both young and old, who valued military books and the lessons that that these texts could impart. Roger Williams was to epitomize this aspect of the circle. He acted as one of Essex’s military advisors between 1585 and 1595 and was to go on to make a significant contribution to English military literature. Amos Miller calls Williams’s A Briefe Discourse of Warre, one of the most important books on warfare in the sixteenth century and a book that Essex relied upon to shape his military policies.114 A fiery Welshman, Roger Williams was considered by most to be rough around the edges, bloody-minded, often lacking in self-control and, at times, slightly mad—qualities that led him to clash with men of higher birth and character traits that contradicted his own writings on the subject of the “complete soldier.” But there were many who considered Williams to be a soldier of the highest integrity, both brave and skilful, as well as an educated man. Born in 1539/40 in Penrhos,

G. Markham, Honour in his perfection or, A treatise in commendations of the vertues and renowned vertuous vndertakings of the illustrious and heroycall princes Henry Earle of Oxenford. Henry Earle of Southampton, Robert Earle of Essex, and the euer praise-worthy and much honoured Lord, Robert Bartue, Lord Willoughby, of Eresby (London: B. Alsop for Benjamin Fisher, 1624), 27. 112 Paul Hammer notes that there is a record of purchases of school books that covered the trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and logic as well as theological texts, such as Theodor Beza’s Questiones. Hammer also lists The accedens of armory (1562), a book on heraldry. The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, 29. 113 Wingfield died in 1596. 114 A. Miller, “Sir Roger Williams—A Welsh Professional Soldier” The Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, (1972 for 1971), 91. 111

64

chapter one

Monmouthshire, there is evidence that he attended Brasenose College, Oxford, in the early 1550s, but there is no indication that he completed his studies.115 Though his education was cut short, undoubtedly owing to his decision to go to war, Williams nonetheless possessed a keen understanding of military affairs and history, knowledge that he put to good use when writing his books. He saw his first action in France during the first years of the Religious Wars, but after that there is no evidence of his whereabouts until 1572 when he is mentioned accompanying Humphrey Gilbert to the Low Countries. By the time that he met Essex in 1585, Williams had been in the Netherlands for thirteen years and had fought in both the Dutch and Spanish armies. Despite his service in Alva’s army, Williams remained a committed Protestant and returned to the Dutch army in 1578, fighting with the States’ Army and with Leicester’s forces until 1588. The Armada year saw him back in England, assisting in the preparation of the militia.116 When the threat of Spanish invasion died away, Williams went back to the continent, serving first in the army of Henri IV, which was supported by Lord Willoughby’s expedition to Dieppe in 1590, and then with Norris in Brittany in 1591.117 His long and distinguished military career brought him to the attention of other English authors and he is praised in contemporary treatises, histories and letters. Blandy bestowed the highest of accolades on Williams, describing him as a captain of “rare and excellent condition and quality.”118 He also gained praise from men of higher standing such as Leicester, who said that in a fight Williams was “worth his weight in gold.”119 As an experienced veteran, Williams did not suffer fools gladly and his writings reveal contempt for those who were ignorant of the military arts. John Evans shed light on the relationship between the Williams and Essex, noting that when Essex joined the fleet bound for Lisbon in 1589, he sought out Williams’s advice and friendship because he knew that of all the men who had volunteered for the expedition, Williams would be the best man to get him close to the action.120 In 1591, when the English allied themselves with the French against the J.X. Evans, ed., The Works of Sir Roger Williams (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), xiii. D.J. Trim, “Williams, Sir Roger (1539/40–1595),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. 117 Ibid. 118 Blandy, The Castle, or picture of policy, 23. 119 Miller, “Sir Roger Williams,” 89. 120 Evans, The Works of Sir Roger Williams, xxxiii. 115 116

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

65

Spanish forces occupying Brittany, Essex and Williams renewed their relationship once again outside the walls of Rouen. In Essex’s dispatches to Burghley, Williams is often mentioned. A year before his arrival in Brittany, Williams had dedicated his A Briefe discourse of Warre (1590), a treatise that spoke directly to the men of substance with whom he served, to his patron Essex. Drawing on his experience in the Spanish army and his study of La Noue’s The Politike and Militarie Discovrses (1587), Williams argued that English officers must be able to maintain order in their ranks just as their Spanish counterparts had learned from their experience in the Low Countries. He heaped scorn on the “Coronells of three dayes,” officers recently arrived from England with no training and no discipline, who can “marre all the armies of the World.”121 But Williams also singled out many gentlemen and officers who had behaved valiantly in the field. He naturally cited Essex, as well as Essex’s brother Walter, and Sir John Norris for their exemplary service during the expedition to Lisbon. Later in his discourse, Williams spoke of others who “shewed themselves most valiantlie,” including one Colonel Huntley, Sir Edmond Udall122 and Sir John Scott,123 all of whom had distinguished themselves at the bloody siege of the town of Bouennene in 1587.124 During the fighting in France, Williams was to meet face to face with Giorgio Basta, the Albanian soldier-author who later made his own contribution to military literature, writing two well-respected and widely read books, Il maestro di campo generale . . . (1606) and Il governo della cavalleria leggiera (1612).125 Their meeting, however, was not to discuss the finer points of the martial arts, but was instead a fight on the field of battle that could very well have robbed Europe of at least one of the period’s noted theorists on the art of war. The two men fought one another in 1592, when the army of duke of Parma, of which Basta was a member, attempted to relieve the siege of Rouen, where Williams was among the English force encircling the town. As Parma’s army neared Rouen, the English

Williams, A Briefe discourse of Warre, 7. Sir Edmund Udall (or Uvedale) was a member of Sir Philip Sidney’s retinue and part of Leicester’s expedition. He served with distinction at the Battle of Zutphen and later contributed two of his military books to the Bodleian. 123 Sir John Scott served in the Netherlands and France in 1580s and was an officer in Essex’s expedition to Cadiz in 1596. For more on Scott’s influence on military writing, see Chapter 3. 124 Williams, A Briefe discourse of Warre, 50–51. 125 See Chapter 5. 121 122

66

chapter one

were able to drive back a force of 2000 Spaniards and Walloons, and in the middle of the two hour melee Williams and Basta battled on horseback. The Albanian got the worst of it, suffering a sword cut to his neck and he was driven from the field, left to fight (and to write) another day!126 Williams died in 1595, but his influence on Essex and a generation of soldiers was far reaching. Paul Hammer, in his study of Essex’s political career, noted that the two men were quite close and that Essex did not simply accept Williams’s A Briefe discourse of Warre as a token of his loyalty, but was said to have “patently followed the advice and arguments” found in its pages.127 Essex not only relied upon soldiers like Williams for advice on military matters, he also drew on the knowledge of scholars in his secretariat. The mathematician and historian Henry Savile acted in the same capacity for Essex as Dee, Digges, and Harvey had done for Leicester, advising his patron on matters related to political and military policy.128 Savile wrote a translation of Tacitus’s The ende of Nero and beginning of Galba Fower bookes of the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus (1591), which went to five editions. He concluded the work with an analysis of the Roman army, A View of Certaine Militar matters, for the better vnderstanding of the ancient Roman histories, which was most likely written to assist the earl in his attempts to reform the English army in the 1590s.129 Other letters to Essex, particularly those from Lord Willoughby, suggest that there were ongoing discussions by soldiers in these circles about improving the state of the army, both at home and abroad.130 As noted, this was also the period that saw the printing of three English books on the military arts, Clayton’s Approved order of Martiall discipline (1590), Garrard’s The Arte of Warre (1591), and Sutcliffe’s The practice, proceedings and lawes of armes (1593), all of which were dedicated to Essex. Written five years after the defeat of the Armada, when defence was still very much on the minds of Englishmen, Sutcliffe recognized that the time was right for the introduction of military reforms. In his dedication to Essex,

A description of the fight can be found in Miller, “Sir Roger Williams,” 110. Hammer, The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, 238. 128 See Hammer and D. Womersley, “Sir Henry Savile’s Translation of Tacitus and the Political Interpretation of Elizabethan Texts,” Review of English Studies, n.s., 42 (1991), 313–42. 129 H. Savile, The ende of Nero and beginning of Galba Fower bookes of the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus. The life of Agricola (London: For Richard Wright, 1591). 130 See Chapter 2, 96 n. 48. 126 127

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

67

Sutcliffe urged discussion and debate since in the “beginning of all good successe,” is good counsel and direction: the accomplishment is expedition, in counsel nothing avayleth more then to follow good examples of expert and wise men. If then we would eyther reforme the disorders of our proceedings in warres, or settle the discipline of armes among our souldiers which is slenderly knowen, or practiced by them; what course is better then to viewe, consider, and followe the doings of most warriours both of former, and late times?131

Essex’s circle was replete with “men expert and wise,” who were ready to assist their patron in his military campaigns and, if needed, with the reforms of the militia. Among them none was more the soldier-scholar than Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy. Mountjoy, who later succeeded Essex as commander of the English forces in Ireland, was a devout Protestant and long-time friend of Essex and the Sidneys. He served in the Netherlands and in France before establishing his reputation in Ireland in the last years of Elizabeth’s reign, a reputation that was to rival that of Francis Vere, the other great English military patron of the day. Robert Naunton, another member of Essex’s circle and author of Fragmenta regalia or, observations on the late Queen Elizabeth (1641), a biographical survey of the age’s leading lights, described Mountjoy as a modest, bashful young gentleman who was “a good peece of a Scholler.”132 Like Philip Sidney, Mountjoy was described as a bookman who also possessed an “inclination to Armes.” Mountjoy read French and Italian, and in his youth undertook the study of a broad range of subjects from natural philosophy to mathematics. He was a skilled horseman, champion of the tiltyard, and greatly enjoyed the company of men of letters, as well as martialists. Naunton drew his reader’s attention to Mountjoy’s addiction to books and their influence on his military career claiming that he “had grown by reading to the theory of a souldier.” So was he strongly invicted by his genius, to acquaintance of the practique of the Warre, which were the causes of his excursions, for he had a Company in the Low-Countries, from whence he came over with a noble acceptance of the Queen, but somewhat restlesse, in honourable thoughts he exposed himself again, and again, and would presse the Queen with

Sutcliffe, The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes, Dedication to the Earl of Essex. 132 R. Naunton, Fragmenta regalia, or, Observations on the late Queen Elizabeth, her times and favorits written by Sir Robert Naunton (London: s.n., 1641), 38. 131

68

chapter one the pretences of visiting his Company so often, that at length he had a flat denial, and yet stole over with Sir John Norris, into action of Britain, (which was then a hot and active Warre) whom he would always call his father, honoring him above all men.133

While the Queen wished he might remain at court, Mountjoy like Essex before him, wished for nothing more than to join the wars, and rushed off in 1585 to serve with John Norris in the Netherlands and later travelled to Brittany in 1593 to fight once again with Norris. While Norris showed great distain for “paper soldiers” such as Thomas Digges, he did not condemn Mountjoy for his love of military books. Elizabeth recalled Mountjoy from Brittany in 1593, and in seeking to rein in his enthusiasm for war, she forbade him from returning to the continent, suggesting instead that he “follow [his] books, read and discourse of warre.”134 By the time Mountjoy took command of the English forces in Ireland in 1600 he had developed a keen eye for tactics, an ability that may well have been the result of his years studying the art of war.135 Mountjoy’s relationship with Essex was uneasy at first, owing to tensions between them at court. But as was sometimes the case with young men, a rather harmless duel in which neither suffered grave injury was enough to start a fast friendship. Mountjoy did not attend Essex during the voyage to Cadiz in 1596, but he did travel with his patron to the Azores a year later. Upon his return, both Essex and Mountjoy left for Ireland where they were joined by other clients of the earl, notably Henry Wriothesley, the earl of Southampton, and Sir Charles Danvers and his brother Henry, the first two of whom, like Mountjoy, appear to have been quite proud to bear the title of bookmen. Southampton, the son of a recusant who died in the Tower in 1581, had been raised and educated as a ward in Lord Burghley’s household before entering St. John’s College, Cambridge, in 1586. Southampton was only twelve when he went to Cambridge, a year after his friends Essex and the Danvers headed to the Low Countries to serve with Leicester. Burghley had refused to allow his own son Robert to contemplate entering military service, claiming that there was no such thing as an “honest or a good Christian soldier,” though it proved harder for Burghley to discourage his wards who wished to acquire their fame and fortune

133 134 135

Ibid., 38. Ibid., 18. C. Falls, Mountjoy: Elizabethan General (London: Odhams Press, 1955), 33.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

69

on the battlefield. After Southampton left Cambridge with an MA in 1589, he hoped that he might experience the thrill of battle, but was instead forced to wait until 1597 and the expedition to the Azores for his first taste of combat. One wonders whether Southampton made the journey to the islands reading the latest Spanish military books as we know he possessed a copy of Christoval de Mosquera’s Commentario de Disciplina Militar (1596), which he donated to the Bodleian in 1605, along with two other works on the martial arts, which were printed in Venice, Domenico Mora’s Il Soldato (1570) and Ruscelli’s popular Precetti della militia moderna (1568). When Southampton returned from the Azores, he took the opportunity to take his grand tour, stopping in Paris where he once again met up with the Danvers brothers. Now initiated into the world of soldiering, Southampton could finally share stories of his heroics in the Azores with his good friends. His friendship with the Danvers had been strengthened by the events surrounding the brothers’ murder of Henry Long of Wiltshire in 1594. Southampton aided the two men in their escape to the continent and his visit in 1598 marked the first time he had seen his old acquaintances since their flight to France. The brothers returned to England in 1598, having been pardoned by Elizabeth, but during their four years abroad they continued their military service, fighting in the army of Henri IV.136 Southampton and Charles Danvers both shared a love of books, and before he left England, Danvers had purchased over 200 titles from Italian booksellers that included a large number of Italian histories and a lengthy list of the accepted Italian and Spanish authorities on war. Among them were Ruscelli’s Precetti della militia moderna, Diego Salazar’s Tratado de Re Militari (1582), Giovacchino da Coniano’s Tratado dell ordinanze (1564), Girolamo Maggi’s Della fortificatione delle citta (1564), Battista Della Valle’s Vallo: libro cotinente appertenentie ad Capitanii (1524), Francesco Maria II, Duke of Urbino’s Discoursi militari . . . (1583), and Bernardino Rocca’s Impresse, stratagemi, et errori militari (1566).137 The campaign in Ireland proved to be the last opportunity that many of the members of Essex’s had to win fame and glory on the battlefield.

136 P. Hammer, “Danvers, Sir Charles (c. 1568–1601),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. 137 G. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the earl of Southampton (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1968), 41. See also Cecil Papers 170, 2–5 found at the British Library, Cecil Papers at Hatfield House, Microfilm M485/1–127.

70

chapter one

Those closest to the earl, Mountjoy, the Danvers, and Southampton, figured prominently in the earl’s army and accompanying them were hundreds of gentlemen volunteers who wished to assist in the suppression of the rebellion launched by Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone. On his arrival in Ireland Essex was at the height of his power and popularity and, as England’s leading military patron, he also was the darling of late Elizabethan military writers. Williams, Garrard, and Sutcliffe had all dedicated their books to the earl and the name of Essex was being praised in prose and poem. Gervase Markham, whose career as a military writer would continue into the Jacobean age, attached himself to the Essex circle in the early 1590s. He was able to do so through his friendship with Southampton, who Gervase and his brother Francis first met while the two were attending Cambridge in the early 1580s.138 During the 1590s, Gervase sought out the patronage of the members of the Essex circle, ingratiating himself by writing poems in honour of Essex, Southampton, and Mountjoy. Francis Markham, author of the Five Decades of Epistles of Warre (1622), would eventually dedicate one of the epistles found in the book to Henry Danvers, whom he served alongside in Ireland. In that epistle, Francis Markham recalled those glorious days, having seen Danvers “in the warres fighting and bleeding, your noble courage commanded my tongue to praise you, but when (wounded my selfe) I felt your bounty and your favour, you then compelled my heart to love.”139 Though the Irish war proved to be Essex’s undoing, Mountjoy faired much better by effectively commanding the English forces on the island and helping to bring the rebellion to an end in 1603. The setbacks of 1598–9, particularly the English defeat at the Battle of Yellow Ford in August 1598, were soon overcome with Mountjoy putting his military education to good use by engaging Tyrone with a variety of tactics that included the effective use of sconces and fortifications to control the countryside, the use of seapower to land troops at key points behind

138 F.N.L. Poynter, A Bibliography of Gervase Markham 1568?–1637 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1962), 10. Poynter notes that in Honour in His Perfection, Markham writes that he had “lived many years where [he] daily saw his earle,” knowing him “before the warres, in the warres, and since the warres.” 139 F. Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre (London: Augustine Matthewes, 1622), 141.

“caesar

to this present day of king james”

71

the enemy, and sending mounted units to harass the Irish.140 The final victory over a combined Spanish-Irish force at Kinsale in 1601–2 did much to solidify Mountjoy’s reputation as a complete soldier. In 1624, the year that James I decided to renew war with Spain, Gervase Markham looked back on the Elizabethan martial glories as inspiration for his treatise, Honour in his perfection, a hagiography describing the military exploits of four great English families: the earls of Southampton, Essex, Oxford, and the Willoughbys.141 At the time of writing, members of each of these families commanded regiments that were set to travel to the continent to regain the Palatinate. It was not by coincidence, however, that the late Elizabethan members of each family had all been connected to Essex’s circle and it was their biographies that dominated the treatise. On the title page, Markham added a line to include more of Essex’s followers, praising “the eternall memory of all that follow them now” especially “those three Noble Instances, the Lord Wriothsley, the Lord Delaware and the Lord Mountjoy.” Markham’s Honour in his Perfection linked the Elizabethan and Jacobean military worlds, connecting the military patrons of one age to those of the next. He depicted an unbroken line of English soldiers, comprising the second and third earls of Essex, Southampton, Francis and Horace Vere, and Mountjoy and their heroic ancestors, whose history stretched from “Caesar to this present day of King James.”142

140 A discussion of Mountjoy’s tactics in Ireland can be found in J. McGurk, “Terrain and Conquest 1600–1603,” in Conquest and Resistance: War in Seventeenth Century Ireland, ed. P. Lenihan, (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 87–114. 141 G. Markham, Honour in his perfection or, A treatise in commendations of the vertues and renowned vertuous vndertakings of the illustrious and heroycall princes Henry Earle of Oxenford. Henry Earle of Southampton, Robert Earle of Essex, and the euer praise-worthy and much honoured Lord, Robert Bartue, Lord Willoughby, of Eresby (London: B. Alsop for Beniamin Fisher, 1624). 142 Ibid., 10.

CHAPTER TWO

“COMPANIONS OF MARTIALL NOBLENESSE”: MILITARY CIRCLES AND BOOKS IN EARLY STUART ENGLAND Where Mars doth fight with sword in hand, where Pallas pleads with quill From a poem by Lodowick Flood in The Castle, or Picture of Pollicy (1581) The Norrises, and noble Veeres and Sidnies famous yeares: The Willoughby and worthy Gray, that served still for royall pay: Made England famous every where, To such as did their fortunes heare: Then let us not at home remaine, But Bravely to those warres againe.

Gallants, to Bohemia (1620)

The execution of Essex and Southampton’s complicity in the rebellion of 1601, as well as the death of Mountjoy in 1606 marked the disintegration of the late Elizabethan military circles and the rise of a new generation of English military patrons.1 These early Jacobean military circles formed around the long serving Low Countries veterans, Francis and Horace Veres and Henry Frederick, James I’s eldest son who became the Prince of Wales in 1610. The Treaty of London, signed by the English and Spanish in 1604 brought an end to the Anglo-Spanish war, but did not bring an end to English involvement in the fighting in the Low Countries nor did it see the demise of the patronage system that began under Leicester. Francis Vere, the general of English forces in the Netherlands, continued to dispense patronage just as Leicester, Essex, and Mountjoy had done. However, with the end of the siege of 1 Southampton was imprisoned for conspiring with Essex but he returned to favour under James I. He remained a soldier until his death in 1624 and maintained his ties with the Sidney and Essex families. Southampton was a member of Robert Sidney’s circle in the Low Countries and also accompanied Robert Devereaux, the 3rd earl of Essex to the Netherlands in 1615 where the son of his former patron obtained his first experience in the wars.

74

chapter two

Ostend in 1604, Vere resigned his command, and control over English troops soon shifted back to Maurice of Nassau, though the English colonels Horace Vere, Sir Edward Cecil, Sir Edward Conway, Sir John Sutton, and Sir John Ogle retained control over their regiments and consequently the patronage that accompanied their rank and position within the States army. Back in England, the young Prince of Wales was emerging as a military patron in his own right. By 1611, Henry was seeking to bring Vere, Cecil, Conway, and Ogle into his circle in an effort to create a military court to rival his contemporaries Maurice of Nassau and Henri IV of France. Even as a young man, the prince was a practitioner and a theoretician of the arte militarie and, like Leicester and Essex, his circle would become home to soldiers and scholars alike. Thomas Birch, the prince’s eighteenth-century biographer, described how Henry “entertain[ed ] several learned men in his court,” and a list of pensioners who frequented St. James’s Palace includes poets, pastors, and university professors, as well as swordsmen. Unlike his father, Henry was a great lover of the military arts. He was feted by the continent’s greatest soldiers and military writers, both in England and those on the other side of the channel, as a complete soldier in the making. Muscular, agile, a horseman of great skill, Henry had read much on the subject of war by his sixteenth birthday in 1610. Just prior to his death in 1612, the prince was beginning construction on a library at St. James’s Palace to house his large collection of books, many of which were dedicated to military subjects. His untimely death came as a blow to his countrymen, especially to those soldiers who believed that Henry would attain the military glories that had eluded Elizabethan England’s finest soldiers. Henry’s death led to the dispersal of his circle and forced gentlemen soldiers to seek the favour of the new heir to the throne, James’s second son, Charles. But as soldiers and military writers clamoured for Charles’s patronage, they found the new heir lacked the martial qualities and self-assuredness of his elder brother. Though some believed that he might adopt the martialism that Henry was praised for, Charles never developed a fondness for the military arts and he never pondered establishing a military court. During his reign, military patronage remained, for the most part, in the hands of the prominent Low Countries veterans, Vere, Conway, and Cecil. Only with the emergence of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, did military patronage, particularly in the years 1624–8, find a home at Charles’s court.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

75

This chapter opens with a survey of the English military experience during the first quarter of the seventeenth century, tracing the involvement of English troops in the wars in Ireland, the Low Countries and, the Palatinate. This period saw thousands of experienced soldiers as well as equal numbers of conscripted and pressed men sent abroad to fight in these conflicts. Books and manuals were printed to assist both groups of soldiers, with the “old experimented” veterans being advised by military authors to use drill manuals and analytical treatises as aids to improve the training of the ill-disciplined recruit. This was no easy task, since training and preparation of recruits was often neglected due, in part, to the wide range of logistical problems that stymied the Jacobean and Caroline military expeditions. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to the English military circles formed at home and abroad around Prince Henry and Francis and Horace Vere, the military books used by members of these circles, and the influence these military patrons and their circles had on the shaping of policy and the reformation of the military practice in England. The English Military Experience: 1603–1629 When James I came to the throne in 1603, English foreign policy ceased to be bellicose and took a more peaceful tack. Relations with James’s native Scotland had been relatively amicable up to Elizabeth’s death and naturally improved with James’s accession. The Anglo-Scottish treaty of 1586 balanced the English agreement to remain aloof from Scottish affairs with James’s decision to maintain a benign anti-Catholic foreign policy. When James arrived in England in the spring of 1603, it was possible for the English to let their guard down further, with one of the first tangible benefits of the joining of the English and Scottish crowns being the reduction in the size of the garrisons defending both sides of the border. In Ireland, relations between the English and Irish, though tenuous at the end of the century, underwent a marked improvement following the conclusion of the Nine Years’ War (1594–1603) at the end of Elizabeth’s reign. The number of English troops in Ireland was reduced to 8000 foot and 1000 horse when James took the throne, down from 12,000 foot and 1200 horse during the last years of the war. However, much more drastic reductions soon took place, and by 1606 the English army in Ireland numbered less than 1000 foot and 300 horse, with many of those left to control the country being ill-equipped

76

chapter two

and underfed.2 Expenditure on the Irish army continued to drop in the later Jacobean and early Caroline periods, and there is no indication that there were efforts to improve the training of soldiers in Ireland as there were in England during the 1620s with Charles I’s efforts to create the “Exact Militia.” This was undoubtedly due to government’s concerns over the cost of improving weaponry and paying for muster masters to train the soldiers serving in Ireland, but may also have had something to do with their low estimation of the Irish as a fighting force. The contemporary refrain about the Irish soldiers was that they where savages and rebels, more a rag-tag force who fought in the bogs and woods than an organized army like those encountered on the continent. That said, the Irish soldier had proven effective against the English in the Nine Years’ War, both in open combat and in skirmishes and ambushes.3 The beginning of the Thirty Years’ War in 1618 raised new fears at Whitehall about the military threat posed by Spain and France; this meant that little attention was paid to building an effective army to control Ireland owing primarily to the fiscal crisis facing the English government. Paying for a war against the Spanish and then the French taxed the Caroline government and, as Victor Treadwell has observed, the formation of a new military establishment had to wait until the wars “petered out” in 1628.4 Bitter disputes also arose over military patronage in Ireland, as courtiers rushed to sweep up the crumbs of Buckingham’s largesse, creating personal rivalries that further exacerbated the poor state of the army. It was not until the arrival of Thomas Wentworth, viscount Strafford, who assumed the Lord Deputyship of Ireland in 1633, that the first concrete steps were taken to improve the English army in Ireland; an army described at the time of his arrival as “an abomination to the inhabitants.”5 Strafford was confronted by an army only in name; it was spread across the country, mutinous, underpaid, and its soldiers were often forced to sell their weapons to feed themselves. Training was hardly a consideration for either the Fissel, English Warfare, 236. J. McGurk, The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland: The 1590s Crisis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 229. 4 V. Treadwell, Buckingham and Ireland, 1616–1628 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), 272–3. Treadwell notes that the English government assigned £32,000 to the upkeep of the English forces in Ireland in 1624, an amount that was just half the expenditure for Mansfeld’s expedition to the Palatinate that same year. 5 Quoted in H. O’Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 1 (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, 1923), 6. 2 3

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

77

officers or their men. Strafford’s reforms, part of his programme of the “Thorough” carried out to strengthen the crown’s authority in Ireland, required enforcement of the laws and, the new Lord Deputy believed, the army, once improved, would be best suited to protect the citizenry. While there is no evidence to indicate that the English soldiers in Ireland were supplied with printed drill manuals or that English military books were printed in Ireland,6 Rolf Loeber and Geoffrey Parker have found evidence of the presence of continental military books among the Spanish soldiers stationed in Ireland in the 1580s. They note the presentation of a book on fortifications to Sir George Carew during his time as lord president of Munster from 1600–1604,7 as well as two books on military architecture thought to have been in the possession of the Irish gunner Samuel Molyneux, who served in the Parliamentary army.8 Irish soldiers, particularly those in Spanish service in the Netherlands, would have had some familiarity with military literature printed on the continent by the 1620s and they may have brought these books back to Ireland when they returned home to recruit new volunteers.9 Indeed, it was the Low Countries that continued to have the greatest influence on the art of war in England in the first decades of James’s reign. Even though the king saw himself as a peacemaker, seeking to strike a balance between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, he refused 6 See E.R.M. Dix, Catalogue of Early Dublin-Printed Books 1601 to 1700 (New York: Lenox Hill, 1912). Carew was Sir Walter Ralegh’s cousin. 7 George Carew, earl of Totnes (1555–1629) served in both the navy and the army in the 1570s and 1580s. Carew fought with some of greatest English military figures of the day, serving with Humphrey Gilbert in the Caribbean, with Henry Sidney and Essex in Ireland, and also accompanying Essex to Cadiz in 1596 and to the Azores in 1597. At the end of his military career, Carew continued to help shape military policy, first as Lord President of Miunster (1600–1604) then as master of ordnance (1608–1624) and finally as a member of the Privy Council (1616–1629) and the Council of War (1624–1629). See U. Lotz-Heumann, “Carew, George, earl of Totnes (1555–1629),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. For a discussion of Carew’s time as master of ordnance see R.W. Stewart, The English Ordnance Office 1585–1625: A Case Study in Bureaucracy (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1994). Carew played an important part in the siege of Glin Castle outside Limerick in 1600 and was described by contemporaries as “a man that knows well how to manage great artillery.” See McGurk, The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland, 228. 8 Molyneux’s library housed Nicholas Goldman’s La nouvelle fortification (1645) and Mattias Dögen’s Architectura militaris moderna (1647); see R. Loeber and G. Parker, “The Military Revolution in Seventeenth-Century Ireland,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation 1641–1660, ed. J.H. Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 70–1. 9 See Chapter 4 for a discussion of Irishman Garret Barry’s A Discourse Of Military Discipline (1634).

78

chapter two

to withdraw English support for the Dutch rebels. Nevertheless, one of James’s first foreign policy initiatives was to extricate England from the long war with Spain, which raised the possibility that English troops might be withdrawn from the Netherlands as part of any accord with Madrid. In the summer of 1603, James rescinded the letters of marque given to English privateers and not long after he agreed to begin talks with Spain to end the hostilities that were now a quarter century old. The negotiations, carried out by representatives of the English and Spanish crowns, took place at the same time that English and Dutch soldiers, under the command of Francis Vere, were defending the coastal town of Ostend against a Spanish siege that began three years earlier. While there were fears in the Dutch camp that the English peace with Spain might lead to an end of support for the army of States General, those fears were put to rest when James refused to call for the return of English troops serving in the Low Countries. Consequently, English volunteers continued to make their way to the Low Countries and English regiments, commanded by English colonels, remained in Dutch service until the signing of the Twelve Years’ Truce between Spain and the States General in 1609. English troops also remained in the garrisons protecting the cautionary towns of Brill, Flushing, Bergen-op-Zoom, and the fortifications at Rammekens.10 The motto beati pacifici may have summed up James’s foreign policy, but as far as the Low Countries were concerned England was still at war with Spain and the Netherlands remained the centre of English military culture. Though some veterans returned home after the Twelve Years’ Truce, many more stayed on, owing in part to the mounting tensions over the succession crisis in the nearby Rhenish principality of Cleves-Julich that erupted in 1609. The death of William, duke of Cleves, a Catholic who died without issue in March 1609, sparked a dispute over succession that touched all of the major European powers and exacerbated the religious tensions between Catholics and Protestants. Claimants from both sides of the religious divide came forth to assert their rights to the duchy and disputes between the parties led to the signing of the Treaty of Dortmund in May 1609, which was meant to solve the crisis amicably. The treaty established joint rule over Cleves-Julich with the two main claimants being the Elector of

10 M. Lee, James I and Henri IV, An Essay in English Foreign Policy (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970), 27.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

79

Brandenburg (who had the support of Maurice and Henri IV) and the duke of Neuberg (who was the imperial candidate). Despite the agreement in Dortmund, the treaty began to unravel and the situation in the Rhineland worsened rather than improved. The duke of Neuberg, wishing to control the duchy outright, sought the aid of the Hapsburgs who promptly raised an army and took the heavily fortified town of Julich. Neither Maurice of Nassau nor Henri IV were willing to accept Hapsburg control over the duchy and took steps to raise an army to retake Julich and return the situation to the status quo established at Dortmund. The army, commanded by Maurice, was composed of 13,000 men and 3000 horse to which was added a regiment of French troops and a contingent of 4000 English and Scots. Edward Cecil commanded one regiment, while the other colonelcies were given to Hatton Cheeke and Robert Henderson.11 Horace Vere and John Ogle provided men from their regiments and joined Maurice just prior to the siege. The initial phase of this military chess match ended with the siege and capture of Julich by Maurice in July 1610. He then strengthened Julich with a garrison of 2500 men to convince the duke of Neuberg to adhere to the agreements set out at Dortmund. Neuberg thought differently and called on the Spanish general Ambrosio Spinola to bring his army into the Rhineland to retake Julich. The situation, though tense, was more a cold war than a hot one and it was not until 1614 that the two sides once again came to blows. Spinola’s army entered the Rhineland in the late summer of 1614 proceeding with caution and capturing the towns Aachen, Nuys, Mulhem, and Wesel but, weary of its strong defences and its large garrison, deciding against undertaking a siege of Julich. Maurice had remained in command of his polyglot army of Dutch, English, Scots, French, and Germans that was now joined by Horace Vere, who had been given overall command of the English regiments with Ogle, Cecil, Henderson, and his fellow countryman, William Brog, the acting colonels.12 Skirmishing between the armies broke out in September around the town of Rees, though both Maurice and Spinola continued to move cautiously, each wishing to see the situation solved through negotiation rather than by force of arms. J. Miller, Swords for Hire: The Scottish Mercenary (Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2007), 108. Brog continued to serve in the States Army through the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War. See S. Murdoch, ed., Scotland and the Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 19. 11 12

80

chapter two

As one contemporary news pamphlet described it, “all lay still, and nothing [was] attempted.”13 On September 23 Maurice brought his entire army into the field with Vere and Ogle in the vanguard. They were to direct their attack against a series of sconces that Spinola had constructed around Rees, but in the end Maurice halted the attack and instead sent his troops out to secure the towns surrounding Rees. The crisis subsided as cooler heads prevailed and negotiations were opened between Spinola and Maurice in December 1614, with the English ambassador Sir Henry Wotten and his French counterpart, Eustache de Refuge, seigneur de Précy, also in attendance. The two sides agreed to stand down their armies and return to their garrisons, bringing the Cleves-Julich crisis to an end. Julich remained in Protestant hands while Wesel, taken in 1614 by Spinola, was garrisoned by a Catholic army. There was widespread concern that the events in Cleves-Julich would mark the beginning of larger continental conflict but this was not to be and it was four years before a new, and much more deadly, struggle broke out in Bohemia. European tensions, however, were not limited to the Rhineland, and further to the north, the Danes were engaged in the Kalmar War with the Swedes from 1611–3. Once again James played the role of peacemaker, undertaking diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Despite those negotiations, English and Scots volunteers still travelled to Denmark to serve in the army of Christian IV. In 1613, a contingent of some 4000 English was raised by Robert Bertie, Lord Willoughby, but they and their Scots comrades arrived as the fighting in Kalmar was coming to a close and they had no impact on the outcome of the struggle.14 The campaigns in Cleves-Julich and Denmark proved to be dress rehearsals for the greater European war that unfolded in central Europe following the Bohemian crisis of 1618–20. When Frederick V was driven from his throne in Bohemia and from his ancestral lands in Palatinate, the political and military stakes became much higher than they were in Cleves-Julich in 1614. When news arrived in London that Frederick and 13 H. Peacham, A most true relation of the affaires of Cleve and Gulick as also of all what hath passed this last summer, since the most excellent and victorious prince, Maurice of Nassau, tooke the field with his armie, encamping before Rees in Cleueland: and the losse of Wesel, taken in by the Marques Spinola: vnto the breaking vp of our armie in the beginning of December last past. 1614. With the articles of the peace, propounded at Santen By Henrie Peacham (London: W. Stansby for John Helme, 1615), sig. Cv. 14 S. Murdoch, Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart 1603–1660 (East Linton, UK: Tuckwell Press), 190.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

81

his wife Elizabeth had been forced to flee Bohemia, James I, Frederick’s father-in-law, was faced with a foreign policy predicament. No longer could the English king maintain his cordial relations with Hapsburg Spain as its troops, and those of the Catholic League, hounded his relations across Europe. The English public could purchase news pamphlets and corantos describing Frederick’s disastrous defeat at the Battle of White Mountain in 1620 and the plight of Germany’s Protestants at the hands of the imperial and Spanish forces.15 The presses around St. Paul’s worked incessantly to stir support for a military response to the crisis and as the drums of war reverberated across the continent, English public opinion, fuelled by anti-Catholic sentiment, called for James to send troops to the Palatinate to save the beleaguered couple. As Mark Fissel has pointed out, England was not “a passive spectator” in the wars of religion and with the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War and the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce in 1621, veterans and new recruits wishing to renew the fight with Spain and the Emperor again set off from England’s shores for the continent.16 In 1620 a force of 2200 English foot was raised (the expedition employed no cavalry) and paid for by the government of the Palatinate. The Palatine’s ambassador, Christoph Dohna, elected Horace Vere to command the expedition. Vere’s selection came at the expense of Edward Cecil, who had been a long-time rival of Vere’s owing to disagreements the two had during their service in the Low Countries, disagreements that were further

15 Corontos and news pamphlets on the Bohemian crisis were printed regularly in London throughout the period 1618–1623, included among these were the following titles: Anon., An ansvvere to the question: vvhether the Emperour that now is, can bee iudge in the Bohemian controuersie or no? Together with the extract taken out of the acts of the Dyet at Auspurghe, in the yeare 1584: concerning the kingdome of Bohemia (London: W. Jones for W. Stansby, 1620); Anon., Bohemiae regnum electiuum. That is, A plaine and true relation of the proceeding of the states of Bohemi. . . . (London: William Jones, 1620); Anon., Corant or vveekly nevves, from Italy, Germany, Hungaria, Polonia, Bohemia, France, and the Low-Countries (London: Nathaniel Butter, 1621); Anon., A iournall of the voyage of the young Prince Fredericke Henry, Prince of Bohemia Taken in the sixt yeare of his age, from Prague in Bohemia, to Luerden in Friesland, to the court of Count Ernestus Cassimerus van Nassaw Gouernor of Friesland (London: G. Eld for Nathaniel Butter and Nicholas Bourne, 1623); Anon., The last newes from Bohemia with all the adioyning prouinces that be now vp in armes. Wherein is related all the passages that haue happened since the high and mighty prince elector Palatine of the Rhine was elected and crowned King of Bohemia. With other accidents very delightfull to the reader (S.l.: J. Bill, 1620). 16 Fissel, English Warfare 1511–1642, 271. Roger Manning puts the number of English soldiers in the States Army in 1623 at 9550 and the number of Scots at 3870, for a total of 13,420 or 22% of the total of 60,250. A year later, the English contingent numbered 19,100. See R. Manning, Apprenticeship, 53.

82

chapter two

exacerbated during the Cleves-Julich campaign.17 Among those who volunteered to serve alongside Vere were Henry de Vere, 18th earl of Oxford, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, Robert Sidney, then Lord Lisle, Thomas Lord Cromwell, and Sir Edward Sackville. Short of money, Vere’s expedition would come to rely upon contributions from the pockets of these wealthy men to pay the troops and purchase supplies. The addition of so few troops to the Protestant cause could not win back the Palatinate, and they proved unable to stop Spinola’s army of 15,000 men, now under the command of Gonzalez de Córdoba, from overrunning the Lower Palatinate. At the same time the army of the Catholic League, commanded by Count von Tilly, quickly subdued the Upper Palatinate. The English, who were garrisoned in the towns of Frankenthal and Mannheim in the Lower Palatinate, could do little to slow the advance of Córdoba. To make matters worse, on his return to the Netherlands, Spinola captured Julich in 1621, reversing Maurice’s success of 1610 and cutting off the supply route between the Low Countries and the Upper Palatinate.18 In the Palatinate, the situation went from bad to worse; Mainz fell to Córdoba in August 1621, Kreuznach and Oppenheim soon after. Free to assist the Spanish army, Tilly’s imperial troops laid siege to Heidelberg, which capitulated in September 1622 and Mannheim followed in early November. The English garrison at Frankenthal held on during the winter months but it was recognized that it was futile to hold on to the fortification in light of the noose tightening around the town. In March 1623 the English, knowing that they could not alter the situation in the Palatinate, handed over Frankenthal to the Spanish. Vere’s troops fought bravely and stoutly defended the fortifications they garrisoned, but they were finally overwhelmed by the might of the combined Spanish and imperial forces. The loss of the Palatinate prompted a good deal of soul-searching in England in the last years of James’s reign, as the king, his ministers, and Parliament debated a suitable military response to the European crisis. The Council of War, which was first established in January 1620/21 included many of the prominent Elizabethan and Jacobean veterans, including Conway, Cecil, Vere, Ogle, and John Bingham, a veteran

17 C. Dalton, Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, vol. 1 (London: Sampson, Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1885), 329. 18 G. Parker, ed., The Thirty Years’ War (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987), 65.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

83

and former captain of the London Artillery Company. All of them advised against a full-scale war reminiscent of the Henrician period, insisting that the country could not afford the costs of a large military operation involving moving thousands of men to the continent.19 That council prepared a report on the feasibility of retaking the Palatinate, plans that were soon overtaken by the events in Germany and the failure of Vere’s expedition in 1622.20 A new council, that included the Elizabethan veterans and new members, Viscount Grandison and Lords Brooke, Carew, and Chichester, were appointed to address the new political and military situation in Germany. This second council called for a cautious policy, one that would rely upon small contingents being sent to the continent to ally with Protestant armies already fighting in Germany. The first of these expeditions was commanded by the German military entrepreneur Count Ernst von Mansfeld and supported by a grant of £55,000 raised by James in lieu of subsidies that had yet to arrive from Parliament. Mansfeld landed in London in April 1624 and was soon courting James’s government and the City for their support in raising troops and money to complement the force of 7000 Germans he brought with him to England.21 12,000 English were quickly raised by the press but the men, drawn primarily from the southeast, lacked discipline and training and could hardly be called soldiers. To overcome some of the problems of preparing the troops for war, a set of printed instructions, Count Mansfields Directions of Warre, were issued to the men as they departed England, though most of those conscripted were too ignorant or too weak to take any of their training to heart.22 The expedition departed for the Netherlands in late November 1624 and was expected to march from the Dutch ports to join with French cavalry in operations against the Spanish and imperial troops now controlling the Palatinate.23 The harsh winter and poor communication between the English and their Dutch allies meant that there was no food or supplies available to the expedition when it arrived in Zeeland. As a result of these logistical failures, men began to fall ill Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 74. E.I. Carlyle, “Committees of Council under the Earlier Stuarts,” English Historical Review 21, no. 84 (Oct. 1906): 680. 21 Manning, Apprenticeship, 106. 22 Ibid., 190. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the contents of Count Mansfields Directions of Warre. 23 R. Lockyer, Buckingham, the life and political career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, 1592–1628 (London: Longman, 1984), 207. 19

20

84

chapter two

and desert the ranks, leading to a general breakdown of order and a decision by Mansfeld to forego the march to the Palatinate and instead aid the Dutch in their attempts to relieve the siege of Breda. Dogged by problems almost from its inception, Mansfeld’s expedition failed miserably and was unable to save either Breda or the Palatinate. The decision to rely upon pressed men, rather than recruiting experienced men from the trained bands seems to have doomed the expedition, the lack of logistical support and regular pay simply making matters even worse. Few of 12,000 men ever made it back to England and the Council of War was forced to return to the drawing board to devise a new set of plans to assist Frederick in regaining his lost lands. The death of James in March 1625 and the accession of Charles I did little to change the fortunes of war for the English. Charles inherited his father’s chief minister, George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, and both men were eager to lead the country in a war against Spain, particularly after the embarrassing collapse of the Spanish match and the return of Charles and Buckingham from Madrid in 1623. That return led to the “blessed revolution,” a sea-change in English foreign policy that saw a renewal of the old animosities between London and Madrid and the declaration of war against Spain in 1624. The decision to go to war with Spain was greeted with cheers by those who felt James’s government would now put its full backing behind any military operations against the Spanish, thereby avoiding the debacles that marked the expeditions commanded by Vere and Mansfeld. George Marcelline summed up the concerns of many in his Vox Militis (1625), a reprinting of Barnabe Rich’s Allarme to England (1578), that warned that the English lived “without regard of Militarie discipline,” and were being forced to stand and behold their friends in apparent danger “almost subverted by there enemies unjust persecution, and yet with hold[ing] their helping hand and assistance.”24 Marcelline, who dedicated his treatise to Mansfeld, wished to resurrect the reputation of the English soldier, which by this time had taken a beating. Yet his hopes, and those of the nation, were dashed once again when another foray to the continent in 1627, this time in support of the Danes, also faltered.

24

G. Marcelline, Vox militis (London: B[ernard] A[lsop] for Thomas Archer, 1625).

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

85

Charles wished to re-establish the Anglo-Danish military relationship that first took shape during the Kalmar War of 1611–13. In 1625 he agreed to assist his uncle Christian IV with money and men after the Danish king had decided to enter the war against the Emperor. Christian had spent much of the previous decade securing Denmark’s control over north Germany and fending off the Swedes and the Dutch. He sought assistance from his allies and donned the mantle of the new saviour of Protestant Europe. Christian’s foray into Germany did not produce the results that either he, the English or the Dutch had hoped for. The Danes were defeated by Tilly’s army at Lutter in 1626, but this failed to sway Charles from providing assistance and he successfully raised a force of 4000 men under the command of Sir Charles Morgan, which was sent to north Germany to aid Christian’s demoralized army. Once again, the pressing of criminals and vagrants into service exposed the serious flaws in the English system of recruitment and left Morgan with an ineffective force unable to influence the military balance in Germany. Even as failure plagued England’s military operations in the early years of Charles’s reign, the twin problems of recruitment and logistics were continually overlooked during the formulation of a strategy to fight the Spanish. The joint naval-military expeditions to Cadiz in 1625 and La Rochelle in 1627–8 would ultimately suffer from the same shortcomings in command, logistics, and manpower as those sent to relieve the Palatinate in 1620–21 or the Danes in 1625. Even before the English fleet left for Cadiz in October 1625, its commander, Sir Edward Cecil, now viscount Wimbledon, was aware that his army, which was composed of 10,000 “raw” men, would find the voyage a long and difficult one. Though it was hoped that the English would once again “singe the king’s beard” as the fleets of 1587 and 1596 had done, Cecil had some reservations about the operation, particularly after the recent failure of Mansfeld’s expedition. Writing to Buckingham in June 1625, Cecil was fearful that the fall of Breda just months before would discourage the Dutch from letting the experienced Englishmen serving in their army leave to join the fleet headed for Cadiz. By this disposition of the States to the keeping all their old souldiers, I wish your Excellencie will be pleased to be as careful in your choice, as you are desirous of great designs. For otherwise the honour and the charge will both be cast away, as your Excellencie may perceive in some of our latter expeditions, seeing that although there are many called Souldiers in the world, yet but a few there be that are so; for so long a man may live in the profession to inable him sufficiently, that many grow unable

86

chapter two to perform what they know before they have attained to the knowledge of what to perform. The knowledge of war being the highest of human things that God suffereth man’s understanding to reach unto.25

Cecil felt pressed for time in his preparations and told Buckingham that he wished he had “known of this imployment but some months sooner.”26 He went on to inform the duke that previous operations had “suffered (for the most part) more than through the negligence, as in victual, munition, boats for Landing, and for the receiving of sick men to keep the rest from infection.”27 But Buckingham could not afford to give Cecil more time. The duke had been able to convince Charles and Parliament that the war with Spain was in England’s best interest and that it could lead to the return of the Palatinate and take pressure off the Dutch. Once Cadiz and its shipping were destroyed the English navy could be used against other Spanish ports and be turned against the Plate Fleet, thereby cutting off the flow of supplies, money, and men moving between the Americas, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Low Countries. This would slowly throttle the Spanish war effort and either bring them to the negotiating table or weaken Spain to the extent that they would be forced to withdraw from the Palatinate. Yet, it was Buckingham’s own inexperience in military affairs combined with his decision to promote officers who were equally inexperienced that doomed the Cadiz expedition. Martyn Bennett has described how the Privy Council attempted to bring veteran captains and troops from the Low Countries and to see that those men and officers who had returned from the Mansfeld expedition were included in the contingent bound for Cadiz.28 Bennett found that 2000 of the 10,000 men who sailed for Cadiz had experience; but it was Buckingham’s new officers who dominated command and who quarrelled about the mission’s objectives once they reached Spain. Despite his years of experience, blame for the failure of the Cadiz expedition was laid squarely at the feet of Cecil and there is no doubt that he was the wrong man for the job. Such an operation required a man of daring, just as Drake and Essex had been, and not a man of Cecil’s caution. Essex’s son, Robert,

Dalton, Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, vol. 2, 101. Ibid. 27 Ibid., 101–2. 28 M. Bennett, “The Officer Corps and Army Command in the British Isles, 1620– 1660,” in The Chivalric Ethos and the Development of Military Professionalism, ed. D. Trim (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 293–4. 25 26

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

87

the 3rd earl, was becoming a swordsman of some repute and may well have been better suited to the task than the older Cecil. As lord admiral, Buckingham dominated the planning of military operations between 1624 and 1628, and he cast a long shadow over the preparation and the outcome of these expeditions. As a young man, Buckingham had not been educated by soldiers, nor had he spent time in their company; he was neither a scholar nor a student of the military arts like Mountjoy or Essex. Buckingham’s tour of the continent, which he undertook in 1608 at the age of sixteen, saw him spend much of his time in France, training in the arts of horsemanship and fencing and not, like so many of his contemporaries, serving in the war in the Low Countries. When he became James’s chief minister, Buckingham did seek out the country’s leading soldiers, finding them useful allies and founts of information for a subject about which he knew little. During the 1620s, Edward Conway became a close confidant of the duke. The two men often met to discuss military affairs and it was reported in 1622 that they drilled together with pikes.29 Likewise, Edward Cecil also described himself as the “creature you [Buckingham] have made,” and the general was more than happy to offer his patron advice and in return received command of the Cadiz expedition. Sir William Heydon, who came from a family of late Elizabethan and early Stuart soldiers also counselled Buckingham on military matters.30 Buckingham led the attack on La Rochelle in 1627, not allowing inexperience to prevent him from seeking military glories of his own. He had been instrumental in convincing Parliament and the nation to back a war with Spain and in 1627 he turned his attention to France. This new war would be fought in defence of the Protestant faith and the battleground would be at La Rochelle where Richelieu’s army was encircling the Huguenot town. As if on cue, the campaign to take the island fortresses of the Isle de Rhé, which protected the entrance to the port, faced the same problems as those that plagued previous English military operations. Buckingham had chosen his creatures to command over more experienced men. Money, victuals, munitions, and

29 T. Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 59. 30 Heydon’s father was Sir Christopher Heydon, who had served with Essex in Ireland. His uncle John Heydon also fought with Essex in the Netherlands and in Ireland. William Heydon was killed on the Isle de Rhé while his brother, Sir John Heydon, would later fight for the Royalists in the Civil War. See Lockyer, Buckingham, 383.

88

chapter two

trenching equipment were all in short supply, and the training of the newly pressed men awaiting at the south coast ports for embarkation to France was also overlooked. Though the English troops were able to carry out an amphibious landing on the Isle de Rhé and displayed a good deal of heroism in fending off attacks by French infantry and cavalry, they were unable to take the citadel of St. Martin. The La Rochelle expedition, as well as those sent to Germany and Spain, can tell us much more about the lack of English political will and deficiencies in the corrupt system of conscription than they can about the real business of soldiering. In each instance, the bulk of these forces were pressed men with little or no training who were in no position to meet the demands of these operations, particularly the amphibious landings. We must keep in mind that all the English armies raised in the 1620s were conscripted and none were drawn from the available pool of trained men who served in the militia. Approximately 50,000 conscripts were raised over the course of the decade, many of whom were described as drunkards, rogues, gaolbirds, rabble, or the all inclusive “insufficient men.”31 These were not the hardened veterans of the war in the Low Countries, nor were they members of the local trained bands or the London military societies who were, by this time, receiving training according to the infantry drill methods introduced by Maurice of Nassau in the 1590s. While there were conscripted men who became good soldiers and served with distinction, there were also those who were sent abroad with only a rudimentary understanding of how their weapons worked. These men would have received the most basic instructions in drill owing to the short time between conscription and deployment on the continent. Wastage due to sickness and desertion further undermined any cohesion between these men and their officers; that is if cohesion was ever possible under such circumstances. As I will show in the next chapter, drill manuals and instructions were introduced in an attempt to improve the training of conscripts, but sickly recruits lacking in discipline and prone to desertion clearly undermined efforts to turn these men into soldiers. Therefore one must look at the development of the trained bands and the military societies for evidence of the impact of printed books on training and the education of the complete English soldier. Both the

31 S.J. Stearns, “Conscription and English Society in the 1620s,” Journal of British Studies 11 (May 1972): 7–8.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

89

bands and the military societies used drill manuals and printed instructions during the early Stuart period, with many of these books originating from these venues. As I discussed in the last chapter, the decision by the Elizabethan government in 1572–3 to establish the trained bands had brought about some improvements to training, but standardization of practice was hardly possible without the dissemination of specific instructions that spelled out the correct forms of drill and the accompanying words of command to all those in the militia. On account of the “militia vacation” that began in 1604 and continued until 1612, there was little innovation in the training of the bands in the first decade of Jacobean rule. The Jacobean government’s decision to repeal the 1558 militia law, which required local gentry to contribute weapons, armour, and horses to the bands also undermined some of the positive steps taken to improve training in the previous quarter century. Between 1604 and 1612 few counties mustered their bands and those that did faced opposition from recalcitrant gentry who refused to provide weapons or money for the upkeep of the militia. The decision to renew yearly musters came as tensions were growing in Cleves-Julich. The events in the Rhineland forced James to rethink his neglect of the trained bands and to call for the resumption of regular musters in 1613. During the militia vacation, some dedicated lord lieutenants continued to hold musters and urged their bands to train at special musters. The earls of Northampton and Exeter and lord lieutenants of Norfolk and Northamptonshire pushed their deputies to improve the militia even during the vacation.32 The peace with Spain did not necessarily result in a complete cessation of musters, as there also is recorded evidence that musters were held in Hampshire and Caernarvonshire in 1605 and in Essex, Herefordshire, Norfolk, and Wiltshire in 1608.33 The Privy Council had issued orders for a general muster in 1608, citing the need to remain vigilant against invasion even in “this happy time of peace.”34 Despite those orders, there is no indication that training played a part in these musters, which were carried out primarily for administrative purposes, if they were carried out at all. When musters

32 A. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven: Yale University, 1986), 286. Thomas Cecil was the earl of Exeter and William Compton, was earl of Northampton. 33 Ibid., 286. 34 J. Wake, ed. The Montagu Musters Book A.D. 1602–1623 (Peterborogh, UK: Northamptonshire Record Society, 1935), liii.

90

chapter two

were resumed in 1613–14 there was a greater emphasis placed on training, though here again the results varied from county to county. In Devonshire, the earl of Bath wrote to the council to inform them that the “trained bands are 5,000 men but not half of them know how to use their weapons.”35 The earl of Exeter lambasted his lieutenants in Northamptonshire for failing to make training a part of the 1613 muster in the eastern division of the county. He found it hard to believe that the lieutenants were “so backward touching the training of the bands . . . considering how necessary a thing it is that men who are appointed to wear armour upon their backs should be learned how to use them, and learn to march with them.” Exeter found that other shires, “Kent, Sussex, Middlesex, Hertfordshire and Hampshire were all trained,” and so directed his deputies to “make sure that you are warranted by my letters.”36 The raising of Spinola’s army in response to the Cleves-Julich crisis prompted the return of regular yearly musters. In 1616, the Privy Council went one step further calling for the standardization of weaponry with calivers to be replaced by muskets at the expense of each county. The cost of replacing the older weapons proved beyond the capacity of many counties, representing another burden on the local inhabitants who were forced to pay higher militia rates. Most counties found they could not raise the additional money without further angering rate payers who were digging in their heels and refusing to pay. Consequently, the process of weapons’ standardization was slow and ad hoc at best. The paucity of arms, a problem that dated back to the Elizabethan period, meant that the older calivers had to be retained by the bands with muskets purchased over several decades, the two types of weapons co-existing in county arsenals well into the 1630s. In the 1610s and 1620s, deficiencies extended beyond the training and arming of the foot to include the raising of horse troops as well. In fact, most counties found it close to impossible to raise complete companies of horse for musters. Boynton noted that those counties closest to London had the best muster returns for the horse, but most deputy lieutenants entered the same tired refrain when returning their muster certificates: “the horse are much decayed.”37

35 36 37

CSPD, Vol. LXXII 1611–1618, 123. Ibid., lv. Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia 1558–1638, 227.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

91

If there was a centre of activity for English military culture outside the Low Countries in the early Stuart period, it was in London where the formation of military societies inside and outside the city provided a venue for military training during the last years of the vacation. The reformation of the Honourable Artillery Company at Bishopsgate in 1610 was to have far-reaching implications for military training and military literature over the next four decades. The company held regular infantry drill sessions, carried out by its 250 members, and it became the model for military practice in Jacobean and Caroline England. The interaction between Low Countries veterans and members of the companies and the sharing of information about practices and tactics, turned the military societies into the early modern equivalent of a military think-tank. These were England’s very own schools of war, where ideas were exchanged and military books and drill manuals were produced. Owing to the popularity of Artillery Company and a wish to emulate the training taking place at Bishopsgate, other military companies and artillery yards were established, first in Westminster and Middlesex, then in other towns across the country in the 1620s and 1630s.38 With thousands of soldiers going to and from the Low Countries, military culture in England was never wholly exorcised from developments taking place on the continent. When soldiers returned from the wars, they often became muster masters, the only “full-time” professionals connected with the training of the militia, or they were paid to act as sergeants, training the bands for three months before moving on to another riding or county. Privy Council instructions issued in 1625 stated that the sergeants were to be “imployed into the severall counties for instructinge of Souldiers . . . both of ye suffitiencye of the Armes and men, and their skill and readiness to vse their armes, and performe wth knowledge ye duties of Souldiers . . . and to be complete, 38 After the establishment of the Artillery Company in 1610, London suburbs of Southwark and Westminster set up the “Martial Yard” and the “Military Company” respectively, while the towns of Coventry (1617), Colchester (1621), Bury St. Edmunds (1622), Norwich (1625), Bristol (1625), Great Yarmouth (1626), Gloucester (1626), Chester (1626), Ipswich (1629), and Nottingham (1629) formed yards of their own. See K. Roberts, “Lessons in Revolution: The Impact of the London Military Companies,” Cromwelliana, (1992), 38 and “Citizen Soldiers: the Military Power of the City of London,” in London and the Civil War, ed. S. Porter (London: MacMillan Press, 1996). Also see Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia, 263–4 and W. Hunt, “Civic Chivalry and the English Civil War,” in The Transmission of Culture in Early Modern Europe, eds. A. Grafton and A. Blair (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), 218.

92

chapter two

accordinge to the moderne fashione.”39 Some counties were happy to accept the sergeants, with Devon, Lancashire, Cheshire, Northampton, and Pembroke reporting these men did good work in training the bands, while Norfolk saw little need in employing them, having ample “old practiced Souldiers of our owne country . . . very able and sufficient” to perform the task, some even “wthout any further charge to the Countrye.”40 These veterans assisted in the introduction into England of the “moderne fashione” of infantry drill, imported from the Low Countries. In the 1620s the Jacobean and Caroline governments took steps to aid the muster masters and sergeants in their training of the militia, introducing printed drill manuals, complete with engraved pike and shot postures, which helped to spread the so-called “continental infection.” In the rest of this chapter, I discuss how the members of the military circles attached to the Veres and Prince Henry were paramount to development of the military arts in England. They were to become advocates of military reform in the late Jacobean and early Caroline periods, recognizing the value of printed books and manuals in their programme of reform. The veterans Conway, Cecil, Vere, and Ogle all served as members of the Council of War created in the 1620s to prepare England for entry into the Thirty Years’ War. In 1623, Conway and Cecil advocated the introduction of the Jacobean government’s printed drill manual, Instructions for Musters and Armes, as one of the ways of improving the trained bands and standardizing drill across the country. Also, at the urging of these men, James, and then Charles, took steps to form the “Exact” or “Perfect” militia. Their efforts, as well as those of other Low Countries veterans to “spell out” military practice in early seventeenth century England, was, as David Eltis has reminded us, an important difference between late Elizabethan and early Stuart military literature.

39 W. Rye, State Papers Relating to Musters, Beacons, Shipmoney, &c. in Norfolk (Norwich: Goose and Son, 1907), 9. 40 See Boyton, Elizabethan Militia, 247 and Rye, State Papers Relating to Musters, 16. The letter from the Privy Council, dated January 14, 1625/26, specified that the experienced soldiers were to be sent from the Low Countries hither, to be distributed into the several counties, there to teach the captains, lieutenants, ensigns, and other officers and leaders of files in each company the true use of arms and order of soldiers. Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry, vol. III (Historical Manuscripts Commission, London: HMSO, 1926), 445.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

93

Early Stuart Military Circles: The Veres Against the backdrop of the Dutch Revolt and onset of war with Spain and France in 1620s, the early Stuart period witnessed the continuation of the military patronage system that had provided the command hierarchy for contingents serving abroad in the late Elizabethan period. Many of the men who had gotten their first taste of battle in the Low Countries remained in the service of the States General after the death of Elizabeth. The most prominent English military circle was established by Francis Vere, who became the first commoner to command an English army [fig. 2]. Vere’s social status, however, did not lessen his ability to obtain or to dispense patronage. A member of a cadet branch of the de Vere family, the earls of Oxford, Francis Vere rose up through the ranks on the basis of his professionalism, though he too was to benefit from the patronage system, as would his brother Horace, who also had a long and distinguished career in the Netherlands. Francis’s military career spanned the last two decades of Elizabeth’s reign, much of that, Naunton tells us, living “almost perpetually in the camp” in the Low Countries before it concluded with the resignation of his command in 1604.41 Francis Vere received his military education, and a healthy dose of Protestant religious instruction, from William Browne, a puritan and a Low Countries veteran.42 According to the Veres’ biographer, C.R. Markham, little is known of Francis’s education and there is no record that he attended university. Tracy Borman points out that the lineage of the de Vere family, with its long history of military service and Francis’s training under Browne, steered him towards a career as a soldier.43 His education would come in the wars. At the age of eighteen Vere travelled to Paris before setting off for Poland in the company of Captain Francis Allen, where he served for a time in the Polish wars in the early 1580s.44 At the age of twenty-five Vere could be counted among those serving with Leicester in the Netherlands where he first became acquainted with the eminent soldiers discussed in the

Naunton, Fragmenta regalia, 41. C.R. Markham, The Fighting Veres. Lives of Sir Francis Vere . . . and of Sir Horace Vere (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1888), 25. 43 T. Borman, “Sir Francis Vere in the Netherlands, 1589–1603” (PhD. diss., University of Hull, 1997), 106. 44 Ibid., 26. 41 42

94

chapter two

last chapter. While in Netherlands, Vere served alongside Roger Williams at the defence of Sluys, with Thomas Morgan and John Norris at Bergen-op-Zoom, and later with Essex and Ralegh at the Azores and Cadiz. Nevertheless, he might not have obtained the rank of sergeant-major general without the backing of Peregrine Bertie, 11th Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Vere’s noble patron.45 Their relationship was not simply one of patron and client, as Vere was the cousin of Willoughby’s wife, Mary de Vere. As we have already seen, kinship ties provided one means of entry into English military circles. Vere’s cousin Hugh also joined Willoughby’s circle, as did Sir John Wingfield, who was Willoughby’s brother-in-law. Sir William Drury, who went on to serve as governor of Bergen-op-Zoom, and Thomas Fairfax, 1st Lord Fairfax, whose son Ferdinando and grandson Thomas would each gain fame serving as Parliamentary officers in the English Civil War, were also members of Willoughby’s circle. Gervase Markham, described Willoughby in Honour in His Perfection as a man “borne in the Warres, brought vp in the Warres, his whole life nothing but a Storie of the Wars.”46 Willoughby first gained experience in the wars as part of Leicester’s expedition to the Netherlands in 1585 and then served the earl as a special ambassador to Denmark and France. In 1586 Willoughby, slowly building his own military circle, saw to it that Vere was given command of a company of soldiers attached to the garrison at Bergen-op-Zoom and before long the young man had distinguished himself fighting heroically at the siege of Sluys in June 1587. Yet the Dutch and their English allies failed to hold Sluys and this proved to be the last straw for Leicester, who removed himself from command of the English forces and returned home. Command of the English forces fell to Willoughby who was now in an even better position to advance the career of Vere and the others in his circle. Vere, a more experienced soldier than Willoughby, acted as his patron’s military advisor, a common occurrence in early modern warfare owing to the fact that inexperienced nobles who were given command of regiments and companies often arrived on the continent

See J. West, The Brave Lord Willoughby (Edinburgh: Pentland Press, 1998) and C.H. Parry, ed., A Memoir of Peregrine Pertie, 11th Lord Willoughby De Eresby (London: John Murray, 1839). 46 Markham, Honour in his perfection, 35. 45

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

95

Figure 2. Sir Francis Vere from his Commentaries (1657). Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

96

chapter two

without an understanding of the complexities of the art of war.47 Some had enough sense, as Willoughby did, to turn to veterans for advice, while there were others who were either too stubborn or too proud to rely on the wisdom of their social inferiors. This was not the case with the relationship between Willoughby and Vere, as patron appears to have placed a great deal of faith in the capabilities of his client.48 Vere was a skilled and knowledgeable soldier, the antithesis of the paper soldiers that were scorned by Low Countries veterans. During his military career, Vere became something of a legend in the Netherlands and was held in very high regard by his own troops, by the Dutch, and even by his enemies. Ambrosio Spinola, commenting a number of years after Vere’s death in 1609, claimed that Vere was the finest general he fought against.49 Vere epitomized the complete soldier; he possessed many of the leadership qualities, courage, intelligence, godliness, which were heralded in the pages of military books. But, even as a man of his experience, he was not averse to consulting military books

47 Thomas Smith dedicated both of his works on gunnery, The Art of Gunnery (1600) and Certaine Additions to the Booke of Gvnnery (1601) to Willoughby. At the time the books were printed, Smith was acting as the governor of Berwick, the heavily fortified town defending the English border with Scotland, though it appears that when the treatises were written, Smith was serving under Willoughby as a gunner in the Low Countries. Smith claims in the dedication in The Art of Gunnery that he had been “brought up from my childhood vnder a valiant Captaine in Militarie profession, in which I have had a desire to practice and learne some secrets touching the orders of the field, and training of Souldiers: as also concerning the Art of Managing and shooting in great Artillerie.” (sig. A3) Smith notes that the book was first finished in 1597 and dedicated to a Captain Cary, but that he revised it for presentation to Willoughby. 48 In 1588, as the Spanish prepared to invade England, Willoughby wrote that Vere, along with John Norris, could help to undermine the Spanish invasion plans by manoeuvring against Parma’s army stationed along the Dutch coast. In a letter to Essex, titled “My Lords Discourse of the preparation against the Spanish,” Willoughby proposed that the two men might “march towards him [Parma] at Ostend sodenly and that an army from hence of some tenn thousand” under Essex, might then attack Calais. As general of the English forces in the Low Countries until 1589, Willoughby was also concerned about the reformation of the army. Notes on preparations to repel the Spanish invasion of England in 1588 put forward various ways of confronting the enemy if they chose to land on the Dover coast or further up the Thames Estuary. In an interesting note found among the letters pertaining to the invasion threat, Willoughby argues that the county militias, in preparation to meet the Spanish, should consult the available military literature to assist them in their training. “If the country preparations be in number, armes and training so fit and fair as is delivered in good bokes,” he wrote, “there wants no more but soever practiced harquebusiers on horseback yt may from county to county to second whose danger is imminent.” See BL, Egerton MSS 1943 f. 92. 49 Dalton, Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, vol. 1, 150.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

97

and he appears to have carried books with him on campaign. Nearing the end of his life, Vere authored his own book, a military memoir, titled Commentaries that first circulated in manuscript among soldiers and courtiers in 1606. It was later printed in 1657 with publisher William Dillingham adding Sir John Ogle’s more balanced account of the Battle of Nieuwpoort and a copy of Henry Hexham’s history of the siege of Ostend to broaden the appeal of the memoir.50 Commentaries reveals little about the evolution of Vere’s military education as it covers only the skirmishes and battles that he was involved in during the years 1596 to 1604. Unfortunately, it passes over Vere’s early career as Willoughby’s client and only begins after Vere assumed command of the English forces in the Netherlands in the 1590s. Yet we know that Vere kept company with some of the Low Countries leading scholars and in examining the list of books he donated to Thomas Bodley’s new library at Oxford, we can get some idea of what military books may have passed through his hands. The Bodleian Benefactors List records donations of both money and books made by Vere during the last decade of his life.51 In 1602 he gave five books to the library, Giulio Ferretti’s De re et disciplina Militari aureus tractatus (1582), Diego Salazar’s Tratado de re militari (1582), Julius Roscius Hortinus’s Elogia militaria (1596), François de Belleforest’s Harangues militaires recueillies des six livres des guerres des Romains contre les nations estrangéres (1572), and Antonio Lupicini’s Architettura militare (1582).52 These books represent a cross section of works on the martial arts, the first two touching the general aspects of war, the next three dedicated to military history, and the last to siegecraft. In 1604 Vere donated Lorenzo di Forestani’s Practica d’ Arithmatica et Geometria (1603) and Francesco Patrizi’s Nouva Geometria (1587), which if read in combination with Lupicini may well have proved useful in the preparation of defensive positions and sconces in the months leading up to the great siege of Ostend.53 How long these books had been part of Vere’s library is difficult to determine. The editions that predate his entry into military service could easily have been purchased in the late 1580s and 1590s, while the others 50 David Trim notes that copies of the manuscript were in the possession of John Ogle and the Parliamentary generals Philip Skippon and Thomas Fairfax, as well as the writer Cyril Tourneur. D.J.B. Trim, “Vere, Sir Francis (1560/61–1609),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. 51 Bod. Lib., Bodleian Benefactors List, 44–6. 52 Ibid. 53 See Chapter 6 for a detailed discussion of the Vere and the siege of Ostend.

98

chapter two

may have been purchased or given to Vere when he was serving in the Netherlands. His biographers make no mention of Vere’s proficiency in languages, though his letters indicate knowledge of Latin, which would have allowed him to read Elogia militaria.54 Vere’s contributions to the Bodleian also imply that he had wide-ranging interests that extended beyond the military arts, and as one historian has suggested, the general was known to have humanist sympathies and to have a number of humanist supporters in the Low Countries.55 Counted among Vere’s English humanist friends and followers were Bodley and Clement Edmondes. The Bodleian’s founder served as a diplomat in the Netherlands in the 1580s and 1590s during the period that Vere was establishing his reputation in the Low Countries. Bodley had volunteered for Leicester’s expedition in 1585 and was friends with the Sidneys, the earl of Essex and Maurice of Nassau. Bodley’s career as a diplomat eventually took him away from the battlefield, but his brother Josias fought in the Netherlands and Ireland in the 1580s and 1590s, upholding the family’s long tradition of military service. That military tradition was continued by Bodley’s son Thomas, who died in the Low Countries in 1602.56 The tradition extended even to the women, at least in the case of Bodley’s sister Susan, who was married to William Shute the translator of the popular Triumphs of Nassau, which was printed in 1613 and described the military exploits of the Prince of Orange.57 Bodley was called “a prompter of military actions” during his diplomatic missions in the Netherlands, and he was a good student of military affairs. His martial interests, as well as his connections with the well-known diplomats and soldiers, may be one of the reasons why, on its founding, the Bodleian Library was stocked with many of the latest continental works on warfare.58 The Bodleian Benefactors Register reveals that along with the books contributed by Southampton and Vere, Sir Edmund Udall (Uvedale), Henry Percy, the earl of Northumberland, and Henry Brooke, Baron Cobham, all contributed military titles. 54 Hortinus’s biography of history’s great military leaders was printed with an edition of Aliprando Capriolo’s Ritratti Di Cento Capitani Illvstri (1596), which is a series of biographical sketches of the Renaissance Italy’s famous condottieri. 55 Trim, “Francis Vere,” DNB. 56 David Trim, “Sir Thomas Bodley and the International Protestant Cause,” Bodleian Library Record, vol. 16, no. 4, (1998): 316. 57 Ibid., 317. 58 Ibid., 316.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

99

Udall, another well-known Elizabethan soldier and devout Protestant, presented the Bodleian with his copies of two Italian works on military architecture by Gabriello Busca, Della espugnatione, e difesa delle fortezze (1598) and Della Architettura militare (1601), as well as the military classic, Vegetius’s De re militari.59 Northumberland had travelled to the Low Countries in 1588, where he developed a fascination for the military arts and siegecraft, though he was to approach the martial arts from the perspective of a scientist rather than a soldier. In his manuscript, “Advice to his Son,” Northumberland instructed his to son to make sure that his studies included both the “Art Nautical and Military.”60 A friend of Bodley and Northumberland, though no friend of the Protestant cause, the diplomat Henry Brooke, Baron Cobham, added three other military titles to the Bodleian shelves, all of them dedicated to siegecraft and military architecture.61 They included Lorini’s Delle Fortificationi (1597), Giovanni Battista Belici’s Nova inventione di fabricar Fortezza (1598), and Allessandro Capobianco’s Corona e palma militare d’arteglieria (1598).62 Clement Edmondes, who dedicated the first edition of his Observations vpon the Five Bookes of Caesars Commentaries (1600) to Francis Vere, was another noted scholar and author who was attracted to the general’s circle. Edmondes was with Vere at the Battle of Nieuwpoort in 1600, and he stated in the dedicatory epistle of Observations that he undertook the work because “Caesar hath always beene held in your particular recommendation, as the Breverie of soldiers” and it had been Vere’s “continual incouragement” that helped Edmondes to see the project 59 G. Busca, Della espugnatione, e difesa delle fortezze (Turino: Appresso Gio. Dominico Tarino, 1598) and Della Architettura militare (Milano: Girolamo Bordone & Pietro Martire Locarni, 1601). 60 Northumberland contributed Marchi’s L’Archetecttura militare (1599) and Fronsberger’s Disiciplina militari (1596). See Bod. Lib., Bodleian Benefactors List. 61 Ibid., 44–6. 62 By 1605, Thomas James’s Catalogus Librorum reveals that these early contributions and purchases had established a collection of thirty-five military manuals in the Bodleian, the bulk of which were Italian works printed in the last half of the sixteenth century. This is not surprising, as the books in the collection at that time that had not come from donors, and would most likely have been procured by John Bill on his trips to Italy between 1597 and 1603. The Bodleian Catalogue of 1620 also shows the libraries holdings beginning to reflect the shift towards the other schools of war, most notably the addition to the collection of French titles, and even some English manuals as well. The great majority of these works were devoted to the broad topic of the arte militarie and to military architecture and gunnery. Works on cavalry were also well represented, though fewer continental works on the subject of cavalry warfare were printed in comparison with other military subjects.

100

chapter two

through to its completion. Edmondes also owed a debt to Sir John Scott, another member of Vere’s circle, who offered his professional advise during the writing of Observations. Scott was with the English contingent in the Netherlands under Lord Willoughby and later with Essex at Cadiz in 1596 before he returned to the Low Countries in 1597 and began serving as an officer under Vere’s command.63 Edmondes always found time to talk to veterans like Scott, asking them about their experiences and incorporating the lessons he learned from these men into his work. In what seems to have been an attempt to see the fighting on the continent first hand, Edmondes left England in June 1600 and made his way to the Netherlands where he joined Vere and Maurice of Nassau as they prepared to fight the Spanish at Nieuwpoort. As the story goes, Edmondes attended a meeting held by the two commanders that lasted into the late hours of July 1/2. During that meeting, Vere and Maurice pondered how to deal with archduke Albert’s fastapproaching army. Vere is said to have offered up advice based upon the lessons he had learned from reading Caesar’s Commentaries.64 The victory over the Spanish the next day on the beach near Nieuwpoort reinforced Edmondes’s belief that classical history had value in modern military affairs, and this spurred him on to write his own analysis of Caesar’s campaigns. Four years after the victory at Nieuwpoort, Francis Vere left the Netherlands, angered and frustrated by the way that he and his men were being treated by their Dutch allies. He was given his old post as governor of Brill, where he remained until 1606. Vere finally returned to England in 1606 to take up the governorship of Portsmouth, a position he held until his death in 1609. During this period, Francis Vere’s brother, Horace remained in the service of the States, acquiring his own reputation for bravery and martial skill that was to rival, but never eclipse, that of his brother [fig. 3]. Horace’s education and his interests in martial arts literature have been much more difficult to uncover. The Vere biographer, C.R. Markham, glossed over Horace’s childhood and beyond the schooling he received from his brother’s tutor, William Browne, there are few clues to the younger Vere’s scholarly interests. He received only one dedication from a military writer, that from Gervase Markham, who included Horace

63 S. Porter, “Edmondes, Sir Clement (1567/8?–1622),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. 64 Ibid.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

101

among a list of dedicatees for his Souldiers Accidence written in 1625. Nevertheless, the part Horace Vere played as the patron to a generation of soldiers, many who were to become significant figures in the English Civil War, remains his greatest contribution to early Stuart soldiering. Horace’s achievements during his thirty-five year military career were said to “fill so large a room” as one elegist wrote. Another described his life as “a full History of War.”65 Horace had been trained in the art of war by Francis after joining his brother in the Netherlands in 1589. When the elder Vere left the Netherlands, Horace immediately replaced him, albeit not as the general of the English forces, but as one of a number of colonels in command of English regiments in Dutch service. Horace was eventually appointed general of the English forces, but Maurice of Nassau refused to grant him the same authority that Francis held and Horace was forced, for the remainder of his career, to contend with the factionalism that often divided the English officers serving on the continent.66 His presence during many of the major campaigns involving English troops in the 1610s and 1620s naturally helped to strengthen his position as a patron and draw in more clients than his rivals. He was with Maurice and Edward Cecil in the ClevesJulich campaign and in the Palatinate in 1620–22. He was among the defenders of Breda when it was besieged by Spinola in 1624–5 and was also at the siege of s’Hertogenbosch in 1629. He retired from Dutch service in 1634, but in the meantime Horace influenced military policy in the Netherlands and in England owing to his friendship with Maurice and his brother, Frederick Henry, who succeeded Maurice as the commander of the Dutch army in 1625. James I named Horace to the Council of War in 1624, joining his former Low Countries comrades, Edward Conway, who by this time was secretary of state, John Ogle, and Edward Cecil. The following

65 Elegies Celebrating the Happy Memory of Horatio Veere, Baron of Tilbury (London: T. Badger for Christopher Meredith, 1642). “To the Unfading memory of Lord Horatio Veere deceased.” And “On the honorable death of Horatio Veere, Baron of Tylbury, &c.” 66 D. Trim, “Sir Horace Vere in Holland and the Rhineland, 1610–12,” Historical Research 27 (October 1999): 335. Trim has done considerable work on the lives of both the Veres and has found nine Parliamentary and Royalist generals who gained valuable experience under Horace’s direction. They include the Parliamentarians Essex, Fairfax, Skippon, Waller, and Wharton and the Royalists Astley, Byron, Glemham, and Hopton. See Trim, “Vere, Horace, Baron Vere of Tilbury (1565–1635),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004.

102

chapter two

Figure 3. Sir Horace Vere from brother Francis Vere’s Commentaries (1657). Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

103

year James bestowed the title of Baron Vere of Tilbury on Horace, an honour that had eluded Francis. During their careers, Francis and Horace both witnessed the impact of the military reforms of Maurice of Nassau, which I address in much greater detail in later chapters. These reforms saw improvements in infantry training and tactics that were to have far-reaching implications for continental and English military practice. The introduction of the Maurician reforms in the 1590s also had a profound effect on the production of military literature during the early Stuart period. Henry Hexham, one of the soldiers who served with Horace, would later record the impact of these developments in a series of books dedicated to the Dutch methods of warfare.67 Hexham first joined the ranks of Francis Vere’s regiment as a teenager and remained part of the Vere circle until Horace’s departure from the Netherlands in 1634. Like a number of other veterans who wrote drill manuals and books on the art of war in the 1610s and 1620s, Hexham realized that there was a large market for instructional manuals among the contingents of English, Scots, and Irish volunteers fighting in the Low Countries. Over the course of his long military career, Hexham not only wrote about Dutch innovations to infantry, cavalry, and siege warfare, but he also penned news pamphlets, a book on the laws of war and a pamphlet weighing the pros and cons of English engagement in the Dutch war. One of his last contributions to early seventeenth century print culture was a very popular English-Dutch dictionary that went to three editions between 1647 and 1658.68 Hexham’s long military career began when he was fifteen or sixteen. He was born in the Netherlands to English parents in circa 1585 and first served with Vere at Ostend and remained with him until his departure for England in 1604. C.R. Markham asserts that Hexham may have been a relative of Sir Christopher Heydon and it was through Heydon’s patronage that Hexham eventually rose to become Horace Vere’s quartermaster. Hexham later saw action as part of the relief force sent to Breda in 1625 and as quartermaster in George Goring’s See Chapter 4. H. Hexham, A copious English and Netherduytch dictionarie composed out of our best English authours = Het groot woorden-boeck, gestelt in’t Engelsch ende Nederduytsch: met een appendix van de namen van alderley beesten, vogelen, visschen, jagerye, end valckerye &c. als oock, een korte Engelsche grammatica/alles met groote naerstigheyt uyt de beste Engelsche autheuren t’samen gevoeght door Henry Hexham (Rotterdam: Aernovt Leers, 1648). See Chapters 3, 4, and 6 for discussions of the other works by Hexham. 67 68

104

chapter two

regiment during the second siege of Breda in 1637.69 His three instructional manuals, The principles of the art militarie practised in the vvarres of the Vnited Netherlands (1637), The second part of the principles of art military, practised in the warres of the United Provinces (1639), and The third part of The principles of the art militarie practised in the warres of the United Provinces (1640) were a tour de force of English military literature and a veritable catalogue of the Dutch contributions to the transformation of warfare in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In his dedication to Henry Rich, earl of Holland, in The principles of the art militarie as practised in the warres of United Netherlands, Hexham alluded to his ties to the Veres, and the debt that he owed his former patrons. He had not yet become a client of Holland, who was named the lord general of English forces in the First Bishops’ War in 1638, and he begged the earl’s pardon in requesting a favourable acknowledgement of the book without having first been introduced. Hexham played up his connections to those who came before, to the “Norrices, Sydneis, Willoughbies, Veres, Morgans and divers Captaines” who fought in the Low Countries. This placed Holland in the same martial bloodline while also establishing Hexham’s own credentials as a soldier and a military writer. Previously, Hexham had dedicated his treatise on the Dutch war, A tongue-combat lately happening betvveene tvvo English souldiers in the tilt-boat of Grauesend, the one going to serue the King of Spaine, the other to serue the States Generall of the Vnited Provinces (1623) to Sir George Holles, who in the early 1620s was Horace Vere’s sergeantmajor. George Holles was also the brother of John Holles, a member of Prince Henry’s household and another Low Countries veteran.70 In that dedication, Hexham wrote of his allegiance to the reformed religion and his authority to write on the subject of the war in the Netherlands having “both by the many yeeres experience I have had in the Service, as also though the manifold discources I have often heard, wherein this businesse have beene diversly debated; but especially by the many bookes

69 A.F. Pollard, ‘Hexham, Henry ( fl. 1601–1650)’, rev. M.R. Glozier, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; C.R. Markham also included a four page biography of Hexham in his biography of the Veres. See Markham, Fighting Veres, 447–50. 70 A.C. Wood, “The Holles Family” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, 19 (1936): 165 and A. Thomson, “John Holles,” The Journal of Modern History 8, no. 2 ( Jun. 1936): 145–72.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

105

I have read and translated touching this subject.”71 Hexham was one of the most prolific soldier-authors of the early Stuart period and his contributions to English military literature are quite significant. His ties to Horace Vere and to many of the soldiers in the Vere circle is one more instance of the strong connections between England’s military writers and the country’s leading military figures. Horace Vere’s years of experience, his success in the field, and his friendship with Maurice made him the leading English military patron in the Netherlands. His reputation brought him to the attention of Prince Henry, England’s “rising sun” and the “bright and cheerful starre in the heavens,” a young man contemporaries described as a swordsmen in the rough.72 As David Trim has pointed out in his work on the Veres as military patrons, Horace was England’s most popular and respected soldier and was therefore “an obvious person to become a member of the prince’s circle.”73 By 1610, Henry, in his sixteenth year, had just been invested as the Prince of Wales [fig. 4]. His court at St. James’s Palace was being touted as the centrepiece of English military culture—a place where both the theory and practice of modern warfare were championed. It is not surprising that as Henry came of age and began to demonstrate the martial qualities for which he was to become renowned, English military patrons serving in the Netherlands, including Vere, Cecil, Ogle, and Conway, sought out the prince’s patronage. Henry, it was believed, would one day lead a Protestant army to the continent and these men wished to be alongside him on that day. The Military Court of Henry, Prince of Wales Like the circles connected to the Vere brothers, Prince Henry’s court was another important link between the military world of the late Tudors and the early Stuarts. In the first decade of the seventeenth century, St. James’s Palace became home to many of the prominent soldiers of the late Elizabethan period and a place where the chivalric ethos and

71 H. Hexham, A tongue-combat lately happening betvveene tvvo English souldiers in the tilt-boat of Grauesend, the one going to serue the King of Spaine, the other to serue the States Generall of the Vnited Provinces. . . . (London: s.n., 1623), The Epistle Dedicatorie. 72 BL, Harley 7007, f. 69. 73 D. Trim, “Sir Horace Vere in Holland and the Rhineland, 1610–12,” 345.

106

chapter two

a kind of military proto-professionalism co-existed.74 Though historians have noted the significant role the Prince of Wales played in a chivalric revival in England, Henry’s interest in military affairs was much more modern than medieval.75 There is no doubt that the prince was a fine horseman and that he enjoyed donning his armour to joust at the tilts in the Epiphany tournaments. Although these festivities may have reminded the early Stuarts of the bygone days of chivalry, the prince’s real interests in the martial arts grew out of the stories he was told and news that he received from soldiers who were serving in the Low Countries or from older Elizabethan veterans who had left service. The prince’s exercises with lance and helm where always augmented by his studies of the modern arte militarie—studies of siegecraft and infantry warfare, two forms of fighting that dominated the struggles between the Dutch and the Spanish in the Netherlands. Many of the books in Henry’s library were products of that struggle and his idols were not King Arthur or Lancelot, but Maurice of Nassau and Henri IV, the most modern of soldiers. The young prince longed for the day when he could join the armies of his heroes, and he is said to have been “boyling with an earnest desire to try the valour of his young yeares in forraine countreys.”76 This earnest desire to become a soldier manifested itself early in Henry’s life, despite his father’s efforts to see the boy pursue more scholarly activities. When Henry began his schooling his tutors were all scholars and connoisseurs whose tastes were similar to those of James I, men like Sir Adam Newton, Sir John Danvers, Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel, and Sir Henry Fanshawe. While these men helped to develop the prince’s love of art and collecting, they were not directly responsible for his love of soldiering. James was well known for his contempt for soldiers and the military profession, and he wished the future king Henry IX to become a learned, and peace-loving monarch. Matters of war did not interest the pacific James and in the Basilikon Doron (1599), the “king’s mirror” written to prepare Henry for the throne, James only briefly addressed the subject of war in the work’s 74 I wish to thank Michael Ullyot for his many helpful comments and suggestions on the life of Prince Henry. 75 J.R. Mulryne, “‘Here’s Unfortunate Revels’ War and Chivalry in Plays and Shows at the Time of Prince Henry Stuart” in War, Literature and the Arts in Sixteenth Century Europe, eds. J.R. Mulryne and M. Shewring, (MacMillan Press, 1989), 167. 76 W.H. [William Haydon] The True Picture and Relation of Prince Henry (Leyden: William Christian, 1634), 27.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

107

second book. He instructed Henry to read Propertius, Lucan, and Varro on the “the form of making war” and then he set out some very basic precepts on the military arts and the subtleties of command that were taken from classical works. To “play the wise king,” James advised his son to remember money is the nervus belli. Choose old, experimented captains and young able soldiers. Be extremely strait and severe in martial discipline, as well for keeping order, which is as requisite as hardiness in the wars, and punishing of sloth, which at a time may put the whole army in hazard, as likewise for repressing of mutinies, which in wars are wonderful dangerous. And look to the Spaniard, whose great success in all wars hath only come through straitness of discipline and order; for such errors may be committed in the wars as cannot be mended again.77

It will never be known whether Henry took this section of Basilikon Doron to heart, but it was soon evident, much to his father’s consternation, that the prince was fonder of the martial arts than he was of the liberal arts. As a result, the bonds between father and son loosened and eventually became strained. In a telling story of their stormy relationship recalled by the Venetian ambassador Antonio Foscarini, James chided Henry, then fourteen, to be more like his younger brother Charles, duke of York. Charles, it seems, studied harder and learned much faster than the Prince of Wales. On leaving the room after the dressing down from his father, Henry is said to have told his tutor that “I know what becomes a Prince. It is not necessary for me to be a professor, but a soldier and a man of the world.”78 Yet Henry’s desire to take up the sword did not necessarily mean that books, and particularly military books, were shunned by the prince. As a young child Henry’s schooling may have been directed by men of learning, but as he matured, his household became a meeting place for veterans of the continental and Irish wars. These men nurtured Henry’s love of the military arts, teaching him the martial skills that flowered in his teenage years. According to one contemporary, Henry “made so much of Souldiers & men of warre, that he made diverse Captained Gentlemen of his privy Chamber, and tooke great pleasure in theyr company, discoursing with them often touching military discipline.”79 D. Fischlin, and M. Fortier, eds., James I True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1996), 129–30. 78 CSPV Vol. 10, 513–14. 79 W.H., The True Picture and Relation of Prince Henry, 31. 77

108

chapter two

In 1603, Sir Thomas Chaloner, a former member of Essex’s circle, became the governor of Henry’s household. Chaloner’s father, Thomas the elder, was a respected soldier in the Henrician and Edwardian years and his son was both a soldier and a scholar. Thomas the younger had been a friend of John Dee and he also tutored Robert Dudley in the 1580s before leaving Leicester’s service to fight in the Netherlands. He later went to France where he was knighted in 1591 while serving with Sir John Norris.80 Chaloner entered Henry’s household as his governor in 1603 and when Henry was invested as Prince of Wales in 1610, he continued on at St. James’s Palace as chamberlain. As a veteran of Elizabeth’s wars, Chaloner was knowledgeable in military affairs and his influence over the prince’s household, especially in controlling who could and could not enter, helped to foster the court’s martial character. Many of those close to the prince were also veterans of foreign wars, some who came to St. James’s Palace and joined Henry’s immediate circle and others who remained abroad but communicated with the prince via letters, keeping him informed about the fighting in the Netherlands.81 Along with Chaloner, the veterans closest to Henry at St. James’s Palace included Sir John Holles, the prince’s comptroller, and Sir Walter Ralegh, who acted as a friend and confident despite his incarceration in the Tower.82 Other veterans recently returned from the Low Countries, such as George Goring and Sir Edmund Verney, played peripheral roles in Henry’s household, Goring as a gentlemen of the privy chamber and Verney as chief-sewer. The earl of Southampton, Horace Vere, Edward Cecil, and Edward Conway continued to serve the Dutch cause in the Low Countries but each sought to advance

80 J. Westby-Gibson, “Chaloner, Sir Thomas, the younger (1563/4–1615),” rev. Kenneth L. Campbell, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. 81 The prince’s household consisted of over 500 people. See L. Tennenhouse, “Sir Walter Ralegh and the Literature of Clientage,” in Patronage in the Renaissance, eds. G.F. Lytle and S. Orgel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 253. 82 Holles had fought in the Low Countries in the late 1580s before setting off for Ireland after the defeat of the Armada. In the 1595, he was part of Essex’s expedition to the Azores, and he also served in Hungary. His connection to late Tudor and early Stuart military literature should be noted, not so much for his contribution to the field, but for his relationship with one of England’s more noteworthy contributors to the genre. In 1598, Holles engaged in a dual with Gervase Markham in which Markham was badly wounded. Neither man was severely punished by James for their behaviour, though their clash offers further evidence of the small world in which military authors and leading soldiers existed and might also explain why Markham did not seek out the prince’s patronage as he had done with Essex.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

109

Figure 4. William Hole’s 1612 engraving of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales training with pike. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

110

chapter two

their position with Henry by remaining in touch with the prince or courtiers close to him. Ralegh, already a thorn in James’s side, had been imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1603 on charges that he was part of the Bye Plot against the new king. Eager to have the young prince as an ally, Ralegh was particularly pleased to discover that he and Henry had common interests in naval, military, and colonial affairs, as well as a deep-seated distrust of Spain—Ralegh called Iberia “a strange and monstrous state”—and a distain for the pacifism of the king and his court. It is believed that Ralegh was introduced to the prince at some point in 1607 or 1608 when the boy of thirteen visited the Tower with his mother, Queen Anne.83 Henry was captivated by Ralegh’s reputation and his military and naval experience. The prince was drawn to his new friend, eager to hear Ralegh’s tales of his adventures as a soldier and a privateer. Ralegh had accomplished much by the time he made his acquaintance with the prince, having established his military credentials while fighting in Ireland alongside his half-brother, Humphrey Gilbert in 1580–81, serving on the War Council (which included, among others, John Norris and Roger Williams), sailing to the New World, and effectively raising the militia in Devon and Cornwall on the eve of the Armada’s arrival in 1588. Ralegh believed his knowledge of the military arts, navigation, and seamanship could be put to good use in the service of the state (and serve his own ends) through the formulation of imperial projects that also interested Henry.84 Inspired in part by John Dee and his salon at Mortlake, Ralegh had established a think-tank of his own at Durham House in London in the 1580s and welcomed the likes of Thomas Hariot, Richard Hakluyt, and John Aubrey to assist and advise him in the planning and execution of his expeditions to the New World. Ralegh now believed that Henry might see him free from the Tower and then serve as a patron for new expeditions. As Roy Strong has observed, Ralegh’s military and naval credentials, coupled with his hatred of the Spanish and Catholicism, made him a 83 Trevelyan, Sir Walter Raleigh, 415–16. Trevelyan points out that Queen Anne had met with Ralegh in 1605 when she sought a cure from him for an illness. The cure worked and this led to the flowering of their friendship and to her attempts to see that Ralegh was pardoned by her husband. Trevelyan suggests that Henry and Ralegh did meet, however, Roy Strong states that there is no evidence to support a face to face meeting between the two, but that Anne encouraged communication between the two. 84 R. Lacey, Sir Walter Raleigh (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973), 110.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

111

perfect fit with the other courtiers at St. James’s Palace. Imprisonment may have kept Ralegh from joining Henry’s court in person, but the letters and treatises he sent to the prince overcame this separation. Despite his incarceration, Ralegh was still able to exert influence over the prince that was much greater than that of other men who regularly attended the prince at court. Ralegh and the prince shared a love of the military arts and books and no sooner had the two been introduced did Ralegh take on the role of tutor and advisor to Henry. To assist the prince’s education in statecraft Ralegh prepared treatises for Henry on a range of subjects including Of the Art of War by Sea, a revision of Observations and Notes Concerning the Royal Navy and Sea-Service that was first written in 1596; A Discourse Touching a War with Spain and of the Protecting of the Netherlands (1603); and Arguments for War composed in 1608 and completed with the aid of Southampton and the earl of Pembroke.85 Before Ralegh’s arrest and imprisonment, he had prepared A Discourse Touching a War with Spain and the Protecting of the Netherlands for the newly-crowned James. In the treatise Ralegh feared James would abandon the Dutch, and he concurred with other militant Protestants that the Dutch could not “subsist of themselves” nor could they defend themselves without assistance from the English or the French. He counselled the king that the situation could easily deteriorate if England did not continue her engagement in the Netherlands. Withdrawal would prompt the French to step in and gain a foothold in the Low Countries taking over the lucrative trading routes and commercial relations that the English had previously established; such a scenario would surely lead to the suffering “of all sorts of people, and the commonwealth [would] fall into extreme poverty and decay.” Sounding an even more dire note, Ralegh believed that the Dutch might lose the war and eventually “return again in the end, to the archduke [Albert] or to the Spanish king” and from there it followed that the Spanish “will make war with your majesty.”86 The manuscript of Arguments for War, written for Henry in 1608, played upon similar themes as those found in A Discourse Touching a War with Spain, but it was written with a much more sympathetic audience in mind. Ralegh did not have to tread so lightly as he had done with

85 A. Beer, Sir Walter Ralegh and his Readers in the Seventeenth Century (London: Macmillan Press, 1997), 25–8. 86 W. Ralegh, A Discourse Touching a War with Spain and the Protecting of the Netherlands in Works, now first collected: to which are prefixed The lives of the author, by Oldys and Birch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1829), vol. 8, 301.

112

chapter two

the prince’s father, and the tone of his arguments was more aggressive. Five years in the Tower had not softened Ralegh and he had lost none of his hatred for the Spanish despite the peace that existed between London and Madrid. He advised the prince that the future might require a full-scale war against Albion’s bitter rival, and that as king, Henry should not shy away from such a prospect since the conflict could actually strengthen the state and provide the people with a means of “venting [their] factious spirits.”87 War would focus the attention of the nation on foreign matters that would unite them, and keep them from wrangling over the domestic issues that so often divided the English people. Sending soldiers abroad, argued Ralegh, Pembroke, and Southampton, would “remove the seat of bloud from our own doors, and prove the cheapest school to train up in armes and better dispositions, whose military skil may after serve to defend the state; and by the late accession of another Nation, wil be now more needful.”88 Ralegh’s captivity in the Tower gave him ample opportunity to read, write, and to continue to add to his library that grew to include five hundred volumes. Many of the books he possessed were devoted to the subjects of history and geography and were used in the writing of his famous History of the World (1614), which he was preparing for Henry. While Ralegh’s own collection included a number of works that can be described as military histories, he owned only two manuals on the military arts, Bernardino Rocca’s De’ discorsi di Guerra (1564) and Cristobal de Rojas Teorica et practica de fortificacion (1589).89 Books that Ralegh required for his treatises for the prince or for his History of the World that were not already in his possession were often borrowed from others. In a letter to the antiquarian and bibliophile Sir Robert Cotton dated from Ralegh’s time in the Tower, he asks Cotton if he has “any of thes old books or any manuscripts . . . of our Britton” and includes

87 W. Ralegh, An Answer made by Command of Prince Henry to Certain Propositions of Warre and Peace, Delivered to his Highnesse by some military servants (London: Roger Daniel, 1655), 2. 88 Ibid. 89 A list of all Ralegh’s books can be found in Oakeshott, “Sir Walter Ralegh’s Library,” 296–325. Ralegh took many books with him on the expedition to Cadiz in 1596 and it is reported that he also returned with a chest full of books that were looted from the town. Trevelyan, Sir Walter Raleigh, 282.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

113

a list of ancient and medieval works he requires, adding that he will “safly restore them” when he has finished with them.90 Ralegh also mined the library of his old friend Henry Percy who was also the unwilling guest of James I in the Tower after being implicated in the Gunpowder Plot and imprisoned in 1605.91 Ralegh and Northumberland had formed a strong friendship after their first meeting in the 1580s when Northumberland, a lover of science and exploration, joined the circle at Durham House. Known as the “Wizard Earl,” Northumberland shared an interest with Ralegh in the science of gunnery and pyrotechnics. The earl’s great wealth later helped to subsidize the scholarship of the circle’s members. When Northumberland was imprisoned in the Tower he did his best to make his life comfortable, seeing to it that his books and his papers were brought to him so as to continue his scientific research. Northumberland’s library held works on natural philosophy, medicine, and mathematics, as well as on the art of war, and included Barret’s The Theorike and Practike of Moderne Warres (1598), Smythe’s Certain Discourses concerning the Formes and Effects of divers Sorts of Weapons (1590), Perret’s Architectura et Perspectiva des fortifications & Artifices (1602), Patrizi’s Paralleli Militari (1594), Lorini’s Delle Fortificationi (1597), and Cataneo’s Le Capitaine . . . mis en françois (1593), all of which carry annotations in Northumberland’s hand.92 Ralegh most likely made use of these and other titles from Northumberland’s library when working on his treatises for Henry. But Ralegh was just one of a growing number of soldiers and scholars who were gravitating toward the prince. Thomas Birch, Henry’s

Ralegh and Cotton were of one mind when it came to the maintaining support for the Dutch rebels. Cotton also advised James early in his reign that staying the course in the Low Countries would reap dividends for England’s security. 91 Ibid. 92 G.R. Batho, “The Library of the ‘Wizard’ Earl: Henry Percy Ninth Earl of Northumberland (1564–1632), The Library, 5th series, 15 (1960): 246–61. Ralegh and Northumberland were also mutual acquaintances of Paul Ive, the military architect and author of the Practise of Fortification (1589). Ralegh met Ive in 1600 when the engineer was working on the royal fortifications at Jersey, and gave him high praise in a report to Robert Cecil on the progress of the defences. He described Ive as the “fittest to be used in the accompts because he can cumpare work to work and judge of the rest better then a[ny] a man.” That same year, Ive dedicated a manuscript translation of the Dutch engineer Simon Stevin’s “The Building of forts” to Northumberland. See A. Latham and J. Youing, ed. The letters of Sir Walter Ralegh, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1991. 90

114

chapter two

eighteenth-century biographer, described how the young prince “entertain[ed] several learned men in his court,” and a list of pensioners who frequented St. James’s also includes poets, pastors, and university professors. In the eyes of his father Henry may not have been a scholar, but he was no stranger to books. In his short lifetime the prince accumulated a large library of over 1000 volumes. In 1609 James purchased the library of John, Lord Lumley, for Henry, and this made up the core of the prince’s collection. Eighteen months after Lumley’s books came into his possession, Henry was reported to be building a library at St. James’s Palace to house the collection.93 Lumley, like Henry’s tutor Arundel, was a connoisseur and his library comprised works primarily on theology, history, medicine, philosophy, and the liberal arts. However, it also contained its fair share of classical and modern military books including Aelian’s Tactics (1552), Niccolo Tartaglia’s Questii, e Inventione diverse (1554), Petrino Belli’s De re militari et bello (1563), and Frontinus’s Astututi militari di tutti li formosi capitani, Romani, Greci, Barbari et hesterni, Italice (1541), all of which were printed in Venice. Lumley’s collection also contained three works devoted to military affairs that were printed in London, Caxton’s edition of Christine de Pisan’s Boke of the fayt of armes and of Chyualrye (1489), Barnabe Rich’s Allarme to England (1578), and Smythe’s Instructions, obseruations and orders militarye (1595). It appears that before the Lumley library was purchased by James, Henry was already in possession of Digges’s Stratioticos (1590), Ferretti’s De re et disciplina militari (1575), Claude Flamand’s Le guide des fortifications et condvitte militarie (1597), and Heinrich Rantzau’s Commentarius Bellicus (1595).94 As a patron of soldiers, the prince’s library grew through the addition of English and continental military books that were dedicated to him. Clement Edmondes, the London remembrancer, included a dedication to Henry in his Observations upon Caesars Commentaries printed in 1604 by Mathew Lownes. The first edition printed in 1600 had been dedicated to Francis Vere. The 1604 edition of Observations also included Edmondes’s manual for drilling infantry with shot and pike, The Maner of Our Moderne Training, which would have been of particular interest to the Henry.95 Barnabe Rich, another prominent soldier and respected

CSPV Vol. XI, 159. T.A. Birell, English monarchs and their books: from Henry VII to Charles II (The Panzzi Lectures, London: The British Library, 1986), 35. 95 For a detailed discussion of Edmondes’s manual, see Chapter 3. Reports from various sources describe Henry’s ability to handle the pike—a skill he acquired at a 93 94

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

115

military author, presented Henry with a copy of his A Souldiers Wishe to Britons Welfare (1604), which made an impassioned plea for improving the state of military training in England. A Souldiers Wishe was a reissue of Rich’s The Fruites of Long Experience printed earlier that year. By 1604 Rich was a battle hardened veteran with forty years of service on the continent, and in his treatise he echoed some of Ralegh’s concerns, hoping that the recent peace with Spain would not lead to the decay of martial practice for “neyther is there a more dangerous thing then in the time of peace to neglect the knowledge of Arms.” Rich advised Henry and his readers that [p]reparation then is alwayes to be in readinesse, but doth not this readines consist aswell in training men, & making them skilfull in Military knowledge, as in preparing all other habiliments & necessaries appertaining to the wars. . . . Young souldiers unprovided and slieghtly trayned are not to be drawen into the field against an Armie exercised and beaten with long practise; for unexperiemented men are fitter to furnishe a funeral then to fight a fielde . . . a feeble Armies is ever despised as well by friends as fors, but an able Army that is prepared and managed as it ought, will soone bring an enemie to yielde eyther by victorie or composition.96

Rich and the other soldiers in Henry’s circle believed that the prince, and not his father, would be the monarch to build and eventually lead a Protestant army to victory on the continent. Contemporaries even went as far as to note that Henry’s court had all the trappings of an young age. According to William Haydon, the prince’s teachers instructed “him both by word and example to use an affected kind of stateliness in marching and holding of his hand, he learned all other points of him so well (as all men know) but in no wayes would he frame himselfe to that afected manner . . . He never tossed his Pyke better than in presence of his Majestie and great Ambassadours, of whom was the Constable of Castille. See W.H. The True Picture and Relation of Prince Henry, 10. 96 Rich, The Frvites of Long Experience (London: Thomas Creede, 1604), 6–7. Rich’s fears may have been overstated, as soldiers continued to gain experience in the Low Countries despite the peace with the Spanish. The Venetian ambassador, Nicolo Molin, noted in a letter to the Doge in late September 1604 that English soldiers continued to head for the Low Countries, even after the signing of the Treaty of London. The Constable of Spain, one of the signatories on the Treaty, was returning to the continent via Dover and there he observed three ships full of English soldiers preparing to leave for the Netherlands to serve in Maurice’s army. Molin explained that the constable “thought this monstrous, that while the ink of the treaty was hardly dry it should thus quickly and openly violated. For the terms are that the King shall neither send aid nor permit aid to be sent. The Constable sent to the justices of the district calling on them, upon pain of his Majesty’s displeasure, to arrest the troops. The justices seemed to be convinced and the troops were forbidden to sail; but no sooner had the Constable crossed the sea than the ships continued their voyage.” See CSPV Vol. X 1603–1607, 182.

116

chapter two

“academie,” a place where statesmen and soldiers came to learn about the arts of governing and war. James Cleland, the Scots tutor and author of the Institution of a Young Nobleman (1607), said young nobles went to St. James’s Palace to “learne the first elements to be Privie Counseller, a Generall of an Armie, to rule in peace, & to commande in war.” Cleland’s prescriptive manual had much to say about the role of books and reading in the education of these men and he noted some “good books for a young soldier and an old captaine.” He included in his list the very popular English translation of La Noue’s The Politike and Militarie Discovrses (1587) and Blaise de Monluc’s Commentaries (1592), which was only available in French when Cleland’s manual was printed.97 Cleland also suggested that gentlemen should study mathematics to assist in the setting up of military camps, the preparation of siege defences and “any such thing appertaining to the military discipline.”98 Of course, Cleland did not wish to see all preparations for war being carried out in the library. He encouraged young gentlemen to ready themselves for war through exercise, either by running, swimming, or wrestling, or through the handling of arms, training with bow and arrow, pike and shot, and by learning to ride well, by running at the ring, or with “his Lance against the post.”99 Cleland was clearly using Henry’s court as a model, as the prince was engaged in all of these types of exercises as a young man. Sir Charles Cornwallis, who acted as the prince’s treasurer and went on to write a biography of Henry described how the prince spent his days in study, reading up on “government Civill and Military,” as well as being tutored in the “matter and forme of fortifications.”100 Another member of Henry’s court, the writer and illustrator Henry Peacham, wrote a manual on courtly behaviour similar to Cleland’s Institution of a Young Nobleman. Peacham’s The Complete Gentleman (1622) also reflected the influence of the author’s associations with the prince and his circle. Seeking Henry’s patronage, Peacham dedicated his

97 J. Cleland, Hero-paideia, or The institution of a young noble man by James Cleland (Oxford: Ioseph Barnes, 1607), 142. The first English translation of Monluc’s Commentaries was printed in 1674. 98 Ibid., 91. 99 Ibid., 218. In training with bow and arrow, Cleland recommended that gentlemen read Roger Ascham’s Toxophilis (1545) which saw archery as a holistic exercise, capable of strengthening mind and body 100 C. Cornwallis, A Discourse of the most Illustrious Prince Henry, Late Prince of Wales (London: John Benson, 1641), 16.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

117

Minerva Britannia (1612) and Graphice (1612) to the prince.101 There is some question as to Peacham’s role at Henry’s court; he appears to have been on the periphery, though there is no doubt that he was friends with some of the leading figures at St. James’s Palace, including Henry’s secretary and tutor Adam Newton, Edward Wright, the prince’s librarian and author of a number of works on navigation, as well as Inigo Jones, who at this time was Henry’s Surveyor of Works.102 In 1612, soon after Henry’s death, Peacham travelled to the continent where he took an interest in military affairs, befriending Sir John Ogle, who was then Lord Governor of Utrecht and still serving as an English colonel. Ogle’s home attracted many of the Low Countries leading scholars and soldiers, as well as English exiles and gentlemen volunteers, and the house became an impromptu military salon [fig. 5].103 Peacham regularly sat at Ogles’ table and listened to “disputations and discourses among many strangers, of sundry formes of battailes, sometime fortification, of fireworks, History, Antiquities, Heraldrie, pronounciation of Languages, &c. that his table seemed many times a little Academie.”104 While in the Low Countries, Peacham also attached himself to Ogle’s company in the capacity of an observer, and he was able to witness the exploits of Maurice of Nassau. The Complete Gentleman describes Maurice’s contributions to the development of continental warfare and also offers some indication of the kinds of books that gentlemen soldiers were referencing as far as siegecraft was concerned. Peacham recommended that no gentlemen soldier should follow the wars without geometry to “fortify your selfe.” He justified his claim by stating that knowledge of geometry was needed to levell and plant your Ordinance, vndermine, raise your half Moones, Bulwarkes, Casemates, Rampires, Ravelins, with many other means as of offence and defence, by fortification. So that I cannot see how a

H. Peacham, Minerua Britanna or A garden of heroical deuises furnished, and adorned with emblemes and impresa’s of sundry natures, newly devised, moralized, and published, by Henry Peacham, Mr. of Artes (London: W. Dight, 1612); H. Peacham Graphice or The most auncient and excellent art of drawing and limming disposed into three bookes. By Henrie Peacham Master of Artes, sometimes of Trinitie Colledge in Cambridge (London: William Stansby for John Browne, 1612). 102 A.R. Young, Henry Peacham (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1979), 23. 103 In 1615, Peacham wrote a description of the history and events surrounding the Cleves-Julich campaign of 1614 titled A most true relation of the affaires of Cleve and Gulick. The pamphlet singled out the English captains who served in Maurice’s army, including Horace Vere, Edward Cecil, and Edward Harwood and Ogle. 104 Peacham, Compleat Gentleman (London: Francis Constable, 1634), 195. 101

118

chapter two

Figure 5. Sir John Ogle, a member of Prince Henry’s circle who also established his own military salon at his home in the Netherlands. From Vere’s Commentaries. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

119

Gentleman, especially a Souldier and Commander may be accomplished without Geometrie, though not to the heighth of perfection, yet at least grounded and furnished with principles and privie rules hereof.105

Peacham then went on to recommend a list of works in English, Latin, French, and German that provided basic principles and rules of mathematics that one might readily apply to the art of siege warfare. His curriculum included Cookes Principles, and the Elements of Geometry, written in Latin by P. Ramus, and translated by M. Doctor Hood, sometime Mathematicall Lecturer in London. M. Blundeville, Euclide translated into English. In Latine you may have the learned Iesuite Clauius, Melancthon, Frisius, Valerius his Geometry Military, Albert Durer hath excellently written hereof in high Dutch [High German], and in French Forcadell, upon Euclide, with sundry others.106

Peacham’s list of mathematical works mirrors one drawn up by Cleland in his manual, and it is quite possible that Henry’s tutors would have used these books to teach the prince how to apply mathematics to the military arts. As many contemporaries of the prince were quick to point out, Henry’s fascination with warfare grew out of his discussions with soldiers and his relationship with Maurice of Nassau. Henry’s love of the martial arts, his bellicose nature, and his militant Protestantism were character traits not lost on Maurice. By his fifteenth year, Henry had established a strong relationship with the Stadtholder of Orange, and it is no surprise that in 1608 the Dutch engraver Jacques de Gheyn included a dedication to Henry in the English edition of Wapenhandelinghe van roers and spiessen, the drill manual printed for Maurice’s army. The English edition, The Exercise of Armes for Calivers, Muskettes, and Pikes, which will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, became the gold standard by which infantry drill was taught to recruits on both sides of the English Channel.107 Henry must have loved to leaf through de Gheyn’s detailed engravings, going through the numbered musket, pike, and caliver postures, and practising each when he took up his pike or musket. The prince is depicted in a style a la de Gheyn in William

105 106 107

Ibid., 77. Ibid., 77–8. See Chapter 3.

120

chapter two

Hole’s 1612 engraving, where he is standing with pike in hand and wearing a corslet and sword, his plumed helmet at his feet.108 But it was not only books that arrived from the Netherlands to educate the prince. In 1611 Maurice sent the Dutch engineer Abraham van Nievelt to serve as a military tutor for the prince. Thomas Birch’s biography of Henry includes a declaration of the yearly pensions in the prince’s household and lists Nievelt as receiving a healthy stipend of £200 for those services.109 As Roy Strong has noted, Van Nievelt had been in the employ of Maurice after being given the task of shoring up the defences at Deventer in 1606. Van Nievelt was also a soldier-author and is said to have been planning to write a work on fortifications, which he hoped to dedicate to Henry. John Buchtel’s study of the books that were dedicated to the prince does not list any work in Henry’s library by Van Nievelt, nor is there an extant work on fortifications attributed to the Dutchman.110 Van Nievelt did, however, translate Machiavelli’s The Prince and Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy into Dutch in 1625, suggesting that he took an interest in politicomilitary affairs. However, Henry’s death in 1612, only a year after van Nievelt’s arrival in England, may well have forced him to put off writing his book on military architecture, a subject that clearly fascinated the prince, in favour of finding new work. Contemporary biographers and foreign ambassadors made note of Henry’s knowledge of siegecraft and of his “delighting to conferre both with his owne and with strangers, and great Captaines . . . of ambuscades, approaches, scalings, fortifications, [and] incampings.111 Henry often

108 A.M. Hind, Engraving in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; A Descriptive Catalogue with Introductions, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952–1964), 258. Two other engravings similar to van de Passe’s were printed by London engravers. Hind is uncertain whether van de Passe or William Hole was responsible for the original engraving of Henry. Hole’s depiction of Henry did not include the scenes of training, and was included in Drayton’s Polyolbion, also printed in 1612. Van de Passe’s engraving was copied by William Marshall and included with the frontispiece of Cornwallis’s Discourse of the most Illustrious Prince Henry, which was written in 1626 but printed by Thomas Harper for John Benson in 1641. De Passe’s engraving also depicts figures jousting on horseback and training with pike in an exercise yard while onlookers observe the mock battles. 109 T. Birch, The Life of Henry Prince of Wales, London: A. Millar, 1760, 466. 110 J.A. Buchtel, “Book Dedications in Early Modern England: Francis Bacon, George Chapman, and the literary patronage of Henry, Prince of Wales” (PhD. diss., University of Virginia, 2004). See Buchtel’s Appendix 2: Books Dedicated to Prince Henry, 210. 111 Cornwallis, Discourse of the most Illustrious Prince Henry, 20–21.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

121

received reports and descriptions of French and Dutch fortifications from Conway and Cecil. When the Venetian ambassador Mark Antonio Correr visited Henry’s court, the prince plied him for information about the types of defences used in Italy. The visit in November 1610 took place at the same time that tensions were growing in Cleves-Julich and to educate the ambassador on the situation Henry pulled out maps of the defences at Julich, which had been sent to him by Sir Edward Cecil.112 The next year, Antonio Foscarini, Correr’s successor, praised Henry for his knowledge of the Venetian defences at Palma, and the ambassador noted that Henry was not shy about querying him about the size of the garrison. Henry called Palma the “finest in the world as far as the art of fortification goes,” but he needed no further information on its strength, as Foscarini claimed that Henry already possessed a plan of its walls.113 Henry was keen to show off his knowledge of the military arts and advise ambassadors and courtiers on military matters, but he also regularly received letters from English soldiers on the continent, all of whom wished to become his clients. In 1610 Horace Vere was in regular contact with the prince’s secretary, Adam Newton, keeping him abreast of the unfolding crisis in Cleves-Julich. At the same time, Sir Edward Cecil and Sir Edward Conway, each hoping that their intelligence (along with their gifts) might gain them favour with the prince, were sending Henry letters about the military and political situation in duchy.114 Edward Cecil, the son of Thomas Cecil and the grandson of Lord Burghley, was born in 1572. Thomas Cecil was a soldier in the English army that fought in Scotland in the 1560s, and he later served in the Netherlands before becoming governor of Brill in 1585. During those years, Thomas had an illustrious military and political career and was named a Garter Knight in 1605. Edward was Thomas’s third son and in 1594, he and his brother Richard followed in the footsteps of their elder brother William in embarking on a continental tour. On arriving in the Netherlands in 1599, Edward became committed to serving as a volunteer in Sir Francis Vere’s regiment. In a letter written to his uncle Sir Robert Cecil, Edward sought the assistance of Elizabeth’s

112 113 114

CSPV, Vol. XI, Nov. 25, 1610, 78–80. CSPV, Vol. XII, Aug. 11, 1611, 194. D. Trim, “Sir Francis Vere in Holland and the Rhineland, 1610–12,” 353.

122

chapter two

new chief minister in recommending him to the general. “My fortune is nowe to followe the warres,” wrote Edward having hade allayes hearetofore a dispositione thereun to: and the rayther of late, by howe much my pore oppinione is established of the great worth of Sr Francis Vere, whome I knowe doth booth highly reverence yr H., and greatly respecte all those that be longe unto yo, of wch number I acknowleg my selfe much bounde unto him . . .115

Robert Cecil’s influence almost certainly helped in Vere’s decision to give Edward captaincy of an infantry company so soon after his arrival in the Netherlands. Edward was to eventually return Vere’s trust in him by performing well on the battlefield, and Vere later wrote that he regarded Cecil as a “good a friende and one so worthy of the commande.”116 Cecil’s biographer, Charles Dalton, questioned whether Cecil’s next promotion to the captaincy of a horse company was the result of a payment to Vere, a fairly common practice in the day. In a letter to his father, Edward explained this accepted but unsavory side of patronclient relationship, stating that Vere would find him a company, “if I could com[p]ound with Sr Ni-parker, and if it would please yr Lo. To laye oute the munny, he himselfe would bringe it to mee, and what an Honer to yo.”117 Cecil did get his company when Sir Nicholas Parker resigned, and from that point forward Cecil was to have a long military career, spanning almost thirty years. He had joined Vere’s regiment in 1599 and was present at Nieuwpoort a year later when the Dutch and English turned back Archduke Albert’s Spanish forces in the famous clash amongst the dunes. Cecil served with distinction in the battle and was singled out in Sir John’s Ogle’s account of Nieuwpoort that appeared in Dillingham’s edition of Vere’s Commentaries. Cecil made only a small contribution to the defence of Ostend during the lengthy siege of the town that began in 1601. He was given temporary command of 1500 foot that were conscripted in England and sent to Ostend in late June 1601. They arrived at the end of July and Cecil remained in the town for just a week, his men being used to shore up other companies rather than forming a regiment under his command. Very soon after his arrival Cecil was relieved of his temporary command and allowed to return to his horse company, which

115 116 117

Quoted in Dalton, Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, Vol. I, 15. Ibid., 87. Ibid., 30.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

123

was serving with Maurice. In 1603 Cecil returned home, chiefly for the purpose of getting married to Theodosia Noel. However, he was still in England when Elizabeth I died and owing to his family’s close connections to her government, he was given the honour of attending James I on his way south from Scotland. Two years later, Cecil was back in the Low Countries and promoted to the rank of colonel, leading one of the English regiments in the States’ army. The Twelve Years’ Truce in August 1609 led to a reduction in the number of English and Dutch troops in the service of the States, but owing to Vere’s death, Cecil took the opportunity to further his career by seeking one of the posts formerly held by the general. Once again, Cecil’s father, now the earl of Exeter, wrote Salisbury to ask that Edward be considered for one of Vere’s lucrative posts. His request, however, came to naught. Brill remained in the hands of the Vere family and was not returned to the Cecils, with Horace Vere granted the governorship. William Herbert, earl of Pembroke, obtained Vere’s other post at Portsmouth. Consequently, Cecil had no other choice but to remain in military service, though he was given some compensation when he was named to lead the 4000 English forces raised to support the Cleves-Julich campaign in 1610. Eager to join the fighting, Prince Henry, now sixteen, watched the crisis in Cleves-Julich unfold, knowing that a full-scale European war might provide him the opportunity to eventually join the fighting when he turned eighteen. As commander of the English forces, Cecil kept the prince apprised of the preparations to take Julich that summer. His letters informed Henry of the encircling and the taking of the fortification at Julich by the Anglo-Dutch army. Cecil saw to it that a journal of the siege, with accompanying maps, was prepared by George Weymouth for the prince’s edification.118 Weymouth, was a well-known navigator, mathematician, and military architect, who had made a trip to the North American coast in 1604 in an attempt to find the Northwest Passage. He accompanied Cecil to the Low Countries to record the events of the campaign and make plats of the fortifications the army encountered.119 David Ransome notes that Weymouth moved comfortably in court circles and was acquainted with Cecil, the prince, and the Birch, Life and Death of Henry, Prince of Wales, 198. See also BL, Royal 17 B. xxxii. Weymouth’s son, John was an aspiring mathematician who became a soldier instead. He went on to write a drill manual, the Low-Countrie trayning which is examined in Chapter 3. 118

119

124

chapter two

earl of Northampton, possibly through his work with Phineas Phett on the construction of the ship the Prince Royal, a project that Henry had eagerly involved himself in.120 Weymouth’s decision to travel to Julich with the English army appears to have come as the result of Henry’s desire to obtain up-to-date intelligence about Julich’s defences and to satisfy his own interests in siege warfare. Weymouth’s previous experience with mapping and mathematics made him well suited to the task of chronicling the fighting and drawing the siegeworks that encircled Julich. His manuscript, delivered to the prince in December 1610, gave a historical overview of the situation in Cleves-Julich, and then provided the specifics of the campaign that had taken place six months earlier. In the journal Weymouth informed Henry that he only set out what was perticularlie don by the Armyes of his mas.tie and the states, both in their marches, & during the seidge of the towne and castle: and for your Highnes better information I have aded the mapp of the towne & castle, of the sundrie formes of Battales, of the severall aproches, Batteries, and other works.121

The report claimed that the army was filled with “olde experienced soldiers” from England, Scotland, the Netherlands, and France who had kept order in the ranks and who were praised by their commanders for their discipline.122 Weymouth also reported that Cecil had been a key figure in contributing to the maintenance of order on the march to Julich, even after the explosion of a wagon carrying powder and the death of 40 men and the loss of 30 wagons and horses. When the army reached Julich and the fortifications were surrounded, Cecil was said to have worked with “diligence & industrie” to see that approaches were quickly constructed. He was fully involved in all aspects of the construction “in the trenches, & Batteries, at the making of them vp, directing in wht maner, euerie thing shoulde be done, wch was a greate incoragement to all others, seeing there generall willinge to perticipate the common hazard.”123 The successful construction of the first approaches as well as those to follow were, in Weymouth’s estimation,

120 D.R. Ransome, ‘Waymouth, George ( fl. 1587–1611)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. 121 BL, Royal MS 17 B. xxxii fol. 2v. 122 Ibid., fol. 8v. 123 Ibid., fol. 13v.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

125

the result of Cecil’s knowledge of mathematics and “proofe of his tyme spent theirin.”124 At Julich, Cecil was to be both general and teacher. Weymouth described how new volunteers sought “to better informe themselves, in these partes of martiall discipline” by accompanying Cecil as he went about his work in camp and among the approaches.125 But Cecil’s own education in the military arts owed much to his Dutch master, Maurice. Later in his career Cecil became a soldier-author of sorts, penning two manuscripts dedicated to the art of war: “The duties of a private soldier” (1617), a brief manual on discipline and “The Demonstrance of the Cavallrie” (c. 1630), a manuscript book dedicated to Charles I that examined both the tactics and training of cavalry and exposed the glaring problems associated with raising horse troops amongst the trained bands.126 Together, these manuscripts offer some insights into a prominent gentleman soldier’s views on training and, in Cecil’s case, the debt he owed to Maurice for his military education. In the introduction of the “Demonstrance of the Cavallrie” Cecil described how Maurice mentored those around him, the importance the Dutchman placed on both the study of ancient and modern warfare, and the establishment of rules to govern the art of soldiering. Cecil informed his readers that the principle behind setting up such rules was “to avoide errors asmuch as possible.”127 He had come by this simple maxim by observing Maurice’s leadership qualities and by reading through the prince’s papers. “The profiting by other men’s errors and examples” wrote Cecil, was a secret yr late Prince of Orange did somuch studdy, yea hee so farr forth professed the Art of Warre by it, that all doubts and disputations taken away, it was acknowledged for a varie Grammer of Warre by most Nations, which made us, that had ye honor to beare him company, to bee glad when wee could gett him to discourse of it. For mine part I never lost his company. But I had cause to write down what I heard come from him. Indeed I was encouraged to it, by his own directions for he was want to say, That whosoever wrote not downe the passages of the warrs (both his owne & other mens) would never have the honour to command in

Ibid., fol. 12r. and v. Ibid., fol. 25v. 126 The treatise is titled “A Demonstration of divers parts of Warre, especially of the Discipline of Cavalleria by Sir Edward Cecil,” but is most often referred to as “The Demonstrance of the Cavallrie” 127 BL, Royal 18 c.xxiii. f. 7r. 124 125

126

chapter two chiefe . . . to this purpose also, [he] would show mee, manie of his papers, saying . . . you maie think it strange that I keepe such poore papers by mee. To which, hee often made this same answer: That if [he] should not have donne so, or should now loose those his papers: he should have to seeke other times. Affirming there with all, that a soldier might learn his owne errors, as well as by his enemyes. This was what he usually called his Experience. So that, had I bin but as capable a Scholler as he was a great Master: I had bin much the abler to doo service to your Maiestie: aswell in this, as in many other occasions.128

Cecil concluded that had he not experienced command under Maurice, he would have been “utterly unfurnished at this time, to have instructed others.” Cecil would remain a central figure in the English military establishment until his death in 1626, serving both James I and Charles I as a general and a military advisor. Caroline Military Circles Henry, Prince of Wales never lived to serve alongside Vere, Cecil, or Maurice. His death in November 1612 saw the dispersal of his military circle and left England without its military saviour. Some of those who had been part of Henry’s household sought out the patronage of Charles, the prince’s brother, hoping that the new heir to the throne would take up his brother’s sword. Sir Robert Dallington, a member of Henry’s household, was preparing his Aphorismes ciuill and militarie amplified with authorities, and exemplified with historie, out of the first quarterne of Fr. Guicciardine for the printers when news of Henry’s death arrived. Dallington, a devout Puritan, spent time in prison for his support of Essex’s rebellion, but the Privy Council looked favourably upon him, releasing him after he paid a fine. Dallington tried to gain Henry’s favour as early as 1605, but he was unable to secure a position at St. James’s Palace before 1609, when he became a gentleman-in-ordinary to the prince. Dallington found favour with Henry after he presented the prince with a manuscript copy of Aphorismes. However, with the prince’s death, Dallington decided to dedicate the printed edition of the book to Charles. Dallington, as well as other members of Henry’s household, wished for nothing more than to see young Charles carry on where his brother had left off, as the true inheritor of his brother’s martial virtues 128

Ibid.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

127

and champion of Protestantism on the continent. “All eyes are upon you,” read the first line of Dallington’s dedication to Charles, “men looke vpon your worthy Brother in your princely self.”129 Harkening back to the warnings first uttered by Churchyard, Blandy, and Gates, Dallington used the example of Italy’s decline in the late fifteenth century to admonish his readers to guard against a similar fate befalling England. In 1490, Italy had been prosperous and peaceful, “the most glorious and goodliest countrie in Europe.” But that soon changed in 1494 with the arrival of the armies of Charles VIII and the destruction of the “sweete fruits of a long peace.”130 Just as Italy had been relatively isolated from northern European wars in the fifteenth century, England had not succumbed to invasion or entered into a full-scale war since the conclusion of the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of London in 1604. In 1610, Dallington, like many in Henry’s circle, was wary of the developments taking place in Cleves-Julich, and he wondered whether the struggle over the principality would threaten England’s security. When the printed edition of Aphorismes was published in 1613 its pages offered Charles practical advice on civil and military relations, advice once meant for his brother. But the new heir to the throne was not his brother. A weak child, it was Charles who had been expected to succumb to disease. Both James and Henry believed that Charles’s future would see the frail boy devote himself not to arms, but to less dangerous pursuits. That said, Charles worshipped the ground Henry walked on and like many children with older siblings, he wished to emulate his beloved brother. When Henry became patron of the Military Company of Westminster in 1611, Charles accompanied him to the company’s muster grounds in Tothill Fields to watch Henry practise with pike and musket. Despite being shy and weak as a child, by the year of his brother’s death the eleven-year-old Charles had developed into an accomplished horseman and was very skilled at running at the ring.131 Correr, the Venetian ambassador, wrote the Doge on February 12, 1611/12, that Charles, then duke of York, told him in the company of James that he wished to “become a soldier in the service of the Republic of Venice, that he offered himself as such to my predecessor during late differences with R. Dallington, Aphorismes Civil and Militarie, London: Edward Blount, 1613, sig. A3. 130 Ibid., 1–2. 131 P. Gregg, King Charles I, London: J.M Dent, Ltd., 1981, 30. 129

128

chapter two

the Pope, and he always renewed the offer every time he saw me.”132 In a conversation two weeks later between the earl of Salisbury and Correr, Salisbury mentioned that Charles “will be a lieutenant in your service,” to which Correr declined to make an offer of employment and decided instead to turn the discussion to other matters. Pauline Gregg has asserted that Charles was intensely interested in military affairs in his teens, but it is difficult to determine the seriousness of those intentions. In 1611, Charles was a boy of ten who wanted nothing more than to emulate his older brother. Therefore, it is easy to look upon Charles’s earnest desire to become a soldier in much the same way as Correr did, as little more than the musings of a child, the seventeenth century equivalent of becoming a fireman. Similarly, when given the opportunity to actually follow his brother’s lead, Charles chose a different path. His interests in the arte militarie never translated into the creation of a military court or the establishment of a patronage network that nurtured and encouraged England’s military elite.133 When he became king, Charles may have championed the “Exact Militia” in 1625, backing the re-introduction of the drill manual and improving the trained bands, but he lost interest in the programme and left it to others, primarily his lord lieutenants and their deputies, to see it through to fruition. By the 1630s, the intensity that Gregg speaks of had long been in decline and Charles was dedicating much more of his time to patronage of the fine arts and not the military arts. This was an unfortunate decision, as a closer study of military affairs might have better served the English army in the Bishops’ Wars and the royalist cause in the Civil War.134

CSPV, Vol. 12, 1610–1613, 115. Gregg, Charles I, 34–35. 134 Recent studies addressing Charles’s military leadership have identified some serious flaws in his abilities to command, some that might have been overcome if he had decided to undergo a military education as a young man. John Day describes Charles as “display[ing] little strategic or tactical vision, and veer[ing] between stubbornness and indecision, pessimism and optimism. See J. Day, Gloucester and Newbury 1643, (Barnsley, Pen & Sword, 2007), 18. Richard Cust’s biography of the king suggests that Charles’s lack of military experience and tactical awareness cost him dearly at Kelso in 1639 when this army numerically outnumbered his Scots enemy. The Scots general Leslie’s tactical deception, coupled with his own indecision, led Charles to forego an attack and seek terms with the enemy when he might have defeated them once and for all in the field. Cust argues that during the Civil War, Charles, now aware of his military shortcomings, had “the sense to recognise his limitations and allow the professionals to guide him”. R. Cust, Charles I; A Political Life, (London: Pearson Education Ltd., 2005), 244–45 and 364–365. John Barratt agrees with Cust that during the Civil War, 132 133

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

129

Nevertheless, shortly after Henry’s death there were some tentative signs that Charles might follow in his brother’s martial footsteps. He was bequeathed Henry’s armour, a gift from Maurice of Nassau that had arrived just after the prince’s death. As if to suggest the younger brother would never assume the stature of the older, the armour proved too big for Charles. Two years later, in 1614, Charles appears to have begun his military training when Captain A.M. de Tournon, a soldier formerly employed by the Venetians, was hired by the Privy Council to instruct Charles in the use of the pike.135 A year on, in September 1615, Charles attended the muster and review of the London trained bands136 where he received the cheers and good wishes of the members of the bands and the crowd that was in attendance.137 Soon after the event, he was lauded in Richard Niccols’ poem Londons Artillery briefly containing the noble practise of that worthie societie (1616). Niccols dedicated the poem to the London alderman Sir John Jolles and to the members of the Artillery Company and their Captain, Sir Edward Panton. In the poem he described Charles as “that Diamond spark of royaltie, that bud of hope, Prince of great Britannie.”138 Edward Cecil, still serving in the Netherlands, was also in contact with the prince’s tutor, Thomas Murray, about the possibility of procuring a costly set of model soldiers, complete with cannon and siege engines, for the prince. Eventually, after some haggling over the price, the set was purchased and Charles took great joy in playing with his new toys, not only in his youth but also, it was reported, in his later years. But Charles’s study of the military arts was not undertaken with the same vigour as that of his brother. After Henry’s death, Charles did not surround himself with Low Countries veterans nor did he seek to establish a military court. Though soldiers like Cecil and Conway may have wished to acquire the prince’s patronage, Charles did not reciprocate in quite the same manner as his brother had done. Dudley Cartleton and Kenhelm

Charles relied on the military expertise of veterans of the Dutch Revolt and the Thirty Years’ War such as Rupert, Wilmot, Astley and Forth, but also places the defeat of the Royalist armies firmly at the feet of Charles. Describing Charles’s military career as “undistinguished,” Barratt points out that the king found warfare “horrifying” and this probably played into his indecision and failure to wage a more ruthless war against Parliament. J. Barratt, Cavalier Generals, (Barnsley: Pen & Sword, 2004), 9. 135 CSPD, 1611–1618, 222 and CSPV, Vol. 15, 1617–19, n. 252, 476. 136 Walker, The Honourable Artillery Company 1537–1926, 26. 137 Hunt, “Civic Chivalry and the English Civil War”, 217. 138 Quoted in Walker, The Honourable Artillery Company 1537–1926, 26.

130

chapter two

Digby, two courtiers familiar with continental military affairs, did send Charles books and offer him advice on foreign policy, but the prince did not take a great interest in martial affairs. While Niccols described the prince as a “bud of hope” in 1616, Charles’s love of arms never fully blossomed during his reign. Military writers continued to hold out hope that the prince would come to look fondly upon soldiers and soldiering. Between the printing of Dallington’s Aphorismes in 1613 and the beginning of the Civil War, nine military books were dedicated to Charles, all from the pens of Low Countries veterans.139 Each of these men tried their best to convince Charles that the martial arts must be nurtured and practised regularly by Englishmen. They urged that if he was called upon to take up the sword, he should wield it wisely in defence of his kingdom, his religion, and his subjects. John Bingham, who dedicated Tacticks of Aelian (1616) to the prince, advised Charles to support Maurice of Nassau in his war against the Spanish. Bingham saw Maurice as the new Alexander the Great and his new art of war as the instrument that would save the Dutch from the barbarous nations surrounding them. He reasoned that England must learn from its Protestant ally by training up its citizen in the art of war, the best means of perpetuating the kingdom’s security.140 Three years later, Edward Davies, author of The Art of War and Englands traynings, also warned of the great threats facing the country but knowing the “ardent zeal that [Charles] hath unto Military Discipline” he felt the prince was “virtuously disposed” to encourage the further perfection of arms. James had maintained a peaceful kingdom, but Davies worried that the militia should be better trained so as “to prevent accidentall, and ensuing dangers.”141 A similar refrain was heard from other military writers who sought out Charles’s patronage in the years before and after he became king in 1625. The anonymous W.G., author of Count Mansfield’s Directions of War wrote to acquaint the prince with the order of martial discipline as it was practised by England’s “forraine friends.”142 The dedication also included allusions to Alexander and Charlemagne that were once reserved for Maurice but were now projected upon the figure of Charles,

See Appendix for a list of the works. Bingham, Tacticks of Aelian, London: Lauence Lisle, 1616, sig. A2. 141 Davies, The art of war and Englands trainings, London: Edward Griffin, 1619, sig.¶3. 142 W.G., Count Mansfields, The Epistle Dedicatorie. 139 140

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

131

who being “right and virtuous” will continue “the chief Columne and Comfort of his kingdoms: and no lesse Defend the true Catholicke Faith.”143 Yet, while the tenor of this and other dedications to Charles remained enthusiastic, with the prince praised for his ardent zeal for military affairs, these veterans urged Charles that he should not shy away from war if England was threatened. Francis Markham hoped that if action were required, the prince would be prepared to enter into the wars “to recover your right in forain parts, or relieve your friends in other parts.”144 The crisis in the Palatinate and the outbreak of war with Spain in 1624 gave Charles the opportunity to do just that. Hoping to win back the lands of his beloved sister and brother-in-law, Charles informed his father in 1622 that he wished to command troops on an expedition to the Palatinate.145 This was probably wishful thinking on the part of the prince, just like his earlier request to Correr that he be sent to Italy to fight with the Venetians. Needless to say, James was not taken in by his son’s pleadings. He refused to allow Charles to take up his sword and decided against raising a large army to go to war over the Palatinate, relying instead on Vere’s smaller force, which was unable to regain Frederick’s territory. Charles’s enthusiasm for war, particularly after his return from Madrid in 1623, offered him another opportunity to play the soldier and to establish a military court. As the situation in Germany deteriorated, soldiers looked to Charles to convince James to alter his foreign policy and enter the war against the Catholic League before it was too late. A number of the prominent soldiers who served Henry now wrote to Charles, updating him on the military situation in the Palatinate. In a letter to Buckingham in 1621, Charles wrote that Sir Edward Cecil wrote me from the Army, of much stuff, but it was of fashion; the most of the letter was of reasons why the King should enter into a war for the defence of the Palatinate, and trust no treaties. Now, in earnest, I wish the gentlemen well, but yet I would not have Sir Horace Vere (who has both endured so much misery, and so good service there) either to be discouraged or disgraced; therefore I think the King shall well employ Cecil, but I would not have him come over other’s head.

Ibid. Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, The Epistle Dedicatorie. 145 See C. Carlton, Charles I: The Personal Monarch, London: Routledge, 1995, 29 and Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 58. The force was to number 20,000, with a contingent of 3,000 horse. 143 144

132

chapter two

Slowly but surely, the old Low Countries veterans moved closer to the prince and to Buckingham, the two men who were in the best position to dispense military patronage if and when England went to war. Conway, who was now secretary of State, and Cecil, Vere, Ogle, and Bingham were all called to sit on the Council of War that James convened in 1620/1. These men also served again on the second council that was formed after Charles’s return from Spain. A third Council was formed after the death of James in April 1625, and it once again included the core of veterans who had served in the Low Countries since James took the throne.146 The War Council advised the king on military policy, strategy, and domestic security, with its members preparing papers on the situation in the Palatinate and took responsibility for keeping an eye on the state of the militia. Conway wrote a paper in 1623/4, “A Discourse Concerning the Precedent and Present State of the Low Countries,” weighing various military operations and possible alliances that could be put in place to confront the Hapsburg threat. However, all of these plans required much greater military and diplomatic commitment than James was willing to consider. Conway’s detractors have painted him as ill suited for the post of secretary of State—a rough and tumble soldier who was out of place in the refined world of early modern diplomacy. Yet, Thomas Cogswell has argued for a reappraisal of Conway’s career as a courtier and diplomat, suggesting that S.R. Gardiner’s opinion of the secretary lacked any originality of thought for thinking that Conway was as nothing more than Buckingham’s creature. This overlooks the volume of papers on military subjects that came from the hand of Conway and the insight into those subjects that were the result of his many years of service in the Low Countries.147 Conway, Cecil, and the other veterans on the council took their jobs seriously and after years of service with Maurice they were finally in a position to institute the military reforms that had been carried out by the Dutch in the 1590s. They saw this as the most opportune moment to correct the problems that had plagued the English military since the days of Elizabeth. When the Council of War was created in the 1620s, the English lacked an effective system for training their soldiers. It was out of the meetings of the War Council that the idea of the “exact”

146 147

Carlyle, “Committees of Council under the Earlier Stuarts,” 680. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 80–82.

“companions

of martiall noblenesse”

133

or “perfect” militia took shape. Cecil had been thinking about ways of improving training since 1617 when he prepared a short treatise, “The Dutie of a Private Soldier,” to address the importance of the moral qualities of a good soldier, the types of weapons required of a modern army, and basic principles of training with pike and shot.148 As a close confident of Maurice, Cecil had been privy to the prince’s writings and he had watched the reforms being carried out. He had witnessed the victory at Nieuwpoort, and Cecil knew that a system of drill must be established in England if the trained bands were to be improved and if troops bound for the continent were to be able to fight effectively once they arrived. Following the death of his father in 1621, Cecil returned to England from the Low Countries. While attending to family business in Surrey, he had the chance to review the mustering of the local trained bands and what he saw did not impress him. He wrote to Conway to insist that something be done about training and the poor state of the weapons that were being brought to the musters. He was appalled by the performance of the deputy lieutenants and the soldiers, informing Conway: I fiend moste of them will not oute of the owlde beatane waye, that is upon a muster the[y] will say as the[y] have sayd many yeares to gether, bring better Armes, and the neaxte tyme the same thinge, wthoute telling them the[y] must make them of this fation or of that, for there is noe pattone; so that if yo meane to have better armes, there muste be a pattone; and then the deputie lifetenants will understand what armes, where now nether lifetenants nor souldires doe know how to meande there Armes wthoute the pattone, wch is very necessary.149

What Cecil and Conway were recommending was “to bringe this kingdome in to a true discipline” and they came to believe that the introduction of a printed drill manual could prompt this transformation. The late Elizabethan and early Stuart military circles helped to foster the exchange of ideas about the latest innovations in drill and tactics, discussions, and debates among soldiers that were shaped by the ongoing wars on the continent and by the publication of new books on military subjects being printed across Europe. Military books could be found in the libraries of many soldiers and as the next chapter will show, there 148 149

BL, Harley 3638 “The dutie of a private soldier by General Cecil”. Dalton, Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, vol. 2, 46.

134

chapter two

was a concerted effort in the first decades of the seventeenth century, through the work of veterans of the Dutch wars and prominent members of the Jacobean and Caroline military circles, to create printed sets of instructions for the trained bands and conscripted soldiers that introduced the methods of Dutch infantry practice into England.

CHAPTER THREE

“PRACTICE PUT IN PRESS”: THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH DRILL MANUAL Young Souldiers, come: here make your address; And shall fynd your Practice put in Press. Practice, indeed, doth teach that’s not our own. But yet it is sooner, and better, known: George Innes, From A Militarie Rudiment (1644) In March, in Motion, troop or stand, Observe both Leader and right hand; With silence note in what degree You in Body, paced be; That so you may with more trouble Know where to stand, and when to double From The Grounds of Military Discipline (1642)

In 1623 the Privy Council issued the English government’s first printed manual of arms, the Instructions For Musters and Armes, and the use thereof, a twelve-page drill book setting out the “exact and serviceable” manner for training the county militias.1 The Instructions For Musters and Armes described the proper methods for opening and closing ranks, exercising with musket and pike, and countermarching. Despite pleadings from many quarters, both inside and outside of government, the Jacobean Privy Council had been slow to improve the country’s defence, and the decision to issue a set of drill instructions was seen as a positive step toward rectifying some of the problems that plagued militia training. The Elizabethan government never issued a set of printed drill instructions and though there were half-hearted attempts by the Jacobean government to standardize the militia’s weaponry and reinvigorate training in the 1610s, these efforts had shown few satisfactory results. Urged on by William Lord Compton, Edward Conway, Horace Vere, and Edward Cecil, all members of the Council of War, the Privy Council agreed

1 Privy Council, Instructions For Muster and Armes, And the use thereof (London: Bonham Norton and John Bill, 1623). A manuscript copy of the Council’s manual can be found in the State Papers of James I. See SP/16/13/87.

136

chapter three

that a drill manual should be printed for use by the trained bands.2 On June 11, 1623, the Council sent a letter to the lords lieutenants and commissioners of musters accompanied by “a booke of directions”—the Instructions, printed by the King’s printers, Bonham Norton and John Bill—and a book of engravings of “the several postures” of pike and shot from the press of the London printer-bookseller Roger Daniel.3 Once the Instructions and the book of postures were in the hands of the county officials, the Council hoped that any defects in training “may bee fitlie and effectuallie redressed.”4 The decision to print the 1623 Instructions For Musters and Armes and Daniel’s accompanying book of postures was a significant first step toward bringing about the codification and standardization of militia training that had been debated since the Elizabethan period. However, the Jacobean government was not alone in its attempt to improve training, as other military writers and printers had been working to create a concise, portable volume (usually twenty to thirty pages in length) that was dedicated to drill and used text to provide the words of command and drill instructions and engravings to explain and depict the postures for musket and pike and the motions accompanying their use in training and battle. In this chapter I will examine the development of the English drill manual from 1603–45, looking at the privately printed manuals that became popular in the second decade of the seventeenth century and the government’s own drill manuals printed in the 1620s and 1630s. All of these manuals drew heavily on the infantry practices developed in the Low Countries by Maurice [fig. 6] and his cousins, Willem Lodewijk of Nassau and John II of Nassau-Dillemburg and were modelled, in part, on the popular and highly influential Dutch drill manual, Wapenhandelinghe van roers musquetten ende spiessen, published in The Hague in 1607. English drill manuals, both those privately printed and the government’s authorized editions of 1623 and 1631, provided the trained bands and military companies with a practical set of directions for learning how to use pike and shot. Some of the first to promote the idea of a printed manual of arms in England were the Low Countries veterans and gentlemen soldiers who practised their martial skills at London’s

2 3 4

Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia, 241. Privy Council, The Military Discipline (London: Roger Daniel, 1623). A.P.C., Vol. 38, 8.

“practice

put in press”

137

Artillery Garden. The members of the Honourable Artillery Company who regularly trained at the Artillery Garden at Bishopsgate were some of the country’s leading military innovators and they proved vocal proponents for the codification of infantry drill. Their enthusiasm for establishing a uniform set of drill instructions for use by the trained bands appears to have pushed the government into action in 1623. Despite the Jacobean government’s expectations that improvements in training would follow the distribution of its drill manual, Charles I was forced to reissue the Instructions in 1625 and to call upon his lord lieutenants to monitor training more closely in their counties. A revised edition of the Instructions was printed in 1631 and it served the militia through the 1630s. In the summer of 1642, as the royalist and parliamentary armies were being raised, drill manuals were increasingly seen as useful adjuncts to training men in infantry drill. To meet the demands for preparing thousands of raw recruits for war, printers and booksellers rushed to publish new pocket-size drill books or reissue older editions of manuals printed earlier in the century. By the end of 1643, military practice had literally been “put in press,” with drill manuals becoming a permanent part of military training in England from this point forward. The Evolution of the Early Stuart Drill Manual: The Dutch Influence Military practice in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, as I have previously indicated, owed a great debt to the school of war in the Netherlands. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, students of this war received their first textbook, Jacques de Gheyn’s drill manual, Wapenhandelinghe van roers musquetten ende spiessen. The idea for the Dutch drill manual had arisen in the late 1580s when Maurice of Nassau called upon his nephew, Willem Lodewijk of Nassau, commander of the northern forces of the United Provinces, to draw up a system of military organization that would create an effective fighting force capable of defeating the Spanish tercios.5 With the assistance of his brother, John II of Nassau-Dillemburg, Willem went to work on reforming the Dutch army. The main objective in undertaking the

5

B. Kist, ed., The Exercise of Armes, Mineola (NY: Dover Publications, 1999), v.

138

chapter three

reforms was to essentially get more from less. Limited finances led to the need for a smaller but more effective force. It was decided that this could only be accomplished by pruning the States’ existing army and then multiplying its firepower and improving the efficiency and manoeuvrability of its companies. Attaining a high level of proficiency among its foot soldiers required the Dutch army to practise regularly the two-score steps required of musketeers and caliver men to fire their weapons. Dutch officers then trained their men to fire in unison, maintain good order while reloading, and manoeuvre in coordination with pikemen. The Dutch military reformers were heavily influenced by the writings of the Greco-Roman military theorists and by the Neostoic philosophy of the highly respected humanist scholar and Leiden University professor Justus Lipsius. Maurice had been tutored by Lipsius at Leiden in the early 1580s and the Maurician military reforms reflected his teacher’s love of classical military theory.6 Lipsius, as Gunther Rothenberg has observed, taught Maurice that warfare was best carried out through the “orderly application of force,” with drill being the means by which that order was inculcated. Maurice proved a worthy student and his reorganization of Dutch military practice was to have far-reaching consequences for the art of war in Europe—the end product being a series of innovations that have been aptly described as “a turning point in the history of soldiering and military organization.”7 Following the introduction of the reforms, infantry drill became the glue that held the Dutch army together with troops taught a series of standardized movements with pike and shot that were practised daily on the muster ground. Harald Kleinschmidt has argued that the ideas of training pike and shot according to a standard set of words of command and drills not only came from the ancients, but from a variety of influences and that interestingly enough, the Dutch owed a debt to the English for the system of drill that was developed in the 1590s. Kleinschmidt suggests that some of the words of command used by 6 See W. Hahlweg, Die Heeresreform der Oranier und die Antike (Osnabruck: 1987); G. Oestreich, Neostoicism and the Early Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Kist, The Exercise of Arms; and G. Rothenberg, “Maurice of Nassau, Gustavus Adolphus, Raimondo Monetecuccoli, and the ‘Military Revolution’ of the Seventeenth Century,” in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. P. Paret (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 32–63. 7 J.I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806 (Oxford: Oxford University, 1995), 267.

“practice

put in press”

139

Figure 6. Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange (1567–1625) from Edward Grimeston’s A Generall Historie of the Netherlands. The inspirational general whose military reforms heavily influenced the development of the art of war in early seventeenth-century England. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

140

chapter three

the Dutch were already common to the English military tradition and can be found in the works of Sutcliffe and other military writers before they appeared in the Dutch manual of 1607. He also points out that Maurice may have borrowed from infantry drills used by the English troops that arrived in the Netherlands in 1585. So commonplace were the words of command in England that they appear in the popular play, The Knight of the Burning Pestle, by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher that was first presented in 1607.8 Maurice not only borrowed from the English, but he also drew upon methods of marching used by the German landsknechts in the early sixteenth century that were similar to the countermarch—having the front rank fire a volley and then march through the ranks to reload—one of the primary tactics used to maximize Dutch firepower.9 These influences, be they GrecoRoman, German or English bring to light the cross-currents that existed in Europe where military affairs were concerned and also suggest that the movement of ideas from the Low Countries to England may not have always been a one-way street. In 1598, in order to better illustrate the pike and shot movements to new recruits, John II commissioned the engraver Jacques de Gheyn to illustrate a manual setting out the new manner of drill. De Gheyn had studied under Hendrick Goltzius who had engraved a series of prints in the 1580s that depicted officers in the Dutch army. The idea for de Gheyn’s designs for Nassau’s drill book were influenced by these figures of soldiers that Goltzius had engraved earlier in his career. The engravings found in the new drill manual depicted forty-two caliver postures, forty-three musket postures, and thirty-two pike postures, which were finished by de Gheyn’s student Robert de Boudous.10 The work undertaken by de Gheyn and Boudous was completed at the turn of the century but publication of Wapenhandelinghe did not occur until 1607 owing to fears that the Spanish might learn of the Dutch innovations and find a means of outwitting them on the battlefield. As fighting between the Dutch and the Spanish subsided in the years just before the signing of the Twelve Years’ Truce of 1609, Maurice believed that it was now safe to print De Gheyn’s drill book. So popular was the work that it not only became the exemplar for drill in the Netherlands, but Ibid., 114. Kleinschmidt, Tyrocinium militare, 111. 10 See J.P.F. Kok, “Jacques de Gheyn II Engraver, Designer and Publisher—I,” Print Quarterly 7, no. 3 (1990): 248–81 and B. Kist, The Exercise of Armes, viii. 8 9

“practice

put in press”

141

it soon spread across the continent influencing military training from the Atlantic to the Urals for the next half century. The first edition of Wapenhandelinghe printed in The Hague in 1607 appeared in Dutch as well as in German, French, and English translations to accommodate the polyglot forces serving in the armies of the Low Countries.11 The English edition, titled The Exercise of Armes, and dedicated to Prince Henry, proclaimed the “valure of the English and Schottish nations,” lauding the commendable service of Britain’s soldiers in defence of the United Provinces [fig. 7].12 De Gheyn, knowing Maurice’s desire to see Prince Henry commit the English nation more fully to Dutch independence, praised the young prince for his knowledge of arms and the “continuall familiaritye he hath” with the practice of arms.13 De Gheyn (and Maurice) hoped that the drill manual would be welcomed by Henry and the English, and add the “longe experience of the Nether-lands practice to Your owne knowledge of ancient histories.”14 Henry’s death not only deprived the Jacobean court of its military patron, but it may also have set back the development of military training in England by ten years. Had the Prince of Wales lived beyond his eighteenth year, the creation of an exact militia and the publication of a government drill manual might have been advocated well before the 1620s. The value of The Exercise of Armes as a training manual lay in its sparing use of textual instructions and the precision of de Gheyn’s engravings. There is no doubt that it was very different from military books printed before 1600; it was specifically for training and meant to be used at the muster ground. In the opening instructions, brevity was stressed, with “briefe” and “scorte” instructions outlining the use of firearms and pike. Each set of instructions appeared in a longer descriptive form detailing the proper methods for holding, carrying, and positioning musket, caliver, and pike. These were followed by 11 I.Q. Van Regteren Altena, Jacques De Gheyn Three Generations, vol. 1 (The Hague: Martinus Nijoff Publishers, 1983), 54. 12 A. Simoni, “A Present for a Prince,” in Ten Studies in Anglo-Dutch Relations, ed. J. van Dorsten (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 51–71. Simoni notes that there were three English editions of Exercise of Arms printed before 1609, the first in 1607, with the arms of Prince Henry and printed in The Hague, the second in 1608, also with the arms of Henry and a third edition, printed in 1608 and bearing Baudous’ imprint but with the arms of Prince Maurice. All three works are dedicated to Prince Henry. 13 J. de Gheyn, The Exercise of Armes For Caliver, Muskettes, and Pikes (The Hague: Robert de Baudous, 1608), To the Prince. 14 Ibid.

142

chapter three

Figure 7. The frontispiece of Jacques de Gheyn’s The Exercise of Armes printed in The Hague in 1607. Courtesy of the British Library.

“practice

put in press”

143

shorter lists of commands for each weapon that were to be used for training more seasoned soldiers.15 The instructions were followed by sets of engravings for each weapon. In later editions, printers included the shorter commands at the bottom of each of the engravings, while extant copies of the 1607 and 1608 manuals reveal that some owners simply wrote in the instructions below the postures. The Exercise of Armes was a heavy folio edition and though it was short on long-winded commentary (the introduction and commands comprised only eight pages), it remained a costly and cumbersome volume and limited who could afford it and how widespread its distribution was among the Dutch army. Therefore, in 1607 de Gheyn’s work remained fairly inaccessible to the common soldier, both in England and abroad. However, later editions, particularly the 1619 quadralingual quarto edition printed in Zutphen by André Janssen, were made available to rectify this problem. In that edition, Janssen noted that the 1607 edition was “a great volume & costingh much money.” Every man, he claimed, is not able to buye it, & besides that it is to bigh to have upon a long journey: Therefore have I thought it fit to reduce it in such a small forme as you here see, yet also, that I have not left owt anye thingh which is in the great Booke of Jaques the Gein. Some thinke that the use of Armes taught in this book is not so speedy, as it should be. But all those that are used unto it should be.16

Even with the shortcomings that Janssen described, word of the Maurician innovations spread quickly. Before long copies of Wapenhandelinghe were being reproduced by printers across Europe who saw the potential profits that might be obtained from the sale of drill manuals to the thousands of soldiers plying their trade in the Low Countries and elsewhere. New editions of Wapenhandelinghe appeared in 1613, 1619, and later in 1640 as did a number of authorized and unauthorized copies of drill manuals done in the manner of de Gheyn. In addition to his agreement

15 The number of postures and the commands tended to vary among the drill books printed in the early seventeenth century. Some authors believed that the postures set out in de Gheyn were too time consuming and they reduced the number of postures to speed up the loading and firing of weapons. The editor of the 1619 Zutphen edition of Wapenhandelinghe responded to those who found the manual to have too many steps, indicating to those who thought the use of arms taught in the book was “not so speedy” that they should turn to those who have used it, as they will judge it “plaine the contrarye.” J. De Gheyn, Maniement D’Armes d’Arquebuses, (Zutphen: André Janssen, 1619), To all Souldiers and these that deleight in Armes. 16 Ibid.

144

chapter three

with de Gheyn, John II also had commissioned the engraver Wilhelm Dilich to produce a manual for German readers. Dilich’s Kriegsbuch, darin die alte und newe Militia eigentlich bescrieben unnd allen Kriegsneulingen, Bauund Buchsenmeistern und gutter Anlietung in Druck geben unnd verfertiget was published in Kassel in 1607, the same year as Wapenhandelinghe.17 A woodcut edition of the de Gheyn postures was also published in 1609 by Wilhelm Hoffmann though without the consent of de Gheyn. Hoffmann’s Bericht von den Soldaten in drei Theilen and Johann Jocobi von Wallhausen’s Kriegskunst zu Fuss, printed in Oppenhiem in 1615, further popularized Dutch drill methods in the German states.18 Though Wapenhandelinghe began to reach a wider readership on the continent in the 1610s, The Exercise in Armes does not seem to have had an immediate impact on military training in England. The English edition of the manual was originally meant for use among English troops in Dutch service, and there is little evidence to suggest that a large number of copies found their way to London via the book trade in the years following the printing of the first edition. It was not until the end of the militia vacation that the de Gheyn engravings, in tandem with the Maurician drill instructions, were made available to the training of “novices and younge souldiers” in England.19 If the 1607 folio edition of The Exercise of Armes was in fact used for training, it was most likely brought to England by veterans of the Low Countries wars, who could have purchased copies before returning home after the signing of the Twelve Years’ Truce. However, the Maurician methods of infantry training, sans the de Gheyn engravings, did appear in print in England before 1607. Maurice’s successes, particularly his defeat of the Spanish at the Battle of Nieuwpoort in 1600, offered proof that discipline and training based on ancient methods could lead to a victory in the field. In England, news of the Dutch victories was regularly reported in pamphlets printed in London, and the contributions of English soldiers to those triumphs were duly noted in the pages of these corantos. The victory at Nieuwpoort, which was witnessed by Clement Edmondes, provided 17 W. Dilich, Kriegsbuch, darin die alte und newe Militia eigentlich bescrieben unnd allen Krioegsneulingen, Bauund Buchsenmeistern und gutter Anlietung in Druck geben unnd verfertiget, (Kassell: Wilhelm Wessell, 1607). 18 W. Hoffmann, Bericht von den Soldaten in drei Theilen, (Frankfurt, s.n., 1609) and J.J. von Wallhausen, Kriegskunst zu Fuss (Oppenheim: s.n., 1615). 19 J. de Gheyn, The Exercise of Armes for Caliver, Muskettes, and Pikes (The Hague: Robert de Baudous, 1608), To Those That Love the Exercise of Arms.

“practice

put in press”

145

the inspiration not only for his commentaries on the works of Caesar but also led him to produce a shorter treatise on the Maurician infantry reforms for his English readers. In 1600, upon returning from the Netherlands, Edmondes dedicated his Observations upon the first five books of Caesars commentaries, printed by Peter Short, to Francis Vere and four years later, two new editions of the work were printed under the title, Caesars Commentaries setting forth the practise of ye art militarie in the time of the Romaine Empire for the better direction of our modern. The two editions, bearing different frontispieces, were from the printing houses of William Ponsonby and Mathew Lownes. Short’s 1600 edition, as well as the two 1604 editions included a short drill manual, The Maner of Our Moderne Training, or Tacticke Practice, which Edmondes had included as an addendum to the Commentaries. This was to be the first work printed in English that addressed the Maurician innovations and it would become a model for subsequent drill instructions printed in England over the next two decades. Despite being found at the back of a commentary on ancient warfare, Edmondes’s ten-page set of drill instructions was intended to be separate from his study of Caesar’s campaigns. He informed his readers that this was done because he “did not thinke it fit to mingle the Tacticke Practise of these times with the vse of forgoing ages.”20 As the Elizabethan age was coming to a close, observers of military affairs were well aware of the inconsistencies that existed in the training and outfitting of the trained bands and The Maner of Our Moderne Training attempted to offer English soldiers “the best fashione of [the] modern Art.” Edmondes believed his manual could transform the inexpert militia captain or continental-bound volunteer into an expert. He argued that the methods found in his instructions, when issued by a capable leader, would turn a confused company of men into a wellordered body, able to carry out the war-like motions and evolutions that would bring victory on battlefield. Edmondes limited his discussion of Dutch methods to infantry training and offered no indication as to why instructions on the training of cavalry were neglected. Edmondes infantry instructions in The Maner of Our Moderne Training adhered to the accepted methods of Dutch practice, calling for the creation of files of shot and pike with a depth of eight to ten men,

20 Edmondes, Observations Upon the Five First Bookes of Caesars Commentaries (London: Peter Short, 1604), 129.

146

chapter three

and composed of leaders and bringer-ups who were “well experienced, wise and valiant.” It was the responsibility of this core of trained men to command the front and rear ranks, to reprimand those who allowed the files to fall into disarray, or to drive those same men forward when the battle intensified.21 Working from the basic premise that the men in the front, middle, and rear of the file would be the best trained, Edmondes indicates that these soldiers should be responsible for leading the other members of the file through the “warlike motions,” which included the opening and closing ranks, facing, wheeling, and countermarching. The exercising of pike and shot was to be carried out in battalions, the strength of which Edmondes does not provide, though the standard Dutch battalion was composed of approximately five hundred men.22 The Maner of Our Moderne Training was also the first English drill manual to describe the Maurician system of countermarching, using the Macedonian, Lacedaemonian, and Persian methods for falling back, holding ground, and advancing. Unlike some of the analytical treatises printed in the late Elizabethan period, Edmondes offered readers no diagrams of how countermarching might be practised, nor did he provide words of command or any detailed directions for carrying out these complicated manoeuvres in battle. Such an oversight is hard to explain, as it would have made it easier for contemporary soldiers to more readily apply the information found in manual to training on the muster ground. Instead, Edmondes concluded the manual with an explanation of how orders may be delivered on the battlefield, noting that soldiers be familiar with a variety of signs as weather or terrain might impede sight or sound making the speedy delivery of messages difficult in the heat of battle. It was suggested that soldiers not rely on commands passed by word of mouth but also be trained to recognize flags or the sound of drum and trumpet. Edmondes was clearly moved to write his manual after witnessing the drills Maurice’s troops were put through and by what he saw as the connection between this training and the victory at Nieuwpoort. Yet, it is difficult to gauge the extent to which Edmondes’s manual impacted on the training of the English militia owing to the fact that it

Ibid., 130. K. Roberts, Cromwell’s War Machine: The New Model Army 1645–1660 (Barnsley: Pen & Sword, 2005) 88. 21 22

“practice

put in press”

147

appeared in print in the same year as the signing of the London Treaty and the beginning of the eight-year militia vacation. New editions of Edmondes’s Commentaries and The Maner of Our Moderne Training were printed in 1609, one from the press of Matthew Lownes and the other without a printer’s colophon on the frontispiece. These new editions, like Lownes’s 1604 edition, were dedicated to Prince Henry. At the beginning of the English Civil War new life was apparently breathed into Edmondes’s manual, which was printed under the title A Few Words to the Trained Bands and Souldiers of London Citie in these Perilous Times and was for use among the companies raised in the capital for service in the Parliamentary army.23 Not long after the end of the militia vacation and the renewal of regular musters the first tangible efforts to introduce the Maurician drill instructions into the training of English soldiers appear to have taken place in London. That year, Adam Islip, the London printer and member of the Honourable Artillery Company, registered a broadside in the Stationers’ Register drawn up by Captain Edward Panton, a leading member of the company.24 Panton’s broadside, A Table expressing the words in the science militarie was entered by Islip as A Table of the Art Military by Captayne Panton [fig. 8]. Panton explains in the text of the broadsheet (there are no engravings of postures) that it was written to “Helpe the Memories of the Gentlemen of the Societie of Armes, now practicing in the Artillerie Garden” and was “imprinted merely for the Societie . . . for their better understanding, to forme a Methode, 23 See S. Porter, ‘Edmondes, Sir Clement (1567/8?–1622)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004). 24 E. Arber, A transcript of the registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, A.D., Vol. 3, 258. Islip entered Panton’s title on 29 January 1614/15. Panton was a popular captain in the Artillery Company. The clergyman Thomas Adams (1583–1652) dedicated his sermon, The Souldiers Honovr (1617) to “the well deserving Captaine Edward Panton” and the “Captaines and truly generous Gentlemen Citizens of the London, of the Societie of Armes, practising in the Artillerie Garden.” See T. Adams, The Sovldiers Honovr (London: Adam Islip, 1617). Panton and John Bingham both appeared before the Privy Council in January 1618/19 over a matter concerning the command of the Artillery Garden. Panton had been responsible for exercising the Company since 1614 and was replaced by Bingham by order of the Court of Aldermen. Panton petitioned the Privy Council for redress of his grievance against the Aldermen in early January. The Council considered Panton to have served the Company well in his “divers yeares” teaching the “sundry citizens of London . . . the exercise and use of armes.” Sir Horace Vere and Sir Edward Conway came to the defence of Panton and in March 1618 it was decided both Panton and Bingham would step down in favour of a new selection. However, the aldermen, with the backing of these veterans, eventually decided that Bingham should hold the captaincy instead of Panton.

148

chapter three

to teach the Art Militarie.”25 Panton hoped to expand his Table at a later date, possibly selling it to a wider audience and “amplifying it more at large” with some other discourse, and a demonstration in figures of the actuall opperation of each motion herein verbally expressed, and the use thereof to be exercised by any Practitioner of reasonable understanding. Together with the placing of all Officers and colours, in March, or Battalia, according to their several dignities: and the several waies for Musquettiers to give fire either by Rankes, or Files.

The instructions were the product of Panton’s four years of military service on the continent and broke drill down into four principles, listing the pike and shot words of command found in de Gheyn in their simplest forms as well as the eight sounds of the drummer. Panton also included three sections of text, titled “Obedience, the first habit of a Souldier,” “Sound of Drums,” and “Posture.” The first section was a commentary on the value of good command, complete with classical adages as precedents. Obedience, Panton advised, was the “grace and applause of an Armie” and only through obedience “cometh victory.” The second section set out the importance of “following without delay” the commands sounded out by the company drummer. The last section touched on training with Panton advising members of the Honourable Artillery Company to carry out their drill using the “forme of men in Armes, carrying of Pikes, Musquets, or other martial weapons . . . as by his Excellencie Count Maurice of Nassau his Book of Postures, for the Harquebush, Musquet, and Pike.” Citing Vegetius as a reputable guide, Panton urged members to undertake regular daily drilling, for it was “neither time nor years that teacheth a man the art militarie, but daily practice: which was the chiefe reason that induced the Romans and other warlike nations, to exercise their yong and new levied Souldiers twice a day, morning and evening, and their old soldiers once a day.” It is apparent from Panton’s Table that the Maurice’s book of postures was well known to members of the Artillery Company, particularly those

25 E. Panton, A Table Expressing the words in the science military (London: Adam Islip, 1614). The only extant copy of this table can be found in the Bodleian Library, Oxford University as Ashmole H 24 135. It is misdated in the catalogue as being printed in 1621.

put in press”

Figure 8. Edward Panton’s A Table expressing the words in the science militarie. London: Adam Islip, 1614. Courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford University.

“practice

149

150

chapter three

who had served in the Low Countries.26 Though he was very interested in expanding on this Table, Panton never went on to produce his new version, the job falling to others. The first to capitalize on Panton’s Table was Jacobean England’s best known hack writer, Gervase Markham, who published a broadside titled, A Schoole for young souldiers containing in briefe the whole discipline of warre, that was modelled on Panton’s broadsheet [fig. 9].27 Markham would eventually go on to write two military manuals in the 1620s, the Souldiers Accidence and the Souldiers Grammar, but his books were hardly innovative and his military experience in the Low Countries was never reflected in these works, which were simply copied from the work of others.28 With his A Schoole for Young Soldiers, Markham clearly borrowed the idea for his own table from the more experienced Panton, simply jettisoning the commentaries while retaining Panton’s schema for pike and musket drill. To publish his drill instructions, Markham turned to John Trundle, London printer of ballads and broadsheets. The broadsheet went to two editions, the first in 1615 and the second, printed by Richard Higgenbotham, in 1616.29 Sheila O’Connell notes that Trundle “leaned towards what might be called the popular market,” with soldiers and members of the trained bands clearly part of this audience.30 With the end of the militia’s “long vacation and rest” and the renewal of yearly musters in many English counties in 1613, a ready market existed for Markham’s military wares. Trundle’s connections to the chapbook trade and Markham’s declaration that the broadsheet was “fit to be taught throughout England,” indicate that there was an intention to see the drill instructions posted at the 1615 and 1616 musters. As a

26 E. Cooke, The Character of Warre, Finis. Cooke mentions that his list of postures and directions were taken from Panton’s Table and reiterates that Panton’s table was rendered from the book published by Maurice of Nassau 27 Arber, A transcript of the registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, A.D., Vol. 3, 264. The printer John Trundle entered the title A Schoole for yo[u]nge scholars contayneing a briefe table to teach and learne to trayne and be trained by Master Markeham in the Stationers Register on September 26, 1615. The complete title of Markham’s work was A Schoole for young Souldiers, Containing in breife the whole Discipline of VVarre, especially so much as is meet for Captaine to teach, or the Souldier to learne, that is, to trayne or bee trained. Fit to be taught throughout England (London: John Trundle, 1615). 28 M. Steggle, ‘Markham, Gervase (1568?–1637)’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 29 T. Watt, Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 275. 30 S. O’Connell, The Popular Print in England 1550–1850 (London: British Museum Press, 1999), 47.

“practice

put in press”

151

Figure 9. Gervase Markham’s A Schoole for young souldiers containing in briefe the whole discipline of warre, printed for militia training in 1615 and 1616. Courtesy of the British Library.

152

chapter three

single sheet, Markham’s Schoole for Young Soldiers would have been easy to transport for sale to militia companies across England. The broadsheet was a set of concise instructions for officers and muster masters that could be posted at musters along with the orders of the day. Markham claimed the broadsheet depicted “the whole Discipline of Warre, especially so much as is meet for the Captaine to teach, or the Souldier to learne.”31 As Figure 9 depicts, the broadsheet was divided into quarters, with the upper left hand side occupied by an organizational tree describing the two main responsibilities of captains at musters, the first being the sorting of arms and designating the proper distribution of pike and shot, while the second gave instructions on how to divide the men of the company into squadrons, files, and fellowships (groups of comrades two to three in number) for the purposes of instruction. Markham’s organizational tree listed six steps for the sorting of arms and called for companies to be composed of half pike and half shot (with shot divided into half musket and half harquebus). A Schoole for young souldiers advised officers that when arms were handed out, the pike should be given to the “strongest,” the musket to the “squarest,” and the harquebus to the “nimblest,” instructions that mirrored more detailed descriptions found in the military literature of the period.32 Armour was then to be distributed to the company, with pikemen to be well armoured with morion, curace, gorget, pouldron, and taces. The shot were to be given only the morion, along with their bandoliers, swords, girdles, and bullet bags. Steps seven through twenty-two of the tree broke down training into four main groupings—the carriage of arms, the use of arms, marching and motions, and the sound of the drum. In the upper right hand corner, Markham listed fifteen words of command for the pike, and below that, forty musket and forty-two harquebus commands taken from de Gheyn’s instructions found at the beginning of The Exercise of Armes. In the centre of the bottom half of the sheet, flanked by two of the de Gheyn engravings, one of a pikeman and the other of a musketeer, were listed the twenty-three separate commands used in countermarching and the opening, closing, and doubling of ranks. The woodblock engravings are the first extant example of the use of representations of

Markham, A Schoole for young Souldiers (London: John Trundle, 1615). This text was probably taken from the Privy Council orders of March 1597/8 that was written by William Waad. 31 32

“practice

put in press”

153

the de Gheyn postures in England, outside those printed in the 1607 edition of The Exercise of Armes. The bibliographer F.N.L. Poynter has claimed that Markham has been “blamed too much for what he did ill and not praised sufficiently for what he did well.”33 In the case of A Schoole for young souldiers, praise might well be warranted as it appears that Markham, alongside Panton, were the first to recognize the value of the de Gheyn instructions for training the English militia. At the same time that Markham’s broadsheet of infantry directions was finding its way to musters, others were working to create a concise manual for training the militia. In 1616 The A,B,C, of Armes was printed in London by William Stansby and described by its author as an “introduction directory” meant to offer an easy explanation of the “order of Militarie exercises.”34 The A,B,C, of Armes was written by “I.T.,” an avowed pen-man and self-proclaimed man of peace, who considered his task of providing instructions for the training of the militia to be similar to that undertaken by Machiavelli in the Arte of warre. I.T. claims to be a veteran, having followed the wars “in my younger years” as well as an admirer of arms, who wished for nothing more than to have men learn the correct use of their weapons through regular musters. Though it is difficult to determine who I.T. (or possibly J.T.) may have been, it is possible that he was a member, or an acquaintance of a member, of the Artillery Company owing to the fact that portions of The A,B,C, of Armes were taken directly from Panton’s Table, which had been printed only for members of the company. I.T. also borrowed heavily from Panton’s schema and text, with his description of the postures, instructions to drummers, and warnings against complacency and the neglect of training gleaned from Panton’s Table. A lengthy introduction to I.T.’s manual, based on a reading of classical works such as Caesar and Vegetius, advised against the disuse of arms and encouraged English soldiers to abstain from drink, dice, and whoring and “dust off the cobwebs from within.”35 Though filled with Latin quotes The A,B,C of Armes did provide instruction in modern rather than out-dated weaponry, giving readers a basic outline of the

33 F.N.L. Poynter, A Bibliography of Gervase Markham 1568?–1637 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1962), 2. 34 I.T., The A, B, C, of armes, or, An introduction directorie whereby the order of militarie exercises may easily bee vnderstood, and readily practised, where, when, and howsoeuer occasion is offered. (London: W. Stansby for John Helmes, 1616). 35 Ibid., 4.

154

chapter three

postures for pike and musket while relegating bowmen, targeteers, billmen, and halberdiers to the dustbin of history. I.T. argued that the days of Crecy and Agincourt had passed and that many of the weapons of war that were “much praised and practiced, are by change of times, and benefit of fresher invention, either cast cleane out of doores, or at least permitted to hang in houses, like monumenta adorandae rubiginus, retaining the bare name of furnitures, without praise or practice.”36 The A,B,C, of Armes can be considered a drill manual, in that its instructions could be readily translated into practice, but it could not have been very useful to the gentlemen soldiers training at the Artillery Company or leading the trained bands in the counties. Much of the work was a plea for improvements to training with only a quarter of its forty-two pages dedicated to how drill could be carried out on the muster ground, justifying the author’s own description of himself as an “inkehorne soldier.” Though he was a self-described veteran of the wars, I.T. fits the description of a paper soldier, his A,B,C, of Armes an amateurish contribution to the emerging library of English drill manuals. However, I.T.’s contemporary John Bingham could hardly be described in the same terms. Bingham was a professional soldier whose abilities were recognized by his comrades and the Jacobean government. Bingham had first-hand knowledge of the new methods of infantry drill from his years of service in the Netherlands and in 1616 his Tacticks of Aelian was printed by Laurence Lisle. The second part of the work, The Art of Embattling an Army, was printed in 1631 by Ralph Mabbe, who was a member of the Artillery Company serving alongside Bingham when the latter led the company in the mid-1610s.37 Tacticks was a study of classical military theory and, in a decision similar to that taken by Clement Edmondes, Bingham added a seven-page infantry and cavalry drill manual as an appendix to his book. In the letter to the reader at the beginning of Tacticks, Bingham points out that he completed the work at the English garrison at Woudrichem in Holland. He decided to resurrect the work of Aelian, the second-century Roman tactician, because of the renewed interest in Greco-Roman formations fostered by the Maurician military innovations. In the drill manual, The Exercise

Ibid., 6. J. Bingham, The Art of Embattling An Army, or The Second Part of Aelians Tacticks. London: Ralph Mabbe, 1631. 36

37

“practice

put in press”

155

of the English, Bingham praised Maurice and his use of classical models to inform his transformation of the Dutch army. Maurice’s reforms, claimed Bingham, had “revived, & restored to light” the Greco-Roman infantry tactics that had for centuries “lien wrapped vp in the ruines of time.” Tacticks, and the accompanying Exercise of the English, were intended to bring these reforms to the attention of English readers. But Bingham wanted to do more than review the methods of the ancients; he wanted his contribution to English military literature to illuminate the nature of modern war.38 In many respects, Bingham was a modern tactick, a master of arms who “delivered the Arte Military to such, as were desirous to learne.”39 His Exercise of the English was a modern military drill manual and it provided succinct instructions for exercising the trained bands. From Bingham’s vantage point in the Netherlands, de Gheyn’s drill manual was commonplace by 1616 and was familiar to the English troops serving in the Low Countries. The exercises and directions set out by Bingham followed the Maurician practices, with pike and shot files ten-deep and an emphasis on countermarching. The influence of de Gheyn’s Wapenhandelinghe is duly noted by Bingham when he explained to readers in his section on musket drill that the “Postures in his Excellencies Booke are to be observed.”40 Bingham’s The Exercise of the English did not make use of any of the engravings found in the Dutch drill manual, as he saw no need to replicate the popular Dutch work. The significance of Bingham’s The Exercise of the English lies in the fact that parts of the text were reprinted verbatim in the Privy Council’s Instructions for Musters of 1623. Two sections of Instructions for Musters were taken from Bingham’s manual; the first section, titled “For the Musket” (in which the mention of de Gheyn’s postures is made), gave directions on how to safely march with firearms, with a warning to soldiers to “carry the mouth of their peece high, aswell when they are shouldered, as in pruning, and also when they hold their panes garded, and come vp to give fire.”41 The second section making its way into the Privy Council’s drill manual addressed “The Manner there is to give fire retyring from

38 J. Bingham, Tactiks of Aelian Or art of embattailing and army after ye Grecian manner, London: Laurence Lisle, 1616, sig. A2 v. 39 Ibid., sig. Av. 40 J. Bingham, The Exercise of the English in the Service of the high and mighty Lords, the Lords the Estates of the vnited Provinces in the Low Countries, in Tactiks of Aelian, 154. 41 Ibid., 156.

156

chapter three

an enemy, which is performed after this sort” and instructed readers on volley fire, both from the front ranks and the flanks. The inclusion of these two sections from Bingham in the Instructions of 1623 suggests that the Privy Councillors simply turned to its own experts, the veterans who served on the Council of War, to write the government’s manual. Just as with Edmondes’s The Maner of Our Moderne Training, it is difficult to determine the immediate impact of The Exercise of the English on the training of the militia before 1623. It is most likely that the influence was first seen in London at the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company where men like Panton and Bingham actually practised the drills that they wrote about. The Honourable Artillery Company: The Incubator of English Military Practice Dutch drill methods were most likely introduced into England by veterans returned from the Low Countries who became members of the Honourable Artillery Company. The company, which trained at the Artillery Garden near Bishopsgate in the City of London, were both practitioners and popularizers of the Maurician reforms in infantry drill, with many members writing training manuals so as to “advance the knowledge and practise” of the military arts.42 Ably supported by a well-respected group of printers and booksellers that included Ralph Mabbe, Adam Islip, and the sons of Nicholas Okes, John and William,43 the Artillery Company acted as more than just a place where weekend soldiers could practise their sword play or engage in mock battles for enthusiastic onlookers. London’s military gardens were the centre of early Stuart military culture in England, incubators of military ideas where the gentlemen and merchants of London trained, talked, and eventually wrote about the martial arts.44 Captain Lewes Roberts, a

42 T. Trussell, The Sovldiers Pleading his owne Cause, Furnished with argument to encourage, and skill to instruct. With an epitome of the qualities required in the seuerall officers of a priuate company, (London: Nicholas Okes, 1619), 24. 43 See J. Tsushima, “Members of the Stationers’ Company who served in Artillery Company Before the Civil War; Ralphe Mabbe and his network,” in The Stationers’ Company and the Book Trade 1550 –1990, edited by R. Myers and M. Harris (Winchester: St. Paul’s Bibliographies, 1997), 66. 44 Thomas Trussell, a member of the Artillery Company in the 1620s, saw London as the font of military knowledge, the “most fit of any part of the Realme.” London,

“practice

put in press”

157

member of the company in the early 1640s described how exercise and military books walked hand in hand at the Artillery Garden. “My love to Armes,” explained Roberts, drew me at first to bee a practicioner thereof, in the Artillery Garden of London, and when occasions withheld me from the exercise it self, my mind was busied in pursuing of such Authors, as trained of that subject in sundry languages, which as length proved to bee so many, and so various, and withal so differently handling the severall parts of Warre.45

The Honourable Artillery Company’s origins date from the reign of Henry VIII, but it underwent various transformations before James I granted its members the right to exercise arms in 1610.46 The company was reputed to be the country’s finest training ground for English soldiers, a reputation that apparently extended outside the capital. Its best officers went on to lead the regiments of the London trained bands as well as those outside Middlesex. Men from all parts of the country travelled to London to learn the latest drill methods, observing the company during exercises, and then returning to their counties to train the members of local trained band companies.47 In his The Third University of England, George Buck portrayed the Artillery Company as a very active community of military men and an important part of

wrote Trussell, “and the royall Chamber and Head of State, appeare to loue Armes, and indeuour themselves to advance the knowledge and practice of the same.” Trussell, The Sovldiers Pleading his owne Cause, 25. 45 L. Roberts, Warrefare Epitomized, In a Century of Military Observations (London: Richard Oulton for Ralph Mabbe, 1640), To the Reader. 46 See G.C. Walker, The Honourable Artillery Company, 1537–1926 (London: John Lane, 1926), 25. 47 Members of the Artillery Company claimed in 1616 that one of the primary intentions of the society was to encourage the spread of the military practice across the England. In the Orders Established, Condiscended, And Agreed Vnto By The Societie of Armes, Citizens, and Inhabitants of the Citie of London, (London: Adam Islip, 1616), the members noted the “good that hath, and is likely to rebound thereby to our Countrie in generall, by stirring vp other well disposed subiects in imitation hereof, to enable themselves for the service of our King and Common-wealth . . .” Walker also noted in his study of the Company that Stow indicated that by the 1620s, the Artillery Company had “grown great and in good estimation.” Not only Prince Charles, but also many country gentlemen of the shires resorted to the Artillery Garden and diligently observed their exercises, which they saw were excellent; and returned home to their own counties, practiced and used the same with their trained bands. This statement is borne out by entries in the Roll of members such as “William Lemmon, High Sheer (Sheriff) of Herefordsheere, Thomas Skriven, Deputie Leiftennant for Salopp and Herreford and Collonell of a Regiment in the same Counties,” see Walker, The Honourable Artillery Company, 1537–1926, 26.

158

chapter three

London’s educational establishment in the early seventeenth-century. Buck described those who practised at the company as very many notable, noble and most valient commanders, colonels, captains, and expert souldiers, not onely able to teach this Art military, but also to take charge of Regiments, Legions, and armies royall, if need required, for their experience, valor, and skill in martiall discipline, and affayres of warre.48

Other contemporary observers also noted the company’s martial prowess. In July 1618 the Venetian ambassador Piero Barbarigo observed members drilling near his home in Bishopsgate. “The military training especially of this warlike nation,” Barbarigo wrote, “is of the most regular and careful description.” The men of the company flock to the musket and artillery exercise, making such a crash and noise that sometimes they make me drop my mouthful when I am seated at the table. They handle the pike wonderfully and perform various evolutions, marching very boldly to the attack of a platform made like a fortress, to execute themselves to the assault. In like manner they have very frequent general musters all over the city.49

In 1616 the Honourable Artillery Company established a set of rules governing their training, the Orders Established, Condiscended, And Agreed Vnto By The Societie of Armes, Citizens, and Inhabitants of the Citie of London, printed by Adam Islip.50 Two of the de Gheyn figures, a pikeman and a musketeer, are pictured on the frontispiece in what can best be described as a welcoming pose, with the musketeer doffing his plumed hat to the readers. The Orders Established provides further insight into the connection between the company’s training methods and the printed manuals written by its members. Training sessions were scheduled regularly (weather permitting) every other Tuesday, with fines for those who failed to attend or left the ranks before the end of training. At those sessions the leading-men, middle-men, and bringers up, the heart and soul of the file, were singled out for the important role they played in training. The Orders Established designated that no one could take the place of these file members (without express permission of the captain

Buc[k], The Third University of England, 986. CSPV, July 10, 1618, 257. 50 Societie of Armes, Citizens, and Inhabitants of the Citie of London. Orders established condiscended, and agreed vnto by the Societie of armes, citizens, and inhabitants of the Citie of London. (London: A. Islip, 1616). 48 49

“practice

put in press”

159

or lieutenant), as they were most responsible for maintaining discipline in the file, keeping the other members, both literally and figuratively, in line. The Orders Established did not address matters related to the exercise of arms that members practised; that remained in the hands of the captains or muster masters, who were given the task of drilling the company and who were usually veterans of the Irish or Dutch wars. Their experiences had shown them the value of good order on the battlefield and they hoped to pass these lessons on to the men who became members of company. As volunteers made their way home from the Low Countries after the Cleves-Julich campaigns, a number of them went to the Artillery Garden, where they found willing students eager to learn the latest continental military techniques. John Weymouth, the son of George Weymouth and an infantry captain who served under Sir Edward Cecil at Julich in 1612, completed his drill manual, Low-Countrie Trayning (1617) on his return to England. Weymouth had first travelled to the Netherlands to study mathematics, possibly with the hope of following in the footsteps of his illustrious father. Apparently caught up in the excitement of the Cleves-Julich campaign, young Weymouth decided to forego the academic life for soldiering, joining Edward Cecil’s company in 1612 and for the next five years he trailed the pike with his English and Scots comrades in the Low Countries and the Rhineland.51 An educated man, Weymouth took his work as a soldier seriously and he learned the military profession well, writing his drill manual for “louers of Solidery and Martiall Discipline.”52 Weymouth believed his book could help to standardize drill, be profitable to his country, and like the manuals of other veterans, reflect the “exact formes of Motion” practised by the Dutch—methods he believed were best suited for the English way of warfare. He dedicated the manual to his former commander Edward Cecil, and to his new comrades in London, the worthy Edward Panton (who Weymouth described as a very able and judicious commander), and the two hundred members of the Artillery Company who met every second Tuesday of the month to be “trained, exercised and drilled.”53 Along with his interest in producing a manual for this audience, Weymouth J. Weymouth, Low-Countrie Trayning. (London: Thomas Snodham for William Welby and Edward Brewster, 1617), The Epistle Dedicatorie. 52 Ibid. 53 Weymouth, Low-Countrie Trayning, To the Reader. 51

160

chapter three

could not overlook the opportunity to urge on the Dutch army and their Protestant allies in their struggle to root out the “Rhomish Beast, and all perfidious Papists.”54 Low-Countrie Trayning concerned itself with drill at the company level, with marching, facing, and doubling the ranks. It left the rudimentary pike and shot postures to de Gheyn’s Exercise of Armes. Weymouth’s manual numbers forty-two pages and makes no attempt to cover anything more than the most basic of evolutions a company might carry out when confronted by an enemy. Pike and shot, which are equally divided in the company at a ratio of 1:1, are designated with the letters P and M in a series of twenty figures. The instructions that accompany each evolution were meant to provide captains and lieutenants with a brief description of each motion without the extraneous discussions found in longer analytical treatises. Weymouth explained to readers that his goal was to descend “to the capacitie of the weakest, rather ayming to enforme those that desire knowledge herein, then to teach the experienced.”55 In fact, one of those goals was to train members of the Artillery Company so they would be “sufficiently able to command and exercise Companies themselves,” a reference to the common practice of London-trained officers taking command of militia companies in the provinces.56 Weymouth’s use of diagrams of the evolutions was innovative, in that they depicted movement toward the enemy in an organized manner and suggested engagement, and not just the ordering of troops prior to battle, as was commonplace in late Elizabethan military books like Garrard’s Arte of Warre or Barret’s Theorike and Practike of Moderne Warres. Emanating from the Weymouth’s experience in the Netherlands and from his time at the Artillery Company, the evolutions found in his manual represent forms of drill that had already become accepted practice on the continent but were now finding their way into English training. Two years after the publication of Weymouth’s Low-Countrie Trayning, a third infantry drill manual was written by a member of the Artillery Company. This was Thomas Trussell’s The Sovldier Pleading his owne Cause (1619), printed by fellow company member Nicholas Okes. The book went to three editions, but there is no extant copy of the first edition,

54 55 56

Ibid., The Epistle Dedicatorie. Ibid., To the Reader. Ibid.

“practice

put in press”

161

which most likely included only the text of the first part of the Souldier Pleading his Owne Cause, as the frontispiece of the 1619 edition explains that the second edition is “much enlarged with Military Instructions” that were “agreeable to the Discipline practised in the Netherlands.” A third edition of the work, also printed by Okes, appeared in 1626 and was dedicated to Edward Conway. Apart from the new dedication that edition is unchanged from the 1619 edition. Trussell was born in Billesley, Warwickshire in 1564 and possibly served as a soldier in the Low Countries in the 1590s.57 There is little in the Souldier Pleading his Owne Cause that might identify exactly where Trussell served as all of the primary theatres of war, including the Low Countries, France, and Germany are mentioned in the text. While the decision to incorporate a second part dedicated to Dutch drill in 1619 may provide some clues as to where Trussell served, it does not necessarily reveal any new facts about his military career and, as I will explain, could just as easily have been borrowed from other manuals printed in England during the first two decades of the seventeenth century. However, if the first edition was just the text of Souldier Pleading his Owne Cause, as it appeared in 1619, it was not written in the late Elizabethan period when Trussell was thought to have been soldiering. Instead, it was probably penned soon after the end of the militia vacation, as Trussell states that when the King commandeth Musters, and Traynings, whereby appointing select people to be numbered, and divided into severall Bands, to be practised and exercised in the vse of Armes, that so the Realme may be better furnished of me experienced for the field, and thereby to stand in the more assurance and safety if need should require.58

Trussell also goes on to mention the Artillery Garden, which was founded in 1610 and the Military Yard at Westminster, which was established in 1611.59 Trussell’s name was entered into the Ancient Vellum Book of the Honourable Artillery Company in the summer of

57 A. Rosen, ‘Trussell, Thomas (b. in or before 1564, d. 1640)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 58 Trussell, The Sovldier Pleading his owne Cause, 19. 59 Roberts, “Lessons in Revolution: The Impact of the London Military Companies,” 37.

162

chapter three

1612 and his pleadings appear to have grown out of a combination of all of these events.60 Like Weymouth, Trussell believed that he and his colleagues at the Artillery Garden were “the true forme of Military men,” soldiers who encouraged the practise of arms among their fellow countrymen. Trussell saw the company’s services in the defence of the nation as an example for all soldiers to follow. Combined, the two parts of The Souldier Pleading his owne Cause are ninety-six pages in length, the first part being the pleading and the second part, the drill manual titled “Certaine Military Instructions.” The book is comprised of text alone, with no engravings apart from that of a pikeman and musketeer that adorns the work’s frontispiece, the same woodcut that can be found on the front of the Artillery Company’s Orders established condescended. The pleading is divided into two sections, the first offers “an argument to Encourage, and skill to Instruct” and the second, the epitome, examines the qualities required of good soldiers. The “Certaine Military Instructions” is a set of military directions that borrowed elements from earlier Tudor military writers, such as Giles Clayton, as well as drill commands found in de Gheyn, Edmondes, Panton, and Bingham. In “Certaine Military Instructions,” Trussell established five principles to guide young soldiers through their motions, with drill broken down into manageable parts that resembled lessons in a school primer. The five principles mirrored aspects of the Maurician drill and began as Panton did, by calling on soldiers to learn the sound of the drums so that orders might be followed when the din of battle made voice commands impossible to hear. The second and third principles encompassed the postures and distances. De Gheyn’s fifteen pike commands were simplified to twelve, with each respective posture paired with a motion, either for standing, marching or charging. Trussell designated thirty-one musket commands, rather than the forty-three found in Wapenhandelinghe. Distances for ranks and files when standing and marching were then determined, and listed from “closest”, (pouldron to pouldron in files) to “double distance” (24 feet in ranks). Knowledge of one’s place in the company was the fourth principle and definitions to help soldiers determine the difference between ranks, files, flanks, leaders, and bringers up were included. The fifth principle covered the words of command for

60 G.A. Raikes, The Ancient Vellum Book of the Honourable Artillery Company, Being The Roll of Members from 1611 to 1682 (London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1890), 19.

“practice

put in press”

163

various motions, and the manual concluded with a short description of the execution of those motions. The Sovldier Pleading his owne Cause was a call to arms and a declaration that the mastery of drill made the “armed seruant . . . a commander of vnarmed Maister.”61 Sounding the alarm against “forraine evils,” Trussell warned that England needed to “awaken it selfe out of securitie; for the times are not so now, that one nation may trust another.”62 The members of the Artillery Company took these calls for preparedness seriously, not only in their regular exercises, but also through their efforts to codify drill for the nation as a whole. In 1619, another company member, a Lieutenant Clarke, “invented” a broadsheet that depicted all of the de Gheyn postures.63 This was the first instance of the printing of the complete shot and pike postures as they were found in the Exercise of Arms and in a form that could be posted at musters. Clarke’s broadsheet was entered into the Stationers’ Register by the printer Thomas Purfoot on March 26, 1619, as A Table [or broadside] of the postures both of the musketterien and the pikeman with severall partes of their Armes.64 The 1619 broadsheet bears the initials RP excudit and TC oxonus sculpt for the printer Purfoot and the engraver Thomas Cockson, and in the left hand corner of the sheet depicting the “several parts of their Armes” is written “Invented by Lieutenant Clarke.” There was a second edition of Clarke’s Table printed in 1636 and sold by William Ridiard who expunged Purfoot’s initials and added his name. The one extant copy of the 1636 edition can be found in the British Museum’s Print Collection and includes along its upper margin the title and the coats of arms of the City of London and the Cross of St. George. The margins of the left and right sides depict crests with the names of twenty of the captains of the Artillery Company, while below the pike postures on the lower right side of the broadsheet has the “severall partes of their Armes,” the weaponry of company members including a halberd, pike, musket and rest, pot helmets, and drum

Trussell, The Souldiers Pleading his owne Cause, 24. Ibid., sig. A3. 63 The Vellum Book of the Honourable Artillery Company lists a Thomas Clarke as a member of the Company in August, 1611. See Raikes, The Ancient Vellum Book of the Honourable Artillery Company, 16. 64 Arber, A transcript of the registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, A.D., Vol. 3, 302. The only extant copy of Clarke’s 1619 broadsheet can be found in the British Library, Harley 5944 f. 138, but includes only the pike postures and the “severall partes of their Armes” but not the musket postures. 61 62

164

chapter three

and ensign.65 Both the 1619 and 1636 engravings of the postures by Cockson are the same with only slight modifications as those found in Jean-Theodore de Bry’s edition of Johann Jocabi von Wallhausen’s L’Art Militarie pour Infanterie printed in Frankfurt in 1615.66 Clarke’s decision to introduce a new table demonstrating the postures may have been inspired by Panton’s Table, and his unfinished project of printing the postures for the Artillery Company, or possibly by Markham’s broadsheet, A Schoole for young souldiers. Clearly the arrival of copies of de Bry’s edition L’Art Militarie pour Infanterie in London proved influential and suggests that Cockson either copied de Bry’s engravings or acquired the plates and made the alterations himself. Cockson’s numbering of the postures that is found in de Bry is retained, though new numbers were added, while Cockson also included commands below the feet, where de Bry did not. A.M. Hind indicates that on occasion Cockson borrowed plates from continental engravers and this could have been the case with de Bry’s engravings, though it is difficult to determine if Cockson worked with the originals or simply copied the de Bry postures.67 Clarke’s broadsheet, like Markham’s Schoole, was affordable and more accessible for training than a large bound volume, and, unlike the manuals already discussed, the pictures of the postures made it possible for illiterate soldiers to follow the steps for handling pike and shot without necessarily relying on the written instructions. The broadsheet was an efficient means of teaching Dutch drill, but as we know by its name, ephemera has a short lifespan, particularly on a muster ground where the elements could easily play havoc with the paper on which these sheets were printed. It is apparent from Clarke’s broadsheet that by 1619 English engravers were very familiar with de Gheyn postures, but up to that point, no English printer or soldier-author had seen fit to move beyond a broadsheet and print a compact edition of the de

Lieutenant Clarke, This Table Doth Demonstrate LI Postvres to the Mvskettier and XXXIII To the Pikemen with Three Wordes of Command Plainly Expressed in the Instructions Following (London, William Ridiard, 1636). 66 Jean-Theodore de Bry, L’Art Militarie pour Infanterie (Frankfurt: Uldrick Bolck, 1615). Jean-Theodore de Bry is credited with four engravings in his translation of Wallhausen’s Kriegskunst zu Fuss, the same four engravings that make up the Cockson broadsheet of 1619/1636. In L’Art Militarie pour Infanterie those engravings are labelled A, B, C and D and in his introduction de Bry takes credit for them. Also see S. Anglo, The Martial Arts of the Renaissance Europe, 358, n. 40. 67 A.M. Hind, Engraving in England in the sixteenth & seventeenth centuries; a descriptive catalogue with introductions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952–1964). Vol. 1, 239. 65

“practice

put in press”

165

Gheyn postures for use on the muster ground, as André Janssen had done with his 1619 Zutphen edition of Wapenhandelinghe. This was to change in April 1622 when the London printer Edward Allde entered the title of The Military Art of Trayning into the Stationers’ Register.68 Allde, like John Trundle, was a printer of ballads69 and has been described by R.B. McKerrow as the “typical trade printer.”70 Allde beat the government to the punch, and taking a page from Thomas Trussell, whose Souldier Pleading his Owne Cause was also small enough to be carried in the side pocket of a buff coat, he compiled a compact manual that could easily be taken to the muster ground and used to teach the postures for pike and shot to inexperienced soldiers. The Military Art of Trayning was ninety pages in length and divided into two parts. The first part, a treatise titled “Military Discipline” written by an anonymous author who served in the Elizabethan wars, was an inspirational preface to the manual, the musings of a former soldier, and something that the owner of manual might read to entertain himself while in camp. Evidence from the text suggests that this treatise may have been the work of Francis Markham, the author of Five Decades of Epistles of Warre (1622) and member of the Essex circle. The author of the “Military Discipline” served as a gentleman soldier in garrisons at Gelders, Deventer, and Bommel in the Netherlands before entering the ranks of Mountjoy’s army in Ireland in 1601 where he served at the siege of Kinsale. Markham’s military career closely mirrors that of the anonymous author, as he too saw service in the Netherlands in 1583 and later with Essex and Mountjoy in Ireland between 1599 and 1603.71 The anonymous writer also claimed that the “Military Discipline” was epitomised from a larger volume, “so as to be made portable” and the reference here could be to the Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, printed the same year as Allde’s The Military Art of Trayning. The text of “Military Discipline” sets out the chain of command and explains the duties and responsibilities of officers and foot soldiers, working its

68 The Military Art of Trayning was entered into the Stationers’ Register on April 13, 1622 and the Instructions for Musters and Armes was sent to lieutenants in June of 1623. See Arber, A transcript of the registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, A.D. Vol. 4, 67 and A.P.C., Vol. 38, 1623–1625, 8. 69 O’Connell, The Popular Print in England 1550 –1850, 47. 70 R.B. McKerrow, “Edward Allde as a Typical Trade Printer,” The Library, 4th Series, Vol. X, No. 2. (September 1929): 121–161. 71 D.J.B. Trim, ‘Markham, Francis (1565–1627)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004).

166

chapter three

way through the ranks in the same manner that Markham had done in his Five Decades (though the text is not the same).72 The second part of the Allde’s manual was the thirty-two pike and forty-three musket postures copied from de Gheyn’s engravings in The Exercise of Armes. The Military Art of Trayning has been wrongly attributed to de Gheyn since the two extant copies of the 1622 manual have, for reasons that no one has been able to determine, the same title page as the Military Discipline (1623), the book of postures by Roger Daniel that was printed to complement the Privy Council’s Instructions for Musters. But it was Allde’s work that pre-dated Daniel’s. When depicting the postures, one per page, Allde decided against including short instructions at the beginning of the manual, as de Gheyn had done, and instead put the commands for each posture at the feet of the figures as Clarke had done. While Allde reproduced the movements found in de Gheyn’s postures, the figures themselves are quite different, and there was no attempt on the part of the engraver to make “exact” copies of the Dutch figures as Cockson had done. In fact, Allde also included four additional engravings of soldiers that were not included in the original Wapenhandelinghe but were actually copied from de Gheyn’s popular prints titled Soldiers and Officers, which were completed in 1587.73 Between 1614 and 1622 the members of London’s Honourable Artillery Company proved to be a significant driving force behind efforts to

72 Markham was down on his luck in 1622–23 and the printing of two books in that year would have been a means of earning some much needed income. In an undated letter in 1622, William Burghley and others had recommended that Markham be named as the muster master of Nottinghamshire. In the letter to the Privy Council, Burghley, acting on behalf of his fellow muster commissioners, explained that Markham should be appointed as the counties muster master, owing to his long years of military service in Ireland and the Low Countries. Markham’s father, Burghley explained, had many children (including Gervase Markham) and had left “some of them with nothing, whereof this [Francis] was one, and if now he shall be displaced having no other meanes to live on, it will bring him to extreme misery . . .” SP 14/135/10, f. 36. 73 Kok, “Jacques de Gheyn”, 251. The four engravings are of “A Captaine with his Leading staffe, his page carrying his sword and target and sometimes his Pike advanced”, “The Lieutenant with his leading staffe not tasselled, or so full a head as the Capt: or a half pike”, “The ancient with his cowlors displied” and “The fife player with his sword.” These engravings first appeared in England in 1588, a year after their publication by de Gheyn in the Netherlands. They were part of four block prints titled, The true portraiture of the valiant English soldiers in their precedings to the wars for the service of the prince; and honour of their country, 1588. See M. Jones, “Engraved Works Recorded in the Stationers’ Registers, 1562–1656: A Listing and Commentary,” The Walpole Society 64 (2002): 47–48 for reproductions of the engravings. I wish to than Dr. David McKetterick for providing me with this reference.

“practice

put in press”

167

standardize drill in England according to Dutch methods. Company members, as well as those connected with the martial activities taking place at Bishopsgate and at other military yards around the capital, did much to raise awareness of the Maurician reforms and bring de Gheyn’s manual to the attention of soldiers inside and outside the capital. The Artillery Company’s role in producing the earliest printed English drill manuals reveals an interest in military affairs that went beyond weekly displays of playing at soldiering. In fact there was much more happening at the Artillery Company than meets the eye. It had become London’s own “school of war,” the point of contact among veterans of various conflicts and the capital’s civilian soldiers, where knowledge was collected and shared. With Panton’s Table, the focus had been on educating their own, but by the second decade of the seventeenth century, the manuals produced by members were having an impact beyond the walls of the Bishopsgate muster ground, a development that had important implications for military training across the country. The Impact of the INSTRUCTIONS FOR MUSTERS

AND

ARMES of 1623

The Privy Council’s decision to print an official drill manual for the trained bands in the summer of 1623 was not just the product of both the Dutch and English schools of war, but also influenced by a number of the country’s leading soldiers. In a prescient dedication to the reader in his analytical treatise The Art of War and Englands Traynings (1619), Edward Davies offered an overview of the key influences that were to lead to the publication of the Instructions for Musters. Davies first singled out Maurice, who had “invented and set out divers Postures belonging to the orders both of Pike and Musket,” before moving on to compliment two of England’s best known soldiers, Edward Cecil and Horace Vere, for their efforts to maintain and foster the proper use of arms in their regiments serving in the Low Countries. Last, Davies paid tribute to the men of the Honourable Artillery Company and the Westminster Military Yard, where the “Postures and Orders are practiced . . . by worthy Captaines, well experienced in the Martial Discipline and also they are well provided of sufficient Officers.”74 The influence of the Dutch and members of the Artillery Company has already been examined.

74

Davies, The Art of War and Englands Traynings, To The Reader.

168

chapter three

Figure 10. Title page of the Instructions For Musters and Armes of 1623. Courtesy of the British Library.

“practice

put in press”

169

I now move on to the veterans of the Low Countries, Cecil and Vere, as well as Edward Conway and William Compton, earl of Northampton, who were able to link up all these elements to produce the English government’s first printed drill manual in 1623.75 Among this group, Northampton is the odd man out, as he was not a veteran of the European wars. Although he did attempt to join a naval expedition against the Spanish in 1597, his youthful exuberance for battle was quickly stifled by the queen, who asked him to remain in England. Forced to stay at home, Compton threw himself into his duties at court. He is described by the family’s biographer as possessing fine administrative abilities, which he exercised as lord lieutenant of Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Glamorganshire, and Monmouthshire.76 He was created the earl of Northampton in 1618 and named as President of the Council of the Marches of Wales that same year.77 The earl was also an active member of the Jacobean Privy Council, taking great interest in the country’s military affairs throughout the 1620s. In 1628, two years before his death, Northampton received the Order of the Garter from Charles I for his long service to the crown and for his honourable character. Anthony Fletcher called Northampton one of the few zealous lieutenants in the 1620s concurring with Boynton, who described the earl as “one of the most knowledgeable and conscientious of lordlieutenants in promoting the militia’s efficiency;” he was a man whose concern extended to personally inspecting the trained bands in the counties where he was lord lieutenant.78 Boynton also suggested that Northampton was one of the first Jacobean courtiers to recognize the pressing need to issue a book of instructions and postures to make drill uniform across England.79 Northampton’s contemporary Edward Davies, the author of The Art of War and Englands Traynings, paid tribute to the earl’s energy and zeal, praising him for establishing his own

75 See SP 14/108/20 and A.P.C. Vol. 37, 1619–21, 136. Also, see Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia, 239–241. 76 W.B. Compton, The History of the Comptons of Compton Wynyates (London: John Lane, 1930), 48. Northampton’s first son Spencer would later serve alongside Henry Hexham in George Goring’s regiment before returning to England to raise a regiment for the King in 1642. 77 A. Collins and E. Brydges, Collins’s Peerage of England; Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical (London: F.C. and J. Rivington, Otridge and Son, 1812) 236. 78 Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 286 and Boynton, Elizabethan Militia, 251. 79 Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia, 242.

170

chapter three

“school of war” at Ludlow Castle and for his interest in publicizing the latest innovations in military affairs. Boynton indicates that the link between Northampton and the government’s Instructions was through the incorporation of parts of Davies’ Art of War and Englands Traynings into the Jacobean drill manual. The relationship between the two men was fostered during Davies’s visits to the training ground at Ludlow while Northampton was president of the Council of the Marches of Wales. Yet there is little in Davies’ lengthy work that resembles the Instructions. The one section that was included in the Instructions, and can also be found in Davies’ treatise, was in fact taken directly from Bingham’s Exercise of the English. The way Bingham’s work found its way into the Instructions of 1623 was not through Davies but through Bingham’s own role on the Council of War and his connections with Conway and Cecil.80 Boynton went on to point out that if the idea for standardizing training was Northampton’s, authorship of the Instructions should be attributed to Conway, who also is believed to have coined the term “exact militia.”81 In the same letter to Conway in which Edward Cecil had voiced his fears over the lack of a “pattone” for standardizing weaponry at musters, discussed at the end of the last chapter, he also praised Conway for his “Noble work” in bringing the “Kingdome in to a true discipline—a worke so necessary and profitable, that it will be more to ye honor . . .”82 Part of Conway’s “noble work” that Cecil was referring to was the Instructions For Musters, which was published in the early summer of 1623. Conway’s contributions to the defence of the realm have been described in detail. But, I think it is important to note that just as Northampton had done during his lieutenancy, Conway also

80 Davies’ section in The Art of War and Englands Traynings titled “here next is demonstrated the distance observed betwixt Ranke and Ranke, man and man, both in marching, and also in maine battaile” (139) includes the same paragraph (but slightly altered) as found in Bingham’s “The Exercise of a foote Company”; however, the text used in the 1623 manual is exactly that of Bingham and not Davies. Davies also copied another part of Bingham’s introduction, that pertaining to the size of companies. According to Bingham, “the Companies are some more in number, some less,” citing that “some reach 300 men, some 200, some 100, some 90, some 80, some 70.” Davies appears to have misread the figures, claiming that some companies “extend to 100 men, some 200, some 300, some 400, and so forth till 800 men or more.” (145) 81 Boynton, Elizabethan Militia, 241. 82 Dalton, Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, Vol. 2, 46–47. See also R. Lockyer, ‘Cecil, Edward (1572–1638)’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004.

“practice

put in press”

171

took a great deal of interest in the training of the militia in Hampshire where he served as lord lieutenant from 1625 to 1631.83 I find it surprising that historians have tended to overlook the introduction of the drill manual in England, especially in light of attention paid to the impact of the Dutch reforms in the debates surrounding the military revolution and the interest in the spread of Dutch and Swedish reforms to other parts of Europe. The Instructions for Musters has received little more than passing mention, despite its significance as the important first step in a lengthy process for the standardization of drill in England. With it, the Jacobean Privy Council made a clear declaration that drill was no longer a private affair and that captains and muster masters must now train their men according to a set of rules established by the state. The Instructions began by outlining the commands for Open Order, Order, and Close Order drill before giving general instructions on the use of the musket and “the manner there is to give fire retiring from an Enemy.” The drill manual also included brief directions for the training of horse troops and for provisioning the trained bands with match and powder. More detailed directions described how to arrange men in ranks and files, which would have been the first stage of any training done at the musters. Initial instructions in the carriage and the use of arms were carried out in a circle, similar to the methods as used by Tudor captains that were described in Chapter One. In a circle, soldiers could be taught how to move through the various postures for caliver, or musket as the muster master looked on.84 Once the rudiments of drill were learned, the Instructions called on officers to organize their men into companies of a hundred so as to “bee so much the neere together to be trained and exercised with lesse paines to the souldiers, and lesse losse of time.”85 Ten files of ten men each could then be further broken down into files of five, with [t]hose two Middle-men become bringers vp, and then have a kinde of charge over those three between the Leader and the Bringer vp, and will

Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 295. The Instructions stated that it was not necessary to put men through their paces with match, powder or bullets “vntill the Souldiers bee perfect in their postures, and already managing of the Pike when they are armed, and the Musket together with the Rest, that there should be any expense of powder at all.” Once men were trained in the postures, “false fires”, gunpowder place only in the pan, was recommended as a way to practice firing without expending bullets or too much powder. Privy Council, Instructions for Musters and Armes and the use thereof, sig. B3v. 85 Ibid., sig. B3. 83 84

172

chapter three be of great vse in preparing and exercising of the souldiers in the practice of their Armes and order. For it is not intended that the whole Companies should be drawne together to be exercised: vpon Sundayes after Evening prayer, vpon Holy dayes (as it hath been done formerly vsed for Bow) the Leader, Bringer vp, or Middlemen should exercise together with his whole File, or such a part as dwels most convenient to him. [my italics] And further that once in a moneth, or six weeks, the Captaine, Lieutenant or Ancient that dwels next him) vpon Holiday exercise a Squadron of his Company, or the whole, as shall seeme good to the Deputie Lieutenant.86

Edmondes’s The Maner of Our Moderne Training and the Artillery Company’s 1616 Orders Established had singled out the importance of the file leaders, middle-men, and bringers up in the training of its members and how it relied on the expertise of these men to assist in the training of those new to the ranks. By breaking the militia companies into smaller groups of kinsmen or friends who hailed from the same village or hundred, men could continue to train together on weekends or at petty musters after they returned home from the annual musters. Such a system also allowed for the old hands to train new band members in drill before they went off to musters. The distribution of the de Gheyn postures in Daniel’s Military Discipline also provided local bands with uniform pictorial representations of the pike and shot movements and extended the hand of government control over the smallest details of military training. In Leicestershire, for example, Thomas Cogswell found that all trained band captains were given a copy of the Privy Council’s Instructions and these books were used in the years that followed.87 Despite the apparent enthusiasm for change, there were conflicting reports as to the success of the Instructions in improving the training of the militia in the months and years after it was sent to the counties. Reports from London describe a flurry of military activity as AngloSpanish relations deteriorated in 1623–4. The Venetian ambassador Alvise Valaresso wrote in 1624 that the English were “devoting themselves with more than ordinary diligence to set in order the militia of the Kingdom. In many places it has increased and in London it has doubled.”88 But two years after the drill books were sent to the deputy lieutenants, the earl of Northampton reported that the county officials had been very “slack” in performing their duties with respect to orgaIbid. T. Cogswell, Home Divisions: Aristocracy, the state and provincial conflict (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 50. 88 CSPV, Vol. 18. 1623–1625, 280. 86 87

“practice

put in press”

173

nizing musters, training the bands, and punishing men for non-attendance.89 The reissuing of the Instructions by Charles I’s Privy Council in 1625 implies that there was some degree of displeasure among the government with the state of the “exact” or “perfect” militia. In a letter to the lord lieutenants dated August 13, 1625, the Privy Council called for the Instructions to “be put into execution,” as placing the trained bands “into readiness would give life and courage to our good subiectes and feers into those that may intend any disturbance or Innovation.”90 In another letter to the lieutenants on January 14, 1625/26, the Privy Council gave further instructions on how the newly issued books were to be incorporated into training. “Captaines, Lieutenants, Ensignes, and other officers and leaders of files of euerie company” were expected to carry out the instructions “going from one company to another” to make sure that the training was being properly carried out. To explain the postures, the Council recommended that at “convenyent times have a whole company or a good parte therof drawne together to have them the more demonstratively the use of those printed bookes, and give them the true undestandinge of them.”91 The Council also wished to see drill standardized, particularly with regard to the issuing of words of commands. They called upon the Low Countries veterans who had been sent to the counties to assist in training the captains to remain there “for three months” to “dayly exercise wth the officers theire may be som reasonable number of the souldiers drawn together twice a weeke during there staye in the country.” During this time the veterans were to see and direct the officers how to exercise them and that none of the tymes appointed by the printed Bookes for the exercises be omitted but duely kept & the exercises prformed. This one thing we require to be observed that the same words in trayneing be used that are sett downe in printed Bookes and more others, that when a body of an army shall be drawne together the souldiers may not be distracted wth diversitie of Tearmes but may fynde the same words wh they learned at home and so be able to understand and obey them.92

BL, Add. Mss. 11050, Herefordshire Lieutenancy Papers, f. 129. Ibid., f. 133. 91 Ibid., f. 150. 92 E. Cunliffe, “Booke Concerning the Deputy Lieutenantshipp,” Sussex Archaeological Collections, Vol. XL, 1896, 11. 89 90

174

chapter three

The message appears to have gotten through to some of the deputies. Sir Edward Dering, the Kentish MP and muster master travelled to London in 1625/26 and recorded in his book of expenses the purchase of two books on the subject of mustering.93 Dering’s decision to purchase books of his own may have been the result of the problems of getting manuals to the counties. That same year, the counties informed the Council that they had not received a sufficient number of printed manuals to assist with training. In October 1626, the Council responded writing to the lieutenants to tell them that an order had been placed for “500 books to be sent to every Countye.”94 Training the militia over the course of a year was one thing, but teaching conscripts plucked from gaols and bridewells to handle weapons and to carry out battlefield motions was a futile endeavour, a fact that a succession of Jacobean and Caroline officers were to discover. That said there were attempts to train these men using printed drill manuals, as evidenced in Count Mansfields Directions of Warre, printed by Edward Allde and Richard Whitaker and distributed before Mansfeld’s expedition set off for the Low Countries in 1624.95 Directions of Warre had two parts; the first was a description of the various offices of the Regiment, both of foot and horse, while the second, titled the “Dignitie of Souldiers in Fyles,” was an explanation of the methods and manner of drill as it was to be exercised by files of ten men. This twenty-six-page section could not have been very helpful to a conscripted army that was ill trained, undisciplined, and poorly led, even if the intention was to have it well drilled by the time the troops reached Germany.96 The duties of each of the file members were spelled out, as were the three distances—open order, order, and close order. The work concluded with brief explanations of the countermarch and advancing on the enemy

93 See L. Yeandle, “Sir Edward Dering of Surrenden Dering and ‘His Booke of Expences’ ” Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. CXXV, 2005, 327. Along with his copy of the 1623 instructions, Dering’s library housed eight other books on military affairs, including, Bingham’s Tactiks of Aelian, Dallington’s Aphorismes Civill and militarie, along with the two classical studies of war, Vegetius’s De Re Militari and Frontinus’s Stratagemes. See R.J. Fehrenbach, Private Libraries in Renaissance England, Vol. 1, (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1992), 137–161. 94 W. Rye, State Paper Relating to Musters, Beacons, Shipmoney, &c. in Norfolk (Norfolk: Goose and Son, 1907), 35. 95 Count Mansfields Directions of Warre (London: Edward Allde and Richard Whitaker, 1624). 96 Mark Fissel points out that not only were the soldiers ill-prepared but the officers were also wanting. See M. Fissel, English Warfare, 107.

“practice

put in press”

175

with pike and shot. The Directions of Warre differed in many ways from Leicester’s Lawes and ordinances militarie, printed in 1585 and issued to soldiers making their way to the Low Countries nearly forty years earlier. Unlike the martial code and disciplinary procedures of Leicester’s instructions, Mansfeld’s Directions were drawn up with the specific goal of assisting in the training of English soldiers in modern drill, though few of Mansfeld’s troops seem to have survived long enough to make good use of the either their manuals or their weapons. A year later, in 1625, Roger Daniel, the London printer responsible for the book of postures included with the Privy Council’s Instructions, published Mars His Field, or the Exercise of Arms, an edition of postures for buckler, pike, and sword. These postures were copies of those found in Adam Breen’s Neuwe Nassauwische Waffen-Handlung von Schilt, Spies, Rappier und Targa . . . (1618).97 Daniel’s decision to print the manual dedicated to the training of sword and buckler reflected on continental, rather then English practice, as the round target and short sword were no longer used by English forces fighting the Netherlands. However, Maurice of Nassau did employ them in his army, as did his Spanish enemies. In his manuscript “The dutie of a private soldier” Cecil included a section on Maurice’s use of the weapons, stating that the prince hath found a Target of great use and advantage to the service of pikemen: both for defence, and offence; it weighs but 6 pounds wch is not much heavier than the pouldrons . . . In marching it hangs behind: about ones back, the neck and the body, wth little trouble. And being to be used it is turned before wth the motion onely of the left shoulder, and for applying it selfe as a man will, to the defence of all but the head and legs. It serves with a short sword when a man can use his Pike not longer; when pikes are broken it is weapon of good safetie . . . upon a suddaine alarm a man may defend himself in his shirt wth it. The target will receive many Pikes into it.98

The Dutch sword and buckler men, also known as rondassiers or targiëdragers, carried either long rectangular shields or round targets. They could be found among the front ranks of the pike squares using their short swords to slash away at the tips of the enemy’s pikes or doing battle with the Spanish buckler men, who were, as Garret Barry notes in his analytical treatise A Discourse Of Military Discipline (1634), still part 97 A. Breen, Neuwe Nassauwische Waffen-Handlung von Schilt, Spies, Rappier und Targa . . . (The Hague: s.n., 1618). 98 BL, Harley 3638, “Dutie of a private soldier,” f. 156 v.

176

chapter three

of Spanish tercios as late as the 1630s.99 Despite Cecil’s praise for the weapons, sword and buckler men garnered little attention from military writers in England. In The A, B, C, of Armes, I.T. wrote that all short weapons, including targeteers “are in these times merely out of vse.” In Mars His Triumph (1638), William Barriffe described the military exercise carried out by the Artillery Company in October 1638 in which eighteen members wore morions and carried swords and targets.100 Nevertheless, these men were not engaged in training, but dressed like ancient soldiers (Barriffe also makes reference in the same paragraph to forty other members of the company carrying modern weapons). Those carrying swords and targets were divided in two groups of nine each to battle with one other and they did not engage the men with modern arms or the members dressed as Saracens. It would appear that Daniel’s decision to print Breen’s engravings made little business sense, but with the English once again deciding to engage in war with their Spanish enemies he must have believed that the English would benefit from a better understanding of the tactics of their enemies as well as those of their Dutch allies. Another author who took advantage of the “greate and threatening preparacions made at this present both in Spain and fflanders” was Gervase Markham, whose two books dedicated to the exercise of arms appeared between 1625 and 1627. Markham’s The Souldiers Accidence (1625)101 and The Souldier’s Grammar (which was printed in two parts, the first in 1626 and the second in 1627) are a cross between an

99 J.P. Pupye, “Victory at Nieuwpoort, 2 July 1600” in M. van der Hoeven (ed.) Exercise of Arms: Warfare in the Netherlands, 1568–1648 (Brill: Leiden, 1997), 78. 100 W. Barriffe, Mars His Triumph Or, The Description of an Exercise performed the XVIII of October, 1638. in Merchant-Taylors Hall by Certain Gentlemen of the Artillery Garden (London: I.L. for Ralph Mabbe, 1639). 101 G. Markham, The souldiers grammar containing, the high, necessarie, and most curious rules of that art militarie: as first, whether it be in great motions in generall? Or foote motions especially? Or motions of horse, generall, or speciall? The ranges of foote, or horse? The ranges of officers. The seuerall imbattailings of foote, and horse. The imbattailing of a regiment. The ioyning of many regiments. Or the forming of maine battailes, of any extent, or number; with their formes, and figures, in liuely demonstration. &c. By G.M. Gent (London: A. Mathewes for William Shefford, 1626). A second edition of The souldiers grammer was printed in 1639 and another edition was included as part of Markham’s The souldiers exercise: in three bookes· Containing most necessary and curious rules for the exact mustering both of horse-troopes, and foote-bands, with severall formes of battailes described in figures. A worke fit to bee studied, and meet for the knowledge of captaines, muster-masters, and all young souldiers, and generous spirits that love the honourable practise of armes. By G. Markham (London: John Norton for John Bellamy, Hugh Perry, and Henry Overton, 1639).

“practice

put in press”

177

analytical treatise and a drill manual.102 According to Markham, The Souldiers Accidence contained the “most necessary and curious rules for the exact mustering both of horse-troop and Foote-bands,” while The Souldiers Grammar looked at the art of war as it should be practised by battalions. In The Souldiers Accidence, Markham took the outline from his organizational plan for musters found in his A Schoole for young souldiers and expanded on it, describing the carriage and sorting of arms, distances, marching, and motions, the words of command, and the sounds of the drum, in much greater detail than he had on his broadsheet. This discussion runs only thirty-seven pages and while it does not use any illustrations to depict the postures and motions used in drilling troops, The Souldiers Grammar does make use of figures and diagrams to illustrate a variety of formations and motions that might be used when armies go into battle. In The Souldiers Accidence, Markham overlooked ancient military antecedents, but he did visit them in the first part of The Souldiers Grammar. As I have suggested, Markham was not a great military theorist and he was not recognized by other English military writers of merit, such as Robert Ward or Henry Hexham, as a serious contributor to the debates on military affairs. Markham did, however, pride himself on being something of a popularizer of military affairs, responding to the Anglo-Spanish conflict with his own particular brand of martial advice.103 The Drill Manual in the Personal Rule Period Jacobean and early Caroline efforts to improve militia training and impose a uniform system of drill on the trained bands continued into

102 G. Markham, The souldiers accidence. Or an introduction into military discipline containing the first principles and necessary knowledge meete for captaines, muster-masters, and all young souldiers of the infantrie, or foote bandes. Also, the cavallarie or formes of trayning of horse-troopes, as it hath beene received from the latest and best experiences armies. A worke fit for all noble, generous, and good spirits, that loue honor, or honorable action. G.M (London: Printed by I. D[awson] for John Bellamie, 1625). Aecond edition of the The Souldiers accidence was printed in 1635 in London by W. J[ones] and T. P[laine] for John Bellamie. A third edition also appeared as part of Markham’s The souldiers exercise. 103 Markham relied heavily on the work of Vegetius and the influence of the Roman is apparent in Markham’s Muster Master, the manuscript work on military training that was written sometime in the 1630s. See “The Muster Master by Gervase Markham,” in C.L. Hamilton, ed., Camden Miscellany Vol. XXVI, 4th Series, (London: Royal Historical Society, 1975), 49–76.

178

chapter three

the peaceful years of the Personal Rule period that lasted from 1629 until 1640. Charles I’s goal of creating a “perfect” or “exact” militia as a defence against foreign invasion continued into the 1630s, albeit somewhat unevenly from county to county. In 1631 the Caroline government reissued the Instructions For Musters and Armes, an indication of the Council’s intention to carry on the work that began in 1623. The new Instructions were printed by the King’s printer, Robert Barker, and included only one minor change to the 1623 Instructions issued by James I. The 1631 manual saw the removal of the sentence first found in the text taken from Bingham’s The Exercise of the English that claimed that the postures to be observed were to be found in his “Excellencies Booke.”104 The statement now sounded out of sorts, owing to the addition of the engravings of forty-eight musket and thirty-six pike postures in the manner of de Gheyn that were now printed alongside the set of older instructions from the 1623 manual. As of 1631, the government could now offer its lieutenants a single volume that included the directions and the postures and provided deputy lieutenants and muster masters with a uniform, portable set of instructions that were common to all the trained bands. The 1631 Instructions were apparently sufficient to see the trained bands through the 1630s, as neither the Privy Council nor the lieutenancy recommended the printing of new drill books until tensions began to mount between the Scots and the English in the days leading up to the Bishops’ Wars.105 Over the course of Charles’s personal rule, musters continued to be held with some regularity and there were even improvements in training in some areas of the country. Mark Fissel argues in his study of the Bishops’ Wars that “the trained bands had attained their highest level of proficiency” by 1638 and that the “militia was at least as well prepared for service as during the peak years of Elizabethan invasion scares.”106 Henrik Langelüddecke has explored local parish accounts in the Personal Rule period and discovered that the militia underwent training on a fairly regular basis between 1631 and 1640. Langelüddecke reveals that parishes in various parts of the

104 Privy Council, Instructions for Musters and Armes and the use thereof (London: Robert Barker, 1631), sig. B. 105 See Anon., Directions for Musters: Wherein is shewed the order of drilling for the Musket and Pike. Set forth in postures of command, and brief instructions for the right use of the same (Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel, 1638) described on page 170. 106 Fissel, The Bishops’ Wars, 196–97.

“practice

put in press”

179

country recorded the purchase of powder and the payment of muster masters and called yearly musters and petty musters to train villagers with caliver and musket. He concludes that these training sessions were hardly fun and games as [a]mmunition was not used on parades, and Muster Masters were not hired for decorative reasons. On the contrary, it is certain that parishes and counties did not undertake the investment in powder and bullets and in hiring an expert without receiving maximum benefit. The use of ammunition and the presence of Muster Masters suggest the Deputy Lieutenants took the training of their regiments seriously.107

Three separate editions of the Instructions for Musters had been printed since 1623 and were now available for use by county officials, along with the privately printed manuals described above. Two new privately printed manuals, both products of the Artillery Company, appeared in the 1630s, Thomas Fisher’s Warlike Directions, Or the Souldiers Practice (1634) and William Barriffe’s Military Discipline: or The Yong Artillery Man (1635). Each manual went to multiple editions; Fisher’s was reprinted in 1642, while Bariffe’s manual saw a total of five printings between 1635 and 1661.108 Fisher’s Warlike Directions was a little handbook, small enough to fit into one’s pocket and written by a veteran of the Dutch wars and a serving muster master in the Kentish militia.109 Fisher praised the Council’s Instructions and the “many very excellent Books of military discipline set forth within these few years” and hoped his handbook would help officers who still considered themselves in training for the wars, those who felt that they might be lacking in experience, and those who “not yet be settled or rightly grounded in the Arte of Warre.”110 He drew heavily on his years in Dutch service, stressing that his manual was consistent with the “discipline which is now practised within the

107 H. Langelüddecke, “ ‘The chiefest strength and glory of this kingdom’: Arming and Training the ‘Perfect Militia’ in the 1630s,” English Historical Review 479 (November 2003): 1292. 108 The 1635 edition of Barriffe’s Military discipline: or, the yong artillery man was published in London and printed by Thomas Harper for Ralph Mabbe. The second edition in 1639 was printed by R. Oulton for Ralph Mabbe, while the third and fourth editions were printed by John Dawson and appeared in 1643 and 1647, respectively. The final edition was printed in 1661 by Dawson’s widow, Gartrude. 109 T. Fisher, Warlike Directions, or the Souldiers Practise, Set forth for the benefit of all such as are, or will be Schollers of martiall Discipline. But especially for all such Officers as are not yet setled or rightly grounded in the Arte of Warre (London: Thomas Harper, 1634), The Epistle Dedicatory. 110 Ibid., Frontispiece.

180

chapter three

Netherlands, under the command of the Prince of Orange.”111 Like so many of the drill manuals printed in the previous decade, Fisher stuck to familiar territory and covered the postures and the motions that he remarked were those “commonly known, and practised by the Officers and Companies in the Netherlands.112 Engravings were included to provide help in explaining the proper manner of outfitting pike and shot, and he concluded with diagrams of various exercises for companies or battalions numbering between 200 and 500 men.113 The popularity of Fisher’s Warlike Directions was surpassed by Barriffe’s Military Discipline: or The Yong Artillery Man,114 and though C.H. Firth could find few kind words for the Barriffe’s work, contemporaries recognized the Military Discipline: or The Yong Artillery Man as playing an important part in the training of Royalist and Parliamentary soldiers in the first years of the Civil War.115 Nathaniel Burt, writing in 1644, described the Bariffe’s manual as “the complete and perfect method” known for sufficiency and plainnesse, to speak truly, I think as yet unparralled in any languages, which being perfectly apprehended and understood, will furnish the Partie that shall understand it, in the Rudiments (God giving him courage to performe and act it sufficiently) in most things.116

In 1672, many years after the conclusion of the fighting between Royalist and Cavalier, Thomas Venn, the author of Military and maritime discipline in three books and an officer in the Artillery Company, referred newly commissioned officers in the English army to Barriffe’s manual, as well as those written by Bingham, Hexham, and Ward. Venn claimed

Ibid., 2. See J. Tsushima, “Members of the Stationers’ Company who served in Artillery Company Before the Civil War; Ralphe Mabbe and his network,” 67. 113 Fisher, Warlike Directions or the Souldiers Practise, 25. Warlike Directions was reprinted in 1643 just after the outbreak of the Civil War. 114 Barriffe, Military Discipline: or The Yong Artillery Man (London: Thomas Harper, for Ralph Mabbe, 1635). 115 See Carlton, Going to the Wars, 72 and Barratt, Cavaliers, 3. Firth described Barriffe’s book as “full of complicated and fantastic marches and counter-marches, and of curious formations which were never practiced in war, which expert soldiers banished even from the parade ground.” See Firth, Cromwell’s Army, 68. 116 N. Burt, Military Instructions or the Souldier tried for the use, of the Dragon Being a Part of the Cavalrie . . . (London, s.n., 1644). 111 112

“practice

put in press”

181

that he had “received informations of great worth” from these early authorities.117 Barriffe’s Military Discipline: or The Yong Artillery Man might be better termed an analytical treatise, and I will explore it in more detail in the next chapter. Nevertheless, the first chapter, “Concerning Postures and handling Armes,” did include a description of drill as it was understood in the 1630s and provides valuable insight into the training of new levies before (and probably during) the Civil War. Barriffe’s treatise was free of references to martial law, the offices of war, and the art of war as it was practised in classical antiquity, stating in his dedication that the book was not to be “deckt with historicall discourses, or forraine fought Battels.”118 Instead, Barriffe concentrated on the elements of early modern warfare, “set[ting] forth the exact grounds . . . for exercising of a foot Company.” He went on to explain that the purpose of the manual was “for the bettering of the judgement of such young Gentlemen and Souldiers whose mindes stand this way affected,” a process that began, he said, with the instruction of a private company.119 A second dedication from Barriffe to Captains Edward Dichfield and Henry Saunders of the Military Society of Cripplegate suggests that regular training sessions during the Personal Rule period were not only common to the Artillery Company and to some county militias, but also to the other military gardens across London. Barriffe paid tribute to the Private and Loving Company of Cripplegate, which was formed in 1628, and was said to have trained regularly from 6:00 am to 7:00 am each Thursday of the summer, so as to allow members to drill before they went about their daily affairs. During these weekly musters, the society trained in the postures, the motions, and practised with “false fires.” Rather than compete with the Artillery Company, Barriffe recognized the symbiotic relationship that existed between the men of Cripplegate and the men of the Artillery Garden, who each bore the fruits of their mutual interest in the martial arts and thereby brought the “King and Kingdom much honour.”120

117 T. Venn, Military and Marine Discipline in Three Books (London: E. Tyler and R. Holt for Robert Pawles, 1672), 33. 118 Barrife, Military Discipline, or The Yong Artillery Man, To The Right Worshipfull, Sir Ralph Bosvile. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid., To The Worthy Captaines, Edward Dichfield.

182

chapter three

Two subsequent editions of the Military Discipline, the first printed in 1639 and the second in 1643, included additions and revisions that offer a better picture of Barriffe’s views on infantry drill than those found in the first edition of 1635. The 1639 edition added a dedication to the captains of London’s trained bands with special recognition for those men who served in the ranks of the Artillery Company and the other London military companies. Barriffe explained that at the Artillery Company he was first beholden of “the Rules and Rudiments of my Military Instruction.121 Unlike the first edition, the 1639 and 1643 editions emphasized the importance of safety as a reason why new recruits needed to learn to correctly manage pike and shot. According to Barriffe, [t]he first Rudiments of education, wherewithal to enter young Soldiers which desire to be instructed in that part of the Art Military, which concerneth the Infantry for Foot-Soldiers ought to be the well managing and handling of their Armes, which may easily be attained by frequent Practice, and the Souldiers thereby brought to use them with ease, safety and delight; where to the contrary without exercises, the easiest Armes become not onely troublesome burthens unto the unskilled bearers, but too often prove dangerous and hurtfull, both to themselves and fellowes that rank and file with them . . .122

The contributions of Fisher’s and Barriffe’s manuals to the growing list of English drill books was a further indication that even after the war drums of the 1620s had died down, the Artillery Company remained actively engaged in exploring ways to improve methods of training for infantry warfare. There is little doubt that by the mid-1630s, standardized instructions like Clarke’s Table, which was reprinted in 1636, along with the library of English drill manuals, now complete with instructions and engravings, were an accepted part of training among English soldiers.123 As Barriffe indicated, practical guides that set out the “true grounds of military discipline” were better suited to instructing soldiers than those works that dabbled in the theory and practice of the ancients. As war loomed between the English and the Scots in 1638, a new set of drill instructions, The Directions for Musters,

121 Barriffe, Military Discipline: or The Young Artillery Man (London: Ralph Mabbe, 1639), sig. ¶ v. 122 Barriffe, Military Discipline: or The Young Artillery Man (London: M.C. 1643), 1. 123 Clarke, This Table Doth Demonstrate LI Postvres to the Mvskettier and XXXIII To the Pikemen with Three Wordes of Command Plainly Expressed in the Instructions Following.

“practice

put in press”

183

was printed by the Cambridge University printers Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel. The Directions for Musters followed a different pattern than the 1623 and 1631 Instructions issued by the Privy Council. This new set of drill instructions opened with a description of the type of men best suited for membership in the trained bands, establishing that men be “sufficient, of able and active bodies,” and none of the “meaner sort, nor servants; but onely such as be of the Gentrie, Free-holders, and good Farmers or their sonnes,” should serve in the ranks of the militia. Those who served were expected to be “well affected in Religion” and subscribe to the oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance.124 Along the margin of the text, notes were provided that referenced Privy Council orders and statutory precedents that were the legal underpinning for militia service since the mid-sixteenth century. Included among the notes were repeated references to the Tudor militia statute, 4 & 5 Philip and Mary, caps. 2 and 3, that put the burden of providing weapons and horses for the militia on the local landowners and clergy. The addition of this, and other precedents, may have been included to give the lord and deputy lieutenants and company captains the legal leverage to convince local inhabitants to contribute to the upkeep of the trained bands.125 With respect to drill, the 1638 Directions was more thorough than its predecessors in describing how the militia should be exercised at musters. The focus of the manual remained solely on the training of foot companies, with captains directed to refer to John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie (1632) for directions on exercising horse companies; this was one more indication of the interplay between printed books and training in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Directions included the fortyeight musket and thirty-six pike postures found in the 1631 Instructions, while giving a more comprehensive explanation of the motions and training methods to be used by the captains. A year later the first part of Henry Hexham’s The Principles of the Art Militarie was printed, further reinforcing Barriffe’s claim that practical guides to infantry drill made better sense for the modern warrior than 124 Directions for Musters: Wherein is shewed the order of drilling for the Musket and Pike. Set forth in postures of command, and brief instructions for the right use of the same (Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel, 1638), sig. A2. 125 Ibid. The Directions called upon each company captain to charge arms “equally and impartially, according to the value of each man’s lands or means, whether the owners be there resident or not. And no Armes are to be allowed of but compleat ones, and of the best moderne fashion. Every man must have the Horse or Armes he stands charged with, at all times ready at an houres warning, of his own.

184

chapter three

studies of ancient theory and practice. Hexham’s years of service in the Netherlands had provided him with ample opportunity to observe the workings of Maurician drill. His manual was an impressive mix of instructions and engravings that detailed both the postures and the motions. The de Gheyn pike and musket engravings were reproduced alongside the best diagrams to date which denoted the motions of doubling, countermarching, and wheeling. Hexham’s Principles is a fine study of warfare as it was practised in the Low Countries and its superb representation of the rapid evolution of the English drill manual over the course of the 1620s and 1630s. The Principles of the Art Militarie concerned itself with the duties and responsibilities of those expected to lead and train foot companies, captains, lieutenants, ensigns, sergeants, and corporals. According to Hexham, each company was to be divided into three squadrons, with a corporal and a lanspresado responsible for making sure that new recruits were properly trained when they entered the ranks.126 Corporals were expected to instruct them in the use of their armes, and must not suffer the old souldiers to mock or geere the younger, if they do not their postures as they ought, seeing that every man in every science, and profession must have time of learning, before they can be perfect: and if he doth not well, he must goe over and over againe with them patiently; until such time, as hee hath made him a good muskettier, or pike, for which he shall get commendations of his captaine, and his other officers.127

Further down the chain of command, the sergeant was also expected to teach “souldiers the true and perfect use of their armes, his duty is to march upon the flanke of the company or devision, to see the souldiers keepes their ranke and files.”128 Hexham recommended that the goal was to train the young soldier “to fall naturally, and gracefully to the doing of his postures, and . . . take delight in handling of his musket, avoiding antique and dancing postures, which heretofore have been taught by some officers, but now is grown ridiculous, not beseeming and becomming the grave comportment, and carriage of a soldier.”129

126 Lanspresado (also spelled lancepesade or lanceprisado) was the lowest ranking non-commissioned officer. 127 H. Hexham, The Principles Of the Art Militarie; Practised in the Warres of the Vnited Netherlands, 4. 128 Ibid., 3. 129 Ibid., sig. C.

“practice

put in press”

185

Teaching the basics of drill so that the postures fell “naturally and gracefully” appears to have been connected to drilling with the accompaniment of music so as to help make the movements more rhythmic. It is unclear whether this is what Hexham meant by “dancing postures,” but a description of the London Artillery Company’s 1638 exercise at the Merchant Taylor’s Hall does describe the postures being performed to the accompaniment of drums and fifes.130 Barriffe’s account of the Merchant Taylor’s exercise notes the playing of the “posture tune,” with the posture steps divided into threes, which helped the men maintain a rhythm.131 When the postures were completed, another tune, the Almaine tune, was arranged for the motions. It is difficult to determine the extent to which music was used to train militias outside of the elite members of the Honourable Company of the Artillery Garden. The Merchant’s Hall exercise in 1638 was a spectacle meant to stir the London crowds and the use of drums and fife may have just been for show. However, Barriffe’s description suggests that both the posture tune and the Almaine tune were recognizable to members and may have been another method for training with pike and shot. Drill Manuals in the First Years of the English Civil War On the eve of the English Civil War, drilling with pike and musket according to continental practice was well established among the ranks of the English trained bands and military societies. Barriffe, for instance, had described the members of the London Company as “no younglings in the Art Military,” with their “ready obedience, and active motion on each varietie.”132 At the time that Parliamentary and Royalist armies were being raised in the summer of 1642, it had been nearly twenty years since the publication of the 1623 Instructions For Musters and Armes and printed copies of the Crown’s drill manuals could be found in the libraries of many county officials. Privately printed manuals, like those already noted, had also been available through London booksellers, and stocks remained for sale to men who joined the ranks of both armies. Even with this array of manuals, printers and booksellers quickly

130 131 132

W. Barriffe, Mars, His Triumph (London: I.L. for Ralph Mabbe, 1639). Ibid., 10. Ibid., 39.

186

chapter three

rushed to meet the new demands for books and manuals that could be used to train the thousands of raw recruits willing to join one side or the other. During that summer, seven new drill manuals appeared at bookstalls in London, all being of similar length and content. The longest, The Yong Souldier, by John Raynsford, numbered sixteen pages, while the shortest, A True Description of the Discipline of War was just eight pages.133 Each manual detailed the rudiments of drill, including the use of arms, distances, motions, and firings but all did so without use of the illustrations of the pike and shot postures that were common to works of the late Jacobean and early Caroline period. The exclusion of engravings of the postures could have been due to the ubiquity of the Privy Council’s drill manuals among the trained bands by 1640s, but may have also been a business decision on the part of the printers, who decided against the use of engravings of the postures so as to get the drill manuals into print quickly. Of the seven manuals published in 1642, The Military Discipline printed by Thomas Jenner and The Exercise For Yong Artillery Men: or the Militia of the Kingdome in its Posture of Warre from the press of the devout Puritan Michael Sparke, Sr. were simply verbatim copies of John Bingham’s Exercise of the English.134 To this list of manuals taken from earlier printings, we should add Clement Edmondes’s The Maner of Our Moderne Training which appeared under the title A Few Words to the Trained Bands and Souldiers of London Citie in these Perilous Times. The anonymous author of The Exercise For Yong Artillery Men made no attempt to make any alterations to Bingham’s horse and foot instructions, copying all eight pages of The Exercise of the English. The author of The Military Discipline on the other hand, made some slight modifications to those same instructions calling his manual the “Exercise of the English, in the Militia of the Kingdom” and altering the number of men per file, which Bingham had listed as ten but which were described as being 133 Many of these drill books were not entered into the Stationer’s Register making it difficult to determine which may have influenced the other. The only title noted in this final part of the chapter that was registered, was The Complete Schoole of Warre, printed by Michael Sparke Sr. and entered by Richard Harper into the Register on September 24, 1642. 134 Anon., The Military Discipline Wherin is Martially Showne the order for Drilling the Musket and Pike. Set Forth in postures with ye command, and brief instructions for the right use of the same (London: Thomas Jenner, 1642) and The Exercise For Yong Artillery Men: or the Militia of the Kingdome in its Posture of Warre. Whereupon are added the Orders meete to bee observed upon any Forraigne Invasion, for the Shires that lye on the Sea Coast (London: Michael Sparke Sr., 1642).

“practice

put in press”

187

either “6, 8, or 10 men” deep.135 A final section of Military Discipline, titled “One dayes Exercise” was added, with this series of instructions for training being taken directly from the pages of Barriffe’s Military Discipline, Or, The Yong Artillery Man (1635).136 Both The Exercise For Yong Artillery Men and Military Discipline appear to have been printed quickly, with the intention of profiting from the rush to war and, while neither drill book could be labelled as innovative, the instructions were sufficiently useful to train men in the basics for infantry drill, which had not altered dramatically in the last twenty years. Two other drill books printed in 1642 also appeared under different titles but contained the same set of directions. The first was A Compleat Schoole of Warre or the Direct way of the ordering and Exercising of a Foot Company written by R.M., “an expert commander,” and printed in London for Richard Harper in 1642.137 The second, General Lessley’s Direction and Order For the Exercising of Horse and Foot was printed in London by Richard Badger for L. Blaikelock.138 The seven-page manuals covered only the orders for exercising foot companies and the directions opened with a description of opening, closing ranks, and doubling ranks as was common to the manuals of the 1620s. These exercises were followed by instructions for advancing and firing on an enemy, both giving fire by the front ranks and by left and right files. The two manuals close with a discussion of the place of officers among the ranks and the establishing of distances between ranks and files. These books worked from the premise that the soldiers were well versed in the postures and were concerned with engaging the ranks with an enemy, rather than simply training men to handle their weapons. A much more innovative manual from the first year of the war was John Raynsford’s The Yong Souldier, which the author dedicated to William Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele. Raynsford was one of the muster masters responsible for training the militia under Saye and Sele who

135 Anon., General Lessley’s Direction and Order For the Exercising of Horse and Foot (London: Richard Badger for L. Blaikelock, 1642). 136 See Barriffe, Military Discipline: or, The Yong Artillery Man, 297. 137 Anon., A Compleat Schoole of Warre or the Direct way of the ordering and Exercising of a Foot Company, Harper entered A Complete School of Warre in the Stationer’s Register on 24 September, 1642. 138 Instructions covering the horse were not included in General Lessley’s Direction and Order For the Exercising of Horse and Foot. A note at the end of the manual informed readers that due to defects appearing in the proof copy, the author saw fit to remove the section so as not to misinform his readers.

188

chapter three

had been named lord lieutenant of Cheshire, Gloucestershire, and Oxfordshire after the passage of the Militia Ordinance in March 1642. Raynsford’s drill manual grew out of his experience training the militia and he indicated in the dedication that his book was “a copy of what I formerly taught them.” He went on to confidently assert that despite its small size, it was “very necessary both for the present and future times.”139 Raynsford’s Yong Souldier included directions for foot and horse, complete with figures setting out the manner of marching a company and forming the musket and pike into squares. The drills found in Yong Souldier were elementary, with instructions for doubling ranks and countermarching for both infantry and cavalry, followed by the short commands for musket as they had appeared in de Gheyn and in subsequent drill books. Raynsford concluded with a set of narrative directions on how to advance, retire, and give fire from the front ranks and flanks. As with so many drill books of the period, intricate motions and formations were left out as most commentators knew that instilling discipline in these new recruits would be a victory unto itself. For Raynsford, his set of instructions was considered suitable for taking his young students of war from the muster ground to the field of battle. Drill books were also being prepared for the recruits who entered the ranks of the Royalist army during the late summer and fall of 1642. A True Description of the Discipline of War was printed for use among the Whitecoats, the regiment raised by the earl of Newcastle.140 The instructions, which were written for an audience of corporals and sergeants, explored the “order and manner of marching and exercising in the field.” A True Description of the Discipline of War paints a vivid picture of what training must have been like in the early days of the war. To train the musketeers in firing their weapons, sergeants were advised to set up two halberds, the first as the starting point where the ranks would carry out their postures and fire their weapons before retiring to the second halberd fifty paces in the rear, where the troops would reload. Officers were also instructed to teach their musketeers how to volley fire, training men to advance either by one or two ranks, moving ahead twenty paces before discharging their weapons, and then falling

139 J. Raynsford, The Yong Souldier (London: J.R. for Joseph Hunscott, 1642), Dedication. 140 Anon., A true description of the war both for horse and foot, His Maiesties army, under the excellencies William Earle of New-castle and Prince Robert. With the order of their marching and exercising in the Field (London: s.n., 1642).

“practice

put in press”

189

back to the rear of their files to reload. While in the rear, the commander of the company was to see that the files were given powder or replacements were added to the files if men were killed, wounded, or too weary to continue. Practising these motions was to occur daily under the watchful eye of the sergeant who was expected to take “special care in drilling the squadrons.”141 A True Description of the Discipline of War also reminded officers to instruct the recruits in how to prime their pans with “small and dry powder” and to ensure that the match was of sufficient length that it could light the powder but not too long or heavy that it “holds backe the cocke that it will not close the pan.”142 This advice could mean the difference between living and dying on the battlefield and the inclusion of this kind of information reflected the time honoured tradition of older soldiers passing along useful bits of information to the new recruits to help keep them alive. The second part of manual set out directions for marching, which were common to many of the analytical treatises of the period, and described the distance between regiments, the order that musketeers, pikemen, and cavalry were to follow on the march and where the women and boys of the regiment were to march. For those unwilling to read even the shortest of manuals, broadsheets were printed that summarized the “brief rules” of drill in rhyming verse. The Grounds of Military Discipline, printed in 1642, cheerfully tutored recruits in distances, facing, countermarching, and wheeling, urging soldiers “in March, in Motion, troop or stand” to “Observe both Leader and right hand.”143 Each stanza of the Grounds of Military Discipline corresponded to a different set of instructions for the motions. Facing, for example, called for men to Face to the right, or to the left, both wayes to the Inward, outward, and as you were: reare, To the front, reare, flanks, and peradventure To every Angle, and to the Center

For countermarching, the verse went

Ibid., 4. Ibid., 2. 143 Anon. The Grounds of Military Discipline: Or Certain brief Rules for the Exercising of a Company or Squadron (London: s.n., 1642). 141 142

190

chapter three But lest I should seem troublesome To Countermarch, next I come. Which though they many seem to be Are all included in these three: Maintaining, gaining, loosing ground, And severall wayes to each is found; By which their proper motions guided, In files, in ranks, in both divided.144

The extent that verse was used to train new recruits in either the Parliamentary or Royalist army is, of course, very difficult to determine. Rhymes, like this one, could not have been anything more than devices to help young soldiers in distinguishing the different types of motions, though even to this day, rhymes, lewd or otherwise, are used to keep cadence when learning to march. Yet it would seem that broadsheets of verse would have had little impact on training in the Civil War period. Despite the printing of a number of drill manuals in the first year of the war, the use of books in training was not something that Parliamentary or Royalists soldiers recorded in their letters home. This is not to suggest that manuals were not part of training, since experienced soldiers like Raynsford took the initiative to print instructions for their men. Rather it appears that Civil War soldiers found training too mundane to discuss, opting to describe the tensions in camp, the struggles with locals, or the excitement and fear they felt during engagements with the enemy. The Parliamentary foot soldier Nehemiah Wharton did make reference to early morning exercises in August 1642 as Essex’s army prepared for the first campaign of the war. The new recruits were commanded to attend “their colors every morne by sixe of the clock to march in the field,” which Wharton claims was “done accordingly.”145 However, he also informed his wife in other letters that these sessions had provided the rank and file with the opportunity to complain to their officers about their lack of pay. As far as drilling was concerned, Wharton makes no mention of drill books, but does note that outside of Aylesbury and Worcester the companies trained at skirmishing with live ammunition. In both instances, Wharton records mishaps that led to fatalities, the first involving a maid who was watching the training

Ibid. S. Peachey, The Edgehill Campaign & the Letters of Nehemiah Wharton (Leigh-on-Sea, UK: Partizan Press, 1989), 7. 144 145

“practice

put in press”

191

and was killed when a soldier forgot to remove his ram rod from his musket, and a second incident that saw a soldier randomly fire a brace of bullets that killed another soldier standing close by. It is possible that the death of Wharton’s comrade came when two ranks advanced ahead of the company to fire their weapons as was the standard practice of the Parliamentary army in the early part of the war. The successes and failures of training neophyte soldiers in the English Civil War have been well documented. In his Going to the Wars, Charles Carlton found, as one might expect, that when it came to drilling new recruits, both sides in the conflict had to take the good with the bad. Reports of eager apprentices and Oxford students rushing to learn the postures with pike and shot have to be weighed against serving men and base sorts who were utterly useless at soldiering, even after repeated drilling by their overbearing, and undoubtedly exasperated officers.146 Alongside these recruits were the members of the county trained bands, whose skills, it is reported, were equally uneven. Malcolm Atkins’s study of the Civil War in Worcestershire found that during the Personal Rule period, “any system of structured training . . . appears to have collapsed completely in the county.”147 On the eve of the war, muster rolls from Worcestershire reveal that few soldiers possessed their own weapons (Atkin cites 6 percent from a partial roll from 1641); the bulk of the weaponry was provided through assessments, that is when money or arms could be wrested from the local populace. When the alarm was raised in 1639 during the Scots war and again in 1642, getting men to musters in Worcestershire was no easy task. Many either failed to show up or found substitutes who were none too eager to become soldiers. As far as the influence of drill books is concerned, Atkin asserts that the “Worcestershire gentry may well have been avid readers of Directions for Musters or the other theoretical military manuals, but [they] had shown little actual interest in the training of the Trained Bands” prior to the war.148 Next door in Shropshire, drilling was taking place in August as Royalist and Parliamentary supports raised recruits in Shrewsbury and actually drilled them on the same day, increasing tensions in the town

Carlton, Going to the Wars, 70. M. Atkin, Worcestershire Under Arms: An English County During the Civil Wars (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2004), 21. 148 Ibid., 49. 146 147

192

chapter three

all the more.149 In Warwickshire, there were reports of well armed volunteers meeting at musters in various parts of the county in support of the Parliamentary cause in the summer months: four hundred at Stratford in late June, six hundred and fifty at Warwick in July, eight hundred at Coventry in July.150 Unfortunately, we are left to speculate on whether these musters and the training that was expected of those in attendance witnessed the use of posted drill instructions or books to augment the advice offered by the veteran officers, who were clearly responsible for setting the example for these recruits. Ronald Hutton points out that where the Royalists were concerned experienced veterans of the Thirty Years’ War were vital to the cause, since both pike and shot would be “almost utterly useless in the hands of raw recruits” without proper drilling.151 But there were of course the London trained bands, whose ranks were reportedly home to some of the country’s finest soldiers, many of them “veterans” of the London military companies. These men have long been considered the best trained soldiers in the country, and there is little doubt that they had the greatest exposure to the written instructions found in drill books owing to their connection with the London military societies. C.H. Firth singled out London as the “only part of the kingdom” where drill was regularly carried out, and while this might underestimate training taking place in the rest of the country, there is no doubt that London remained a hotbed of military activity, as it had been for the previous three decades.152 At the beginning of the Civil War, the London trained bands were led by Philip Skippon, a member of Horace Vere’s regiment and veteran of campaigns in the Low Countries and Germany. At Charles’s behest, Skippon was named the captain of the Artillery Company on his return to England in 1639. Parliament was also aware of Skippon’s military credentials and just before Charles fled London in the winter of 1641/2, MPs took refuge in the city of London and sought the protection of its trained bands. The Parliament, with the support of the Common Council, voted to grant Skippon command of the bands, aware of his professionalism

R. Hutton, The Royalist War Effort 1642–1626, 12. R. Greville, Baron Brooke, The Certificate of the deputy lieutenants for county of Warwick of their endeavours in execution of the militia . . . (London: Luke Norton and John Field, for Edward Husbands and John Franck, 1642), 3–4. 151 Hutton, The Royalist War Effort 1642–1626, 28. 152 Firth, Cromwell’s Army, 10. 149 150

“practice

put in press”

193

and his strong Puritan religious beliefs. As sergeant-major-general of the London bands, Skippon was ably backed by colonels who had been or were members of the Artillery Company, and together they began to prepare the city’s defences as the drums of war sounded ever louder in the spring and summer of 1642. The trained bands were being regularly drilled and trained in the streets of London and in May 8000 men of the bands were mustered at Finsbury Fields, a place, Clarendon says, where “that exercise was usually performed.”153 William Lithgow, who was touring the capital at the same time, witnessed “daily musters and showes of all sorts of Londoners here, were wonderous commenable marching to the fields and outworks.154 In late October 1642, Skippon and his forces were called upon to confront Charles’s army as it neared London following the Battle of Edgehill. The success of the trained bands in turning back the Royalist army fi rst at Turnham Green, where standing firm was enough to deter the king from battle, and later at the relief of the siege of Gloucester in 1643, where the bands were required to do some serious fighting, have often been cited as evidence of the success of their training and the cohesion fostered by Skippon’s stern hand and watchful eye. In a news pamphlet heralding the relief of Gloucester in 1643, Skippon is described as a “valiant and prudent” soldier whose troops held off repeated attacks by Rupert’s cavalry, forming their ranks into a “halfe moone battaile, according to the Swedish discipline.”155 Drill manuals may have provided officers like Skippon with a means of inculcating recruits with the basic steps for handling pike and shot, but the training of soldiers in the first years of the war, whether they were Royalist or Parliamentarian, was plagued with a plethora of problems that must have made the task all the more onerous. Wastage due to sickness, desertion, and death in battle, among the common soldiery and officers alike, consistently undermined morale and led to breakdowns in unit cohesion. This was often compounded by a lack of weaponry, clothing, and adequate supplies of powder that would concern both 153 Clarendon, The History of the Great Rebellion And Civil Wars in England (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958), Vol. II, 75. See also C.V. Wedgewood, The King’s War 1641–1647 (New York: MacMillan, 1959), 61. 154 W. Lithgow, The present surveigh of London and Englands state Containing a topographicall description of all the particular forts, redoubts, breast-works, and trenches newly erected round about the citie on both sides of the river, with the severall fortifications thereof, (London: J.O., 1643), 6. 155 Exceeding good newes from the Earle of Essex and the noble commander, Sergeant Major Skippon (London: Joseph Hutton, 1643), A3v.

194

chapter three

armies throughout the war. “A wonderful scarcity” of weapons was how Clarendon described those early days of the war when the king was raising his army.156 While the military literature recommended that the companies be composed of two-thirds shot and one-third pikes, this proved impossible in the first two years of the war, owing to the shortage of muskets on the one hand and the large numbers of pikes that were easily manufactured or readily available from militia armouries. Low pay and long periods of inactivity between campaigns also took their toll on discipline and training. Yet the rush to print new manuals, to borrow from drill books printed in the 1610s and 1620s, and to use various forms of printed matter to educate recruits in the postures and motions required for battle suggests that by 1642 a market existed for such a training tool. At the same time, the evolution of the printed drill manual over the course of the early Stuart period had marked an important transformation of how soldiers viewed the process of training. What had begun at the start of the century continued into the war years and became institutionalized in the British Army by the end of the seventeenth century. The process of standardizing infantry training, using privately printed and government authorized drill manuals, was one of the most important military contributions of the Jacobean and Caroline governments, a development that suggests engagement, rather than disengagement with the changes in military affairs taking place on the continent.

156 Clarendon, The History of the Great Rebellion And Civil Wars in England (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958), Vol. II, 347.

CHAPTER FOUR

“A FEW MEN RIGHTLY INSTRUCTED TO MANAGE ARMES”: THE ANALYTICAL TREATISE AND INFANTRY WARFARE As in all other things hee that is to rule and governe another, ought to have more knowledge, than he that is commanded, and governed, so it is in matters of warre. John Bingham, Tacticks of Aelian (1616)

Of the ninety-four works on the military arts that were printed in early Stuart England, forty-one dealt with the “exercise of arms & military motions,” that is to say the art of infantry warfare. Twenty-six were the drill manuals just examined, with the remaining fifteen books being longer works on the art of war, which are best described as “analytical treatises.”1 Analytical treatises were comprehensive studies of the art of war that generally addressed the exercising of the foot soldier, but could also examine cavalry practice, logistics, encamping, fortifications, and siegecraft. These books set out the general precepts of war, exploring training in the martial arts, the duties of officers and rank and file soldiers, the methods for maintaining martial discipline, the organization of companies and regiments, and rudimentary tactical formations, often drawing on historical examples from ancient and modern authorities. Analytical treatises were meant to provide soldiers with a reference guide to what Gervase Markham called the “higher, necessary and more subtle and curious Rules of the Art Military.”2 Knowledge of the rules Markham referred to were expected to provide professional and amateur soldiers with the ability to “proceed and goe forward in the greater and more hidden secrets of the Art.”3

Hale, “Printing and Military Culture of Renaissance Venice,” 430. Markham, The souldiers exercise, 2. 3 M. Sutcliffe, The Practice, Proceedings, And Lawes of Armes . . . and precendents, sig. v. B. Sutcliffe believed that certain aspects of warfare—most notably marching, fighting, encamping, besieging and defending—were founded on general rules that had evolved since the ancient times. Sutcliffe not only draws on the ancients for inspiration; the general precepts he describes were also practised by the Normans and the Plantagenets and Lancastrians. For Markham, The souldiers exercise, 2. 1 2

196

chapter four

Just as with drill manuals, the bulk of the analytical treatises printed in England in the early Stuart period were written by veterans, men fresh from the Netherlands who were eager to impart their wisdom to a new generation of soldiers. These books proved very popular with Englishmen in the period before the Civil War, particularly in the 1620s and 1630s when the Thirty Years’ War had turned central Europe into a battlefield. When the English Civil War erupted in 1642 soldiers turned to analytical treatises, be they Elizabethan, continental, or early Stuart works, for advice on a range of military subjects. Gentlemen soldiers purchased popular works like William Barriffe’s Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man (1635) or Robert Ward’s Anima’dversions of Warre (1639) and carried them on campaigns, some it is said, keeping them close at hand as evidenced by the blood-stained copy of Thomas Styward’s The Pathwaie to Martiall Discipline belonging to the parliamentary commander Sir John Gell, who was injured at the Battle of Hopton Heath in 1643.4 In this chapter I will explore some of the “hidden secrets” that Markham referred to, first examining the veteran and amateur soldiers who wrote these treatises and the English translations of foreign analytical treatises available to early Stuart readers. The second part of the chapter will take a closer look at the contents of these books, assessing infantry tactics and the so-called five vowels, the basic motions of manoeuvring infantry on the battlefield, along with contemporary discussions on weaponry. Soldier-Authors and their Patrons: The Veterans Over the course of the early Stuart period, nine authors were responsible for the publication of the fifteen analytical military treatises printed in English.5 Out of those nine soldier-authors, seven had fought in either the Anglo-Irish or Low Countries wars during the late sixteenth and

Cited in Carlton, Going to the Wars, 71. Two of those, Seiur du Praissac’s The Art of Warre (London: Roger Daniel, 1639) and Henri Rohan’s The Compleat Captain, Or An Abbridgement of Caesars warres . . ., (Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1640) were English translations of French works, and for that reason they will not be addressed in this section, but will be addressed later in the chapter. I have not included either author among the nine, though I have included their works among the 15 analytical treatises printed in England. 4 5

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

197

early seventeenth centuries.6 The veterans included Francis and Gervase Markham, John Bingham, Edward Davies, Henry Hexham, Robert Ward, and Garret Barry. The remaining two authors, Edward Cooke and William Barriffe, based their treatises on their study of European and English military books or drew upon their knowledge of the martial arts through their experiences in the country’s home-grown military institutions, the trained bands and the military companies of London and Middlesex.7 Of the seven veterans, Francis Markham was the only one known to have served in Ireland and the Low Countries. He was in Ireland under Essex and Mountjoy in the 1590s and travelled to the Low Countries to join an English regiment in the service of the Dutch in 1601. Gervase, as previously noted, is known to have served in Ireland, though questions remain as to whether he also fought in the United Provinces. The other veterans were all volunteers who joined English companies fighting in the Low Countries during the Jacobean and Caroline periods. However, one soldier-author, the Irishman Garret Barry, served in the Spanish army and enjoyed a long career spanning thirty-three years in the Low Countries and Germany. All of these authors claimed to have undertaken their studies of the art of war for much the same reason as that stated by Francis Markham in his Five Decades of Epistles of Warre (1622). Markham claimed that while Englishmen may “pray continually for the preservation of the same peace, yet we must not let Warre be made altogether a stranger.”8 In The Art of War and Englands Trainings (1619), Edward Davies claimed that his “long continuance in the warres hath by experience gathered, that it is very necessarie and requisite, in the Summer of Peace, to forecast and provide against the Winter of Warres.”9 Preparing for war also meant training the next generation of soldiers in the martial arts, and for this reason treatises were most often written for the neophyte soldier rather

Donald Lupton was a chaplain in the army of Captain Thomas Morgan who fought in Germany in the 1620s. Lupton drew on his experiences on the continent to argue in A Warre-like Treatise of the Pike (1642) that armies should reduce the number of pikemen in favour of more muskets and half-pikes. See page 255. 7 Thomas Trussell and Edward Cooke were both members of the London Artillery Company in the late 1610s and 1620s while Edward Davies was attached to the earl of Northampton’s “school of warre” at Ludlow Castle. At the time that Robert Ward’s Anima’dversions of Warre appeared in 1639, Ward was a member of the Essex militia and later served in the Parliamentary army as colonel. 8 F. Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, Epistle Dedicatorie. 9 Davies spent those years of service in the Spanish Army in the Low Countries. See R. Manning, Swordsmen, 131. 6

198

chapter four

than the experienced veteran. In his A Discourse of Militarie Discipline (1634), Barry wrote to “inlighten . . . [those] not skilful in warres, and are desirouse to inter into the noble profession of Armes.”10 Cooke and Barriffe, who had yet to encounter the horrors of war, sought to pass on their knowledge of militia training to the thousands of Englishmen responsible for the defence of the country. The examples and precepts found in Cooke’s The Prospective Glasse of Warre (1628) were meant to instruct “all young Commanders,” while Barriffe’s influential and widely read Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man was written for “bettering of the Souldiers knowledge of the trained Bands.”11 It was expected that analytical treatises would provide the newly minted soldier with a deeper understanding of what he might encounter when he entered the “bloudy boundes of Mars.” Time and again, young soldiers were admonished to heed the warnings of those who had spent years trailing the pike. In Anima’dversions of Warre, Ward, citing Ezekiel 33, cautioned the young men who “heareth the sound of the Trumpet and will not be warned [that] if the Sword come and take him away, his blood shall bee upon his head: for he heard the sound of the Trumpet and would not be admonished, but hee that receiveth warning shall save his life.”12 The soldier-authors responsible for some of the most popular works on martial discipline had heeded the warnings of their comrades when they first entered the ranks, learning when to be reckless and when to be cautious. During their long years of service, they had come to know the tricks of the trade, how to forage for food, how to keep their powder dry, and most importantly, how to stay alive. All of the veterans who wrote analytical treatises had cut their martial teeth in the Low Countries, some serving in the English regiments in the Cautionary Towns while others volunteered in the army of the States General.13 Francis Markham made three trips to the Low Countries,

See G. Barry, A Discourse Of Military Discipline (London: Widow of John Mommart, 1634), sig ā 2v. and W. Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man (London: Thomas Harper, 1635), Epistle Dedicatorie. 11 T. Trussell, The Sovldier Pleading his own Cause (London: Nicholas Okes, 1619), sig. A3v. 12 R. Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre (London: John Dawson, 1639), The Epistle. 13 English soldiers remained in the United Provinces until the conclusion of fighting in 1648. Their numbers fluctuated but at the height of the wars in the 1620s there were 13,000 Englishmen in Dutch service. See S. Adams, “The English Military Clientele, 1542–1618,” in Giry-Deloison and R. Mettam, eds. Patronages Et Clientélismes, 1550–1750 (France, Angleterre, Espagne, Italie) (Lille: Centre D’Historie De La Region Du Nord, 1995), 218. 10

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

199

the first coming in 1583 when he volunteered for service following a falling out with his Cambridge tutor. His first experience in the wars was much to his liking and he returned to the United Provinces again in 1587, this time as part of the expeditionary force sent by Elizabeth I to relieve the besieged town of Sluys. Markham remained in the Low Countries for a year before he made his way back to England to study law at Gray’s Inn.14 The legal profession did not appeal to Markham and he found it hard to settle into, what was for him, the mundane life of a lawyer, a life that his father Robert had planned for him. Suffering from a wanderlust and possibly a desire to return to his comrades and to the fray, he set out for Ireland in 1599 where he would fight alongside Essex. In his dedication in the Five Decades of Epistles of Warre to Charles, the Prince of Wales, Markham reveals himself to have been a man of action in his youth, since “an idle man is nothing else but the Devils cushion, on which wickedness sits, whilst Sloath steepes on his bosoome.”15 His decision to write his treatise on war was the result of a strong desire to “rouze up my spirits to undertake some labour, which might both deliver me from this errour, and (by calling backe the account of my first times) shew that there is something in the present which with a constant faithfulness desires to doe your Highness and my Countrey service.”16 The product of those years abroad was Markham’s Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, a book that surveyed the duties of each of the ranks in the army, beginning with the common soldier and concluding with the general. The epistles, written in Markham’s elegant, flowing style (the work was all in prose and did not include any woodcuts or engravings of drills or formations), addressed various aspects of the military profession including different military virtues, the duties and responsibilities of each rank, and the methods of arming and training soldiers. Each epistle was dedicated to a friend or leading member of elite society, among them the Warden of the Cinque Ports, Edward Lord Zouch, the MP Thomas Wentworth, the Lord Marshal, Thomas Lord Arundel, and the Privy Councillor Lord Brooke. Wary of the criticism others had levied against the authors of military books, Markham justified

14 D.J.B. Trim, ‘Markham, Francis (1565–1627)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 15 F. Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre (London: Augustine Matthewes, 1622), sig. A3. 16 Ibid., sig. A3.

200

chapter four

his undertaking on the grounds that soldiers could profit equally from practise as they could from contemplation. His noble readers need only look at his own military career to see the benefits of the marriage of these two virtues. During his time on the continent he engaged in both pursuits with equal vigour, spending the “Summer Progresse in the warres, [and] . . . consum[ing] my Winters quiet in the wholesome delights of forraine Academies.”17 As might be expected, Markham believed that military books were of great value to the soldier and he felt only contempt for those who suggested that those bound to Mars could find no time for Minerva, warning against assigning to veterans who authored military books the title of a “booke-soldier.” The term angered Markham, leading him to emphatically state that there was “not a more distastfull sound to the eare of military Professour” then to have his efforts mocked. He confessed that a mere Phormio is unfit to tutor Hanibal, and a mere Ajax (which hath nothing but his anger) is lesse fit then Vlisses to weare Achilles armour; but there must ever bee such a perfit mixture in composition which is made between them, that the Souldier muste never be without one cup of the Muses Nepenthe, nor the Scholler so unnimble, but that at any command he may be able to dance a Lavolta to the tune of a Cannon, Caesar must be able to write his Commentaries, and Tullie know how to put his Armor when Rome is ready to be fired.18

Yet, despite the criticism from professional soldiers that military books were of little use to soldiers, old or new, Markham’s work was recognized as having an influence on contemporary military thought and practice. The Scot, Sir Thomas Kellie, whose Pallas Armata, or Militarie Instruction for the Learned was printed in 1627, described Five Decades as a valuable source for educating young soldiers, recommending it along with Count Mansfield’s Directions of Warre (1624) as a good primer for officers who had not yet mastered their duties.19 Gervase, Francis’s younger brother, proved the more prolific Markham, authoring four works on the art of war. Along with his Schoole for young souldiers (1615), Markham wrote The Soldiers Accidence Or An Introduction Into the Military Discipline (1625), The Souldiers Grammar (1626), and Ibid., 2. Ibid. 19 T. Kellie, Pallas Armata, or, Militarie Instruictions for the Learned . . . (Edinburgh: Heirs of Andro Hart, 1627), 5. 17 18

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

201

The souldiers exercise (1639), which was a compendium of The Souldiers Accidence and The Souldiers Grammar printed during the Bishops’ Wars. Even though he served in Ireland, Markham makes no reference to his service in the wars in any of his military books, apart from an aside that when he first entered the ranks he had little knowledge of the military arts. It was for this reason, Gervase explained, that he decided to set down his thoughts on the subject of war. He professed to having “no other companions in [his] Bosome but Desire and Ignorance, the one being so contrary to the other, that had I had millions, I would have given it for halfe the knowledge in this Booke, to have reconciled, or at least expulst that ignorance which was so offensive to me.”20 He dedicated The Souldier’s Accidence to Lords Grandison,21 Carew,22 Brooke,23 and Chichester,24 Sir Robert Mansell,25 Sir John Ogle,26 Sir Thomas

G. Markham, The Souldiers Accidence, To the Reader. Oliver St. John, first Viscount Grandison of Limerick (1559–1630) was named lord deputy of Ireland in 1616. He left England in the 1580s, after a duel that killed his opponent, George Best. He took up soldiering, reaching the rank of captain, serving with in Essex’s forces in France in the early 1590s before returning to England in 1592. His interest in military affairs continued in England when he was named master of the ordnance in Ireland in 1605. See U. Lotz-Heumann, ‘St John, Oliver, first Viscount Grandison of Limerick (1559–1630)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 22 See Chapter 2, n. 7. 23 Fulke Greville, first Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court (1554–1628) did not have the military experience of either Grandison or Carew though as a young man he hoped to serve in the Netherlands with his friend Sir Philip Sydney but was denied the opportunity by the Queen. He served for a short time as captain of a vessel sent to Ireland but he won no accolades as either a soldier or a sailor. See John Gouws, ‘Greville, Fulke, first Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court (1554–1628)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 24 Like Carew, Arthur Chichester, Baron Chichester (1563–1625) was both a soldier and sailor whose career spanned the 1590s. He saw action in France and Ireland and he later returned to Ireland to take up the office of Lord Deputy from 1605 to 1616. John McCavitt, ‘Chichester, Arthur, Baron Chichester (1563–1625)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 25 Sir Robert Mansell, (1570/71–1652), began his naval career as a privateer in 1591, fighting in the West Indies and at Cadiz in 1596. As part of the circle that surrounded Prince Henry, he advocated for improving England’s naval capabilities and he unsuccessfully sought to obtain the office of lieutenant of the navy but he clashed with the Duke of Buckingham who opposed his efforts. The clash between Buckingham and Mansell continued into the Caroline period and eventually Mansell removed himself from the Council of War, angered by Buckingham’s refusal to listen to his military advisors. See A. Thrush, ‘Mansell, Sir Robert (1570/71–1652),’ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 26 See Chapter 2, 117. 20 21

202

chapter four

Button,27 Edward Conway, Horace Vere, and Edward Cecil, all of whom had military experience, either as soldiers in Ireland, the Low Countries, or as naval officers. Markham urged his illustrious audience of councillors, and his readers of a lesser station, to use his brief set of rules on the art of war to “gather more able judgements.”28 However, the extent to which either group found Markham’s exercises and instructions useful remains open to debate. Most historians agree that Markham’s books were out of touch with the realities of early modern warfare and many of those criticisms are valid, particularly with respect to the second part of The Souldiers Grammar, which concludes with a series of outlandish formations, such as the windmill, that no English or European army could expect to use in battle. On the other hand, the exercises found in The Souldiers Accidence, particularly the rudiments of infantry drill, were similar to instructions found in other manuals printed in the 1620s. The instructions and exercises were not necessarily incorrect or fanciful, but they were often presented in a simplistic manner and lacked the thorough explanations found in the treatises of Hexham, Barriffe, and Ward. By the 1620s, Markham’s military career had been over for many years and this may explain the reason for his lack of detail. He did what he could to glean from other English sources (though he does not indicate which ones) and then condensed the instructions so that they could be more easily digested. The fact that Markham’s books sold well and were printed in multiple editions suggests they were popular. Therefore, he cannot be slighted for popularizing the military discipline, as he did with his Schoole for young Souldiers, but it is apparent that Markham was never recognized by contemporaries as a military sage worthy of quoting.29 Though he may have received little respect from his peers, it did not effect his decision to publish or to put his faith in the marketplace. In the first quarter of the seventeenth century, Markham literally flooded 27 The other naval officer on the Council of War, Sir Thomas Button (c.1575–1634) served in the naval campaigns against Spanish in the 1590s and was later (1620) given the task of clearing pirates from the seas around Algiers. He had a good working relationship with Mansell and joined the Council of War in April 1624. See A. Thrush, ‘Button, Sir Thomas (c.1575–1634)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004). 28 G. Markham, The Soldiers Accidence Or An Introduction Into the Military Discipline . . . (London: I.D. for John Bellamie, 1625), sig. A2. 29 See R. Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre and R. Elton, The compleat body of the art military: exactly compiled and gradually composed for the foot, in the best refined manner, according to the practice of the modern times (London: R. Leybourn, 1650).

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

203

booksellers with didactic literature on a variety of topics, ranging from gardening to horsemanship. His books on war were made available to the reading public at a time when international tensions were running high in Europe. In a response to the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War in Bohemia, the 1620s marked a period of increased activity among English military authors. James’s decision to send troops in the defence of the Palatinate and to eventually go to war with Spain helped to once again make military affairs popular among Englishmen. In fact, veterans seemed to emerge from the woodwork to produce new instructional books for soldiers during the 1620s. Edward Davies, a contemporary and student of John Bingham’s methods, was one such figure. As noted, in The Art of War and Englands Traynings Davies cited the contributions of the Honourable Artillery Company to the perfection of the military discipline in England. His connection with the company is murky though. He was indebted to its members and very aware of their activities but he is not listed as one of the company’s members in the Vellum Book. Davies describes himself as a gentleman and alludes to his long years of military service in the Spanish Army, though he provided few details about that career. He dedicated the treatise to Prince Charles, but he took time to recognize the contributions of the captains (Bingham would have figured into this group) of the Artillery Company and the Westminster Military Yard for “being well experienced in Martiall discipline,” and for their role in providing well-trained captains to the London trained bands. As the previous chapter also revealed, Davies had much praise for the training being carried out by the earl of Northampton in the Welsh Marches. Davies noted Northampton’s enthusiasm, writing that the earl called together the Traine men; and conveied from Shire to Shire by his Lord Lieutenants of the Shire; and also all the Knights and best Gentlemen in the Countrey. The military men being assembled together it pleased his Lordship to take greater paines in ordering, directing, and exercising both Horse and Foote most bravely to behold; and his Lordship taking speciall view both of Horse and Foote . . .30

By Davies’s estimation, professionals like Cecil, Vere, and Bingham, as well as amateurs like Northampton were responsible for continuing the

30

Davies, The Art of War and Englands Traynings, To the Reader.

204

chapter four

martial traditions of the English nation and perpetuating the “honourable name of the Souldier.”31 The Art of War and Englands Traynings was aimed at “treating and demonstrating the path-way to the youths and many unexpert traine-men of this kingdome, to lead them to the mark, which is to become perfit and absolute Souldiers [fig. 11].”32 It was divided into three books; the first explored the duties of the common soldier and included sections on martial and military law; the second book looked at the military ranks above sergeant, while the third described the arming of soldiers and presented diagrams depicting the various motions of infantry warfare. While Davies’s methodology was similar to that of his contemporaries, his focus differed with the first quarter of his two-hundred-page treatise dedicated to the virtues of the common soldier. For Davies, the success or failure of the army rested on the qualities of the common soldier and for this reason he spent so much of the first book explaining how officers might shape their men into competent soldiers. Captains were expected to train up men “of assured good qualities, [who] may be able to persever in each enterprise, beare out every brunt stoutly, and serve sufficiently.”33 The advice Davies offered was fairly straightforward, with officers and their men expected to show good judgement in adequately preparing themselves for war. Officers, as well as their men, were expected to be familiar with all the practices of soldiering, with young officers learning to give orders and to obey them, as it was universally recognized that a good officer could never “governe” others unless he first understood how to carry out orders.34 Davies’s third book draws on Weymouth’s Low-Countrie Trayning but with an important distinction. Davies reproduced, almost verbatim, Weymouth’s instructions for each motion of facing, doubling, and countermarching, but has altered the diagrams to better represent the Maurician innovations as they were understood in the 1620s. He has changed the P and M diagrams found in Weymouth so that sleeves of musketeers are now protecting pikemen (Weymouth had shown the two types of weaponry arrayed in equal numbers, one group beside the other). However, Davies’s ratio of pike to shot remains 1:1, with his companies are composed of one hundred men. Davies also included a section at the end of the work on 31 32 33 34

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

5. sig. ¶ 2 v. 2. 25.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

205

Figure 11. Title page of Edward Davies’s Art of War and England’s Traynings (1620 edition). Courtesy of the British Library.

206

chapter four

the exercising of musketeers, a subject that Weymouth’s 1617 manual had not addressed. This short section depicts squares of musketeers, advancing, retreating, and closing ranks with pikemen to withstand a charge by horse troops. Figure 12 depicts one of the commonly used battlefield manoeuvres of the period in which two ranks of shot advance to give fire and then countermarch to the rear. This was fairly easy to reproduce on the training ground and was recommended in many English military books and drill manuals for training of the militia in giving volley fire. For the most part, Davies’s advice to officers was anchored in the present day, with few references to the ancients beyond the useful classical adage or the passing historical example.35 His diagrams reflect established practice and do not try to reproduce any of the outlandish formations ascribed to Markham and others. The work is a sober study of war that owed a debt to the contemporary literature, and if we are to accept Davies’s claims, the military arts as they were being practised in London. By the 1620s, English military writers like Davies were moving away from their reliance on classical allusions and concentrating instead on modern drill as exemplified by Maurice and his brother and successor, Frederick Henry. The ubiquity of war in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, as we have seen to this point, now offered soldier-authors a wealth of contemporary examples on which to draw. There was no more popular promoter of Dutch practice than Henry Hexham, whose Principles Of the Art Militarie in three parts appeared between 1637 and 1640. These analytical treatises cum manuals were meant to pass along his knowledge of the Maurician methods to the “thousands of true hearted Brittaines [that] shall be all willing to fight in so just a quarrell.”36 In his thirty year career, Hexham had witnessed his fair share of bloodshed, participating in a number of battles, skirmishes, and sieges across the Low Countries. He informed his readers that he was compelled to set down his thoughts on the military discipline, believing he could not rest until he “had undertaken some thing of my

Of the ten authors noted in this section, only Edward Cooke placed undue emphasis on the precepts of ancient warfare. 36 H. Hexham, The Third Part of the Principles of the Art Military (The Hague: Francis vander Spruyt, 1640), To the High Highnes Charles Lodowick. 35

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

207

Figure 12. A page from Edward Davies’s The Art of War and England’s Traynings demonstrating the advancing and countermarching of shot in two ranks. Courtesy of the British Library.

own profession, which might give light, understanding, and instruction to unto some young Gentlemen, Souldiers and others.”37 The three parts of The Principles Of the Art Militarie covered the breadth of early modern land warfare, addressing infantry drill and tactics, quartering and encamping armies, and the art of siegecraft. The first part detailed infantry drill as practised by the company, the unit of one hundred men who trained and fought together.38 While these hundred men combined with other companies to form the larger tactical unit of the battalion or regiment, to all intents and purposes the company was the soldier’s home. Soldiers followed the company’s ensign into battle, the company paymaster paid them their wage, and the company sergeant put the rank and file through their paces. In England, the trained bands were organized by companies, with command delegated to captains who were members of the local gentry. When Hexham wrote the first part of his Principles he did so with an audience of captains

Ibid. The size of companies varied, as Firth notes, a colonel’s company numbered 200 men while a major’s only 140. Those companies not led by senior commanders numbered 100 men. 37

38

208

chapter four

in mind, opening the treatise by stating that “every company hath a ‘head’ a Captaine, who in Allmaine tongue is rightly called a Hauptman [who is] the principall meanes that governes, and rules a body.”39 It was the captain’s duty to instruct and “to informe his souldiers in the point of their duties,” to traine them up, and to exercise them well in the use of their armes, aswell himselfe as the officers that are under him, and to see that they readily obey, and execute his commands, which is the life of warre, and one of the principall things, required both in a Captaine and in a souldier.40

Hexham’s audience for the second and third parts of The Principles Of the Art Militarie was much broader, and included engineers as well as common infantry soldiers and horsemen. The second part of Principles covered the arts of embattling, encamping, and siegecraft and was dedicated to George Goring, who was then in the service of the Dutch army but who later served as a Royalist general in the Civil War.41 Hexham served as quartermaster in Goring’s regiment in the Low Countries in 1637, which gave him first-hand experience in maintaining an orderly camp and supplying the regiment in the field. His participation in the sieges of ’s-Hertogenbosch (1629), Venlo and Maastricht (1631–2), and Breda (1637) also allowed him to witness the complexities of continental siegecraft, with its interplay of engineers, gunners, miners, and soldiers. In the second of his three treatises, Hexham listed the responsibilities of the officers of an army, and in the manner of Vegetius, Machiavelli, and a host of other military writers, he emphasized the personal and professional characteristics required of each rank and the duties they were to carry out in the field. This was followed by a set of engraved diagrams depicting the battle orders of the Dutch forces at the battles of Nieuwpoort (1600), Rees (1605), Julich (1610), Doormick (1622), Nijmegen (1624), and Breda (1637). The diagrams were not accompa39 Hexham, The Principles Of the Art Militarie; Practised in the Warres of the Vnited Netherlands, (London: M.P. for Matthew Symmons, 1637), sig. A. 40 Ibid. 41 Goring commanded regiments of horse and foot at Breda in 1637. He was wounded at the siege and returned to England soon after. Goring later served against the Scots in the Bishops’ Wars and commanded a royalist regiment of horse in Newcastle’s Northern Army. See R. Hutton, ‘Goring, George, Baron Goring (1608–1657)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). Boynton, Elizabethan Militia, 241.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

209

nied by an analysis of the formations, though Hexham did make some general recommendations concerning the ordering of regiments on the day of battle.42 The second book concluded with a description of the art of entrenching (for example, the preparation of siegeworks) and a brief discourse on cavalry.43 The third part of The Principles Of the Art Militarie, which is addressed in greater detail in Chapter Six, brought an end to Hexham’s “laborious worke” by examining the technical arts of gunnery and siegecraft. While Hexham’s career and contributions to early Stuart military literature have been well documented, we know less about the background of Robert Ward, the author of Anima’dversions of Warre, and another veteran of the Low Countries wars [fig. 13]. Ward described himself as a gentleman and commander on the title page of his 1639 analytical treatise and it appears that he served in the Low Countries at some point in the 1630s. He was also a colonel in the Essex trained bands and in his 534-page treatise, he sought to convince his countrymen that as far as the militia was concerned, “greater care might be had of our Training than is.”44 Ward’s concerns for the state of militia were directed at Essex’s lord lieutenant Robert Rich, earl of Warwick and to his deputies. Warwick had had no prior military experience before he was named to direct the defence of Essex against a possible Spanish invasion in the summer of 1625. Warwick held the office of lieutenant for a year, and during that time, he appears to have taken a serious interest in seeing the county put on a war footing. However, as Sean Kelsey points out, Warwick received little money or assistance from local officials, particularly from the county’s other lieutenant, Robert Radcliffe, the earl of Sussex.45 Sussex resented the crown’s decision to name Warwick as organizer of the Essex’s defences and the foot dragging of Sussex and his deputies was enough to thwart Warwick’s efforts to transform the Essex militia into an effective fighting force. Warwick had a second opportunity to remake the Essex trained bands when he was named to the lieutenancy after the death of Sussex in 1629. Though Warwick held the lieutenancy until the beginning of the Civil War, he

42 The diagrams offered various methods for organizing armies, based on the tripartite division of the army into vanguard, battaile, and rearguard. 43 Hexham’s “A Briefe Discourse of Cavallerie” is examined in Chapter 5. 44 Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 30. 45 S. Kelsey, ‘Rich, Robert, second earl of Warwick (1587–1658)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004).

210

chapter four

never regained the support of the local populace, and was unable to convince them of the necessity to adopt the Exact Militia. Anthony Fletcher insists that the Essex lieutenancy never overcame the shock of the mobilization ordered in 1625 when 3000 men were mustered at Harwich. Over the decade, many of the county’s inhabitants refused to pay the militia rates and as a result the Essex militia “never fully recovered before the Civil War.”46 Robert Ward’s concerns over the state of the Essex militia were apparently justified and this explains the gloomy picture he painted for Warwick, who was probably well aware of the poor state of the trained bands. According to Ward, the Essex bands, “both Officers and Soldiers are degenerated from former ages in which they made the use and practice of Armes their glory, but our age makes it a burthen and a shame to use and beare.”47 Ward included a long list of grievances against the bands, placing the blame for their poor condition on almost everyone involved in their training and administration, pointing out that as Trainings are now used we shall I am sure, never be able to make one good soldier; for our custome and use is now adayes, to cause our Companies to meet on a certaine day, and by that time the Armes be all viewed, the Muster-master hath had his pay (which is the chiefest thing many times he looks after) it drawes towards dinner time; and indeed Officers love their bellies so well, as what they are loath too take paines about disciplining of their souldiers. Wherefore, after a little carelesse hurrying over their Postures, with which the Companies are nothing bettered, they make them change their muskets, and to prepare to give the Captaine a brave volley of shot at his entrance into his Inne; where having solaced themselves a while after his brave service, every man repaires home, and that which is not well taught them (oh the shame) is easily forgotten before the next training. Whereas, if we trained but twice a yeare, and at each time kept the Companies together, but three or foure dayes at the most; they would be better acquainted with their Armes and the use of them; so often practising of them at one time, would make them remember what is shewed, better than seven yeeres practice as now we goe to worke.48

The poor state of the militia in Essex led Ward to issue a dire warning to his countrymen, reminding them of the “perilous times” in which

A. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 307–08. 47 Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, The Epistle. 48 Ibid., 30. 46

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

211

they all lived, and telling them to look no further than the continent where “our neighbours house is of a light fire, their Townes and Towers burn like Beacons.”49 Only a skilful soldiery, asserted Ward, could protect England from the fate befalling Germany and the Low Countries in the 1630s. Ward believed the situation in Essex could be rectified, but it required a concerted effort on the part of all involved. If reforms were carried out Ward saw no reason why the English trained bands could not “parallel the best soldiers in Europe.”50 Ward believed that Anima’dversions of Warre might provide some sort of framework for the reformation. His treatise advised officers on the range of possibilities newly trained citizen-soldiers might face when they went to war. The book moved beyond the narrow confines of infantry warfare, touching on all aspects of modern war, with chapters on military history, fortification design and siegecraft, the duties and responsibilities of officers and their men, the exercising of foot and horse companies, descriptions of warlike engines, encamping and embattling, and the articles of war. He left nothing to chance, offering readers an encyclopaedic volume on the art of war as it was practised in the Low Countries. The broad scope was necessary, argued Ward, because a soldier acquainted with most occurrences, “best knows the variety of chances in the course of Warre,” and will be a “more Perfect Souldier.”51 To produce adequate numbers of complete soldiers for Essex and, for that matter, the rest of the country, Ward called upon towns across England to establish their own artillery yards, as London, Middlesex and some of the other larger English towns had done in the 1620s. He commended the citizens of London for the success of their yards, not only in turning out good soldiers, but also training up “good Leaders and Officers.”52 In essence, Ward was calling for the militarization (or re-militarization) of English society, with towns establishing training grounds for their citizens, noblemen seeing that their servants were trained in the use of weapons, and gentlemen and yeomen keeping horses to be used for local, and if necessary, national defence. The profession of soldiering had to be resurrected or the decay would lead to the church, crown, and commonwealth being torn asunder 49 50 51 52

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

sig (*4). 32. 3. 32.

212

chapter four

Figure 13. The title page of Robert Ward’s popular Anima’dversions of Warre (1639). Courtesy of the British Library.

by foreign enemies. “It is a thing of no small consequence,” Ward counselled, “when as true Religion cannot be maintained, the honour and safetie of our gracious King cannot be safe, the possession and welfare of the kingdom cannot be injoyed, nor the subduing of our enemies cannot be achieved but by and under the shadow of the well managed sword.”53 Ward agreed with many of his fellow Englishmen that one of the primary goals of the “complete” or “perfect” soldier was to defend the Reformed Church against its enemies in Rome. Religion had remained, since the days of Churchyard, Gates, and Blandy, a significant factor in motivating young English gentlemen to volunteer for service in the Low Countries and in Germany, and little had changed in Ward’s day.

53

Ibid., sig (* 4) v.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

213

Just as Protestant soldiers traipsed off to the continent, so to did English and Irish Catholics, eager to join the Spanish or imperial armies in defence of the old faith. The Irishman Garret Barry, the author of A Discourse of Militarie Discipline (1634), was one of thousands of from the British Isles who made his way to the continent to serve in the Spanish army [fig. 14]. After leaving Ireland in the first decade of the seventeenth century, Barry went on to serve in Italian and Spanish regiments. 54 He returned to Ireland in the 1630s to try to raise a regiment for service in the Low Countries and would return home again in the 1640s to serve the Confederate cause.55 His interest in recruiting and training young men for Spanish service appears to have been an underlying reason for penning A Discourse of Military Discipline. Barry dedicated his treatise to David Barry, earl of Barrymore, a member of the Cork landed elite. Barrymore was a loyal servant of the English crown who raised an Irish regiment for Charles during the Bishops’ Wars. When the Irish Rebellion broke out in 1641, Barrymore’s loyalties were tested, but he eventually sided with his king against the rebels. He raised a regiment and took them into battle at Liscarroll in September 1642.56 He was wounded during the battle and died some weeks later. Barry’s A Discourse of Military Discipline was printed in Brussels and bears the colophon of John Mommarty, whose widow was responsible for printing the book. Called the “earliest significant contribution by an Irishman to military thought,” Barry’s treatise was the only military book printed in English in the early Stuart period that thoroughly documented Spanish, rather than Dutch practice.57 The work was sold by Flemish booksellers and was available to Irish and English volunteers travelling to the Low Countries to serve in the Spanish army. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a steady stream of Irish volunteers made their way to the continent, but the numbers of Englishmen in Spanish service tended to fluctuate, a result of the on-again, off-again relations between Madrid and London during the Jacobean

54 H. Murtagh, “Irish soldiers abroad, 1600–1800” in A Military History of Ireland, edited by T. Bartlett and K. Jeffrey, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 295. 55 R. Harrison, ‘Barry, David fitz David, first earl of Barrymore (1605–1642)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004). 56 Ibid. 57 Murtagh, “Irish soldiers abroad, 1600–1800,” 295. Henry Hexham described some Spanish military techniques, but the bulk of his work was dedicated to Dutch practice.

214

chapter four

and Caroline periods. Contingents of English Catholic volunteers had served in the Army of Flanders since the 1580s. Geoffrey Parker puts the number of British troops in the Spanish ranks in 1630 at around 4000.58 Like the youthful and adventurous English Protestants who went to the Low Countries, English Catholics who volunteered for Spanish service could also be ignorant of the military arts. In keeping with the accepted framework of the “complete soldier” genre of military books, Barry addressed his work to captains and sergeants, the men most responsible for training and leading these young and inexperienced men, bisones as the Spanish called them. The lessons imparted by Barry in the three books of A Discourse of Military Discipline covered the duties of officers and common soldiers, the methods for organizing battle formations, and the fortifications and fireworks used in siege warfare. Barry emphasized the forging of strong bonds between the company’s officers and their men as one of the best ways to improve discipline and enhance organization. For this reason, unit cohesion figured prominently in A Discourse of Military Discipline, with Barry insisting that captains take the initiative to see that the men were not only well instructed and well disciplined, but also adequately housed, paid and fed. The Irishman decried the decay of discipline in the Spanish ranks, seeing ill-disciplined troops as undermining the effectiveness of soldiers and leading to “many disgraces.”59 Using examples from the ancients, Barry reiterated that only through “continuall practice and experience in war,” could the great armies of Rome, (and its modern equivalents, France and Spain) overcome al these difficulties, by onely mantayninge their people wel exercised in armes and practice of war, when a regimente dothe marche some times great disorderes are comitted, the Souldiers runnige away from the culores, robinge and spoylinge the country, and poore inhabitants litle regardinge in not accomplisheinge these obligations, in beinge absent from there culores; litle respectinge or fearninge there Officeres, and no respecte to military discipline, wherof resulteth greate ruines and revoltes in many countries . . . 60

58 G. Parker, The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road 1567–1659, 52. Murtagh notes the existent of five Hispano-Irish regiments in the Low Countries from 1632 to 1646. Murtagh, “Irish soldiers abroad, 1600–1800,” 295. 59 Barry, A Discourse Of Military Discipline, 12. 60 Ibid., 130.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

215

Respect for, and maintenance of military discipline required that the Spanish army have knowledgeable officers. Wary of the fact that those officers were chosen by the crown, Barry recommended that the Council of State refrain from selecting “their owne followers, frendes, or upon, great courtiers, and favourites” which often left many “valiente, brave and skilfull Souldiers . . . withoute chardge.”61 Barry urged the Council to consider men who were experienced and those learned in the martial arts. In fact, he reiterated this point throughout the treatise, putting great stock in an erudite officer class, men who had trained their minds and their bodies for war. Learning the art of war not only brought the noble officer closer to perfection, but it also served men of “lowe degree and base lineage,” who could use their wits to climb through the ranks. He advised soldiers to read history and do arithmetic, as “both doth revive and perfectionate manes witt.”62 Drawing on the works of Cataneo and others, Barry included a detailed explanation of using square root tables to organize the rank and files into squadrons. Yet, Barry also issued the familiar warning that reading alone did not make a soldier more “apte to govern war” unless, of course, he regularly practised his martial skills.63 Spanish soldiers, like their English and Dutch enemies, were expected to become experts in a variety of weapons and drill regularly with their preferred arms, be it pike, shot, or sword and target. Bisones were to drill twice daily, while experienced soldiers, the veteranos, were to go through their paces at least once a da y.64 Barry was still advising that recruits and veterans train with the sword and target, and he made a point of recommending that Irish soldiers take special note, as they were “inclined to this sorte of weapon more than any other Nation.”65 The Spanish did not see the target as anachronistic, believing the sword to be quite useful in close combat, either against pikemen or during siege operations. In such cases, the sword and target allowed men to move more freely in a breech, where they may otherwise be encumbered by pikes of gunpowder weapons. Clearly, Englishmen wishing to serve the Spanish crown found some variation between the drills practised in England and those they experienced in Spanish service. Standardization was taking place across the

61 62 63 64 65

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

22. 9. 162. 38. 9.

216

chapter four

continent, and though national variations, like those noted by Barry, still existed, common threads remained. Organization, discipline, and drill were accepted as the foundations on which any effective fighting force could be built and knowledge of each of these elements could be learned through experience and aided by printed books. Soldier-Authors and their Patrons: The Amateurs The perfection of the military arts through learning and “long exercise” was a consistent theme in analytical treatises of veterans, but experience abroad was not necessarily seen as a prerequisite for authoring a military book. Some Englishmen who remained at home and trained with the London and Middlesex military companies also believed that they could contribute to the discourse on the art of war in England. As one might expect, the works of these amateur soldiers were just as likely to vary in quality as the treatises authored by veterans. Indeed, the quality of treatises of Edward Cooke and William Barriffe represent polar opposites, with the work of the former being representative of the worst that English military writers had to offer, and the latter, considered as some of the best. Each man received his training from the London military community; Cooke spent four years as a member of the Middlesex Company in the early 1620s and Barriffe served as a member of the Honourable Artillery Company in the late 1620s and the 1630s. During the mid-1620s, at the height of the Caroline conflict with Spain, Cooke wrote two short analytical treatises. The first, The Character of Warre, was printed in 1626, while the second, The Prospective Glasse of Warre, appeared in 1628. William Barriffe’s Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, one of the most popular seventeenth-century English works on the art of war, was published by Thomas Harper for Ralph Mabbe in 1635, with later editions printed in 1639, 1643, 1647, 1657, 1661, and 1668. Cooke and Barriffe were proud of their service with the military companies, and each, in his own self-effacing way, proclaimed to be an amateur practitioner of the military arts urged to set pen to paper by his comrades in arms. Cooke modestly claimed that he had joined the Middlesex Company “to gayne [the] little knowledge which I have, never performing to shew my skill, much lesse to contend with the others.” He did not write The Character of Warre, he continued “until the Scollers of another Schoole (Low-Country-like) banded together for tryall of

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

217

Figure 14. The title page of Garret Barry’s A Discourse of Military Discipline (1634) written for English-speaking soldiers serving in the armies of Europe’s Catholic monarchs. Courtesy of the Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

218

chapter four

skill, vrged me thereunto.”66 Bariffe also seemed aware that he might be criticized for writing a book on the military discipline without prior experience in the wars. He, therefore, informed his readers that, while he was “the meanest both of skill and schollership” in the company, his companions repeatedly pressed him to undertake the writing of work on infantry warfare.67 Both these authors reveal the strong bonds that existed between the Low Countries veterans and the members of the London and Middlesex companies that spanned the 1620s and 1630s. Cooke points out that the amateur soldiers trained alongside the veterans and “banded together for tryall.” He harkened back to Bingham’s Tactiks, comparing the London companies to the Greek schools where “Martiall policy or discipline” was taught to those “desirous to learne.”68 Cooke believed the London companies were the core of English military culture, where cross-currents from the Low Countries were picked up and spread to the rest of the country via “a few men rightly instructed to mannage Armes.”69 These “chiefs of Warre,” as Cooke described them, learned their skills with the companies and then became captains in the trained bands.70 Cooke dedicated The Character of Warre to Edward, Lord Sackville, the earl of Dorset, Lord Lieutenant of Sussex and Middlesex from 1624 until 1642.71 Cooke’s praise of Sackville, the crown’s military E. Cooke, The Character of Warre (London: Thomas Purfoot, 1626), sig A3 v. Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, sig A. 68 Cooke, The Character of Warre, sig A3 v. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 The Sackville family served as lieutenants of Sussex since Thomas Sackville, first Baron Buckhurst and first earl of Dorset, was commissioned by Elizabeth I to take the office in 1586. The first earl did not participate in the Elizabethan wars as a soldier, but he was the administrator responsible for organizing Lord Willoughby’s expeditionary force sent to aid Henri IV in his fight against the Catholic League in 1589. Sackville’s third son William, fresh from university, was part of that expedition and he was to die fighting in France in 1592. The eldest son, Robert, who held the Sussex lieutenancy for only a year (1608–09) was a servant of the crown much like his father. He also did not serve in the military. Edward, Sackville’s second son, travelled to the continent at the time of Cleves-Julich campaign but it is not known whether he engaged in any fighting. His excursion is better remembered for his duel with Lord Bruce of Kinloss than for any adventures he may have had on the battlefield. Edward, took an interest in military affairs and was vocal proponent in Parliament for sending assistance to Frederick V during the Palatinate crisis. He became Lord Lieutenant of Sussex in 1624 and took the same office in Middlesex in 1628 after the death of Buckingham, who had held the lieutenancy there since 1622. In the summer of 1642 Dorset worked to reconcile the parliamentary and royalist camps but was eventually forced from London after threat66 67

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

219

representative in Middlesex, was done in service of the interests of his comrades in the county’s trained bands, men who relied upon the lord lieutenant’s largesse. Cooke commended Sackville for taking care that every man in the trained bands had “good Armes to grace the Kingdome dayly.”72 It is likely that this was not a plea for greater assistance in improving the band, but a plaudit directed at the lieutenant for a job well done. The Middlesex militia were far more active than the bands of other counties, being called out to quell riots and unrest, which often occurred in Jacobean and Caroline London. Such an important role in protecting the peace would suggest that the bands were suitably outfitted to meet the demands placed upon them.73 Cooke also took the time to laud the officers of the Middlesex trained bands as well as the founders of the county’s artillery company.74 Cooke’s The Character of Warre opened with a chapter, “Of Armes and Men,” that drew heavily on Bingham’s Tacticks and Vegetius’s Epitoma Rei Militaris, which had been translated into English in 1572 as The Four Bookes of Flavius Vegetius Ranatus.75 The first half of The Character of Warre reveals Cooke’s amateurism. In many instances, Cooke was content to simply sprinkle the modern amongst the ancient, relying heavily on the content and style of Vegetius. His chapters on running, leaping, swimming, and vaulting were taken verbatim from the work of the Roman.76 Cooke explained his decision to include the Greco-Roman practices, stating that an understanding of the ancient motions of war “helpes such as would be exquisite in exercising.”77 The second half of the treatise dealt with the motions of war, with much of the text taken from Bingham’s Tacticks. This was followed by a list of the postures for

ening to use the Middlesex militia against the London crowds. He joined the king at York and went on to serve in the Royalist army alongside his two sons, Richard and Edward. See M. Graves, ‘Sackville, Robert, second earl of Dorset (1560/61–1609)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 72 Cooke, The Character of Warre, sig A2 v. 73 Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces, 284. 74 Cooke listed a Captain Pert, Lieutenant Millen, Lieutenant Keneton, Ancient Gaultier, Ancient Clarke, Mr. Thomas Webster, Mr. John Foster, and the rest of their place and office in the six cautionary or trained bands of Middlesex. He also mentioned the Middlesex muster master, Captain Gostock and those surviving founders of the Artillery Garden and the Military yard. 75 Cooke also cited Robert Barret’s The Theorike and Practicke of Moderne Warre (1598) and Thomas Trussell’s The Sovldier Pleading his own Cause (1619) as influencing his work. 76 See Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and IX of Cooke’s Character of Warre, sig. C-C2. 77 Cooke, Character of Warre, sig. I3 v.

220

chapter four

pike and shot, but Cooke provided no illustrations of the Maurician drill, as was common in the 1620s. The instructions for pike and shot were said to reflect the methods used at the Artillery Garden, but they too came with an odd statement qualifying the exercises, stating that his method of exercising “is not at this time to Intermeddle with new formes of battles, sundry kindes of Instructions, and the like: But to apply my selfe somewhat to that which hath been delivered, practiced in former times, agreeing with our moderne discipline.”78 Cooke then went on to produce two long lists of instructions; the first setting out the ordering of the ranks and files (with no accompanying explanation) and the second being the musket postures, taken from the 1623 drill manual. In what appears to have been a rush to conclude the work, he gave only an epitome of pike commands, describing the shorter list of twelve commands, which he found in Thomas Trussell’s A Soldier Pleading His Owne Cause. Two years later, Cooke published a second study of the art of war, The Prospective Glass of Warre, which was written to instruct soldiers in how to Victual an Army, how to provide money to pay Souldiers, how to finde out the enemies purposes, Traps, and Strategems; how to direct an Army to march either by day or night, how to Embattell; how to behave themselves in battell, when to fight, [and] when to avoide fight.79

Like his first book, the product of these new labours again relied heavily on the ancients, though modern sources were also used. The results were as uninspired as his earlier treatise. He confessed that The Prospective Glass of Warre was but a “collection of notes selected out of the best Tacticke writers” and it proved little more than a shopping list of suggestions with little analysis and no concrete conclusions to guide either amateur or veteran soldiers. Of the analytical treatises printed in early Stuart England, Cooke’s Character of Warre and The Prospective Glass of Warre must rate as the worst examples of this genre. It is evident that Cooke was no more than a military enthusiast, who cannot be counted alongside the more able English military writers already mentioned. If Cooke’s works are of any value, it is to modern historians, as his treatises offer some indication of the influence of military literature on the London military community. Cooke’s familiarity

Ibid., sig. I4. Cooke, The Prospective Glasse of Warre (London: Michael Sparke, 1628), The Preface to the Reader. 78 79

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

221

with Bingham, Trussell, Weymouth, and Panton, as well as the Privy Council’s Instructions for Musters and Armes of 1623 indicates that these manuals were widely accessible to members of the Artillery Gardens in London and Middlesex. That said, Cooke’s contribution to the library of English military books is best summed up by Charles Carlton who called these two treatises, “complicated and impractical.”80 William Barriffe made a much more significant contribution to the study of infantry warfare with his Militarie Discipline: Or, the Yong Artillery-man [fig. 15]. This was a long and detailed work, covering three hundred and twenty pages that reproduced the drills and motions that the author and his comrades practised at the Old Artillery Garden. Unlike the treatises of Ward and Hexham, Barriffe devoted his discourse solely to infantry warfare and made no mention of siegecraft, cavalry practice, or gunnery. This was primarily due to the fact that Barriffe lacked military experience beyond the walls of the Artillery Garden and its sister yard at Cripplegate. In a poem by James Hayward, found in the preface of the treatise, the Artillery Garden is described as a place where an “exacter discipline” of the art of war was practised and brought “still nearer to perfection.”81 Barriffe, though, was a committed soldier, and his years of drilling and exercising were eventually put to use in the Civil War. When fighting broke out in 1642, he joined the Parliamentary army and went on to serve in John Hampden’s regiment at the rank of major and was later promoted to lieutenant-colonel in 1643.82 Barriffe dedicated Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man to five men, four of whom were closely associated with the author’s military training. His first dedication sought the patronage and support of the Wizard Earl’s third son, Algernon Percy, who assumed the title of the tenth earl of Northumberland following his father’s death in 1632. At the time the dedication was written, Algernon Percy was the lord lieutenant of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland.83 The Percy family had a long history of military service, both for and against the crown, but neither the ninth or tenth earls were as bellicose as many

Carlton, Going to the Wars, 72. Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, sig A3 v. 82 B. Donagan, ‘Barriffe, William (1599/1600–1643)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004). 83 The Earl of Northumberland held the lieutenancy of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland and the town of Newcastle from 1618–39. 80 81

222

chapter four

Figure 15. Portrait of William Barriffe from the frontispiece of his Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man (1635). Courtesy of the British Library.

of his ancestors. Like other English gentlemen, young Algernon Percy toured the continent in the early 1620s, but he did not join the fighting in either the Netherlands or Germany. Nevertheless, he did go on to contribute to the England’s defence, accepting the post of Governor of the Ship Money Fleet from Charles I in 1636 and going on to become Lord High Admiral in 1638. Barriffe’s decision to dedicate his treatise to Northumberland appears to have been in recognition of his heroic ancestors and the earl’s recent installation as a Knight of the Garter. Barriffe also recognized his debt to Sir Ralph Bosville, who held the captaincy of a foot company in the Kentish trained bands in 1636. Bosville had served in the trained bands for nearly forty years, acting as captain of both horse and foot companies, and it was at Bosville’s urging that Barriffe wrote his treatise.84 Further dedications in the book paid tribute to members of the London Company and the Cripplegate Artillery Yard, with Barriffe singling out two long-serving captains of the

84

Barriffe, Militarie Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, Dedication to Bosville.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

223

Cripplegate military company, Edward Dichfield and Henry Saunders, both of whom were described as “industrious soldiers.” Barriffe recognized the efforts of Dichfield and Saunders, as well as the members of the Cripplegate Company, for improving the proficiency of the London soldiery. Originally wary that the formation of the Cripplegate Company in 1628 might “hinder” the Artillery Company by drawing off some of its members, Barriffe had changed his tune by 1635, noting the Cripplegate Company’s success in training Londoners in the use of arms had only improved the state of the capital’s defences. Last, in the 1635 and 1639 editions Barriffe praised the contributions of Captain Walter Neale and the members of the Honourable Artillery Company, while the 1643 edition recognized the valuable service of Philip Skippon, one of the company’s most famous sons.85 Barriffe’s own experience training at Bishopsgate and Cripplegate was reflected in the pages of his Militarie Discipline. From the opening pages, it is evident that Barriffe plans to follow the accepted practice of the “complete soldier” genre, explaining the process of training soldiers by moving from the simple to complex. He makes a point of telling his readers that he is not an armchair general, and in establishing his credentials as an expert in training a company he uses phrases like “when we instruct our Souldiers” or “now that our Souldiers have attained some small knowledge.” Barriffe opens the book by setting out the postures and handling of arms, what we term as basic training, before moving on to the motions, first facing, then doubling and countermarching, and finally, the art of wheeling a company. The drills, motions, and evolutions found in the Militarie Discipline are based on Dutch practice with Barriffe reproducing the P and M diagrams commonly used by others. His work is comprehensive and he attempts to cover as many variations of the motions as possible: those for advancing, retreating, and holding ground. He discards some of the outdated methods of organizing men into formation, particularly angled formations, which he claims were held in high regard by the ancients, “for their Figures called Diamond, the Wedge, the Sheeres, the Saw, and such

See I. Gentles, The New Model Army, 31–32 and I. Gentles, ‘Skippon, Philip, appointed Lord Skippon under the protectorate (d. 1660)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004). Also C.E. Lucas Phillips, Crowmell’s Captains (London: William Heineman, Ltd., 1938), 85–140. 85

224

chapter four

like. . . . [b]ut in our moderne Discipline, I conceive them to be of little or no use, only thus . . .”86 The second half of the Militarie Discipline is concerned with the application of the motions in first phases of a battle and includes, at the end of work, a six day program for exercising a company. The exercises gave captains a training regimen that could be carried out at militia musters or when preparing recruits for service on the continent. Here again, the emphasis is on moving from the simplest to the more complex manoeuvres; officers are advised, if time permits, to break up the training each day so that files can be instructed in the postures and “true using of their armes.”87 Soldiers were expected to practise their postures at the beginning of each day, with the weakest made to go through the fundamentals of drill throughout the week, while the old hands could either forego this aspect of training or help the younger inexperienced soldiers in handling their weapons. Once the postures were practised, the men were to be marched to a central point, where they were to fall silent and be instructed by the captain in distances and the motions. After this, the men are trained in skirmishing, marching forward two ranks at a time to fire (as they are instructed to do in the drill manuals), before countermarching to the rear, protected by their pikemen. The first day’s exercises concluded with pikemen and musketeers training to work in unison, the pikes charging while the shot reloaded, or the whole formation being taught to wheel to meet an enemy coming from the flanks or from the rear. During the remaining five days of exercises, the drilling and exercising was repeated because, Barriffe tells us, “A thing once well done, is twice done.”88 Each motion is practised according to different tactical scenarios, attacks from the left and right, firings in front of or between pikes, retreating or holding ground. By day six, if drill has been carried out from morning to night, as Barriffe suggests, the company should be able to follow the commands of its officers, move in unison, and maintain discipline in the field. Barriffe’s instructions in the 1635 edition followed the Dutch methods, but in the second edition of the Militarie Discipline printed in 1639 he introduced readers to the Swedish brigade, the new infantry formation developed by Sweden’s warrior king, Gustavus Adolphus. While Bar-

86 87 88

Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, 34. Ibid., 297. Ibid., 301.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

225

riffe was the first to broach the innovations of Gustavus in a military manual, his was not the first book in English to address the introduction of the brigade. That honour went to a Scot, Robert Monro, whose military memoir, Monro His Expedition With The Worthy Scots Regiment, was printed in 1637 by William Jones.89 As is often the case with military innovations, a lag of some years exists between the introduction of new tactics or technologies, their acceptance into practice, and their inclusion in printed books. This had been the case with Maurician drill and it was the same with the introduction of new infantry and cavalry practices by Gustavus Adolphus. Even with English and Scots veterans returning home from Swedish service in the 1630s, there were no other references to the Swedes, beyond what was found in the works of Monro and Barriffe. Consequently there were no debates in English military literature weighing the time-tested methods of Dutch against the innovations of the Swedes. In fact, the inclusion of the description of Swedish tactics in The Military Discipline had less to do with an acceptance of Swedish methods in England than it did with Barriffe’s close reading of Monro’s memoir. When the Swedes entered the Thirty Years’ War in 1630, Englishmen were able to follow the exploits of Gustavus Adolphus through various newsbooks including The Swedish Intelligencer, The Swedish Discipline, and The Continuation of our weekly newes, which were printed in London in the early 1630s.90 These newsbooks chronicled the victories of the Swedish armies operating in Germany and in their pages they did make a connection between Gustavus’s victories and his “exact observing of military discipline.” However, the use of the term “military discipline” was related to the notion of the Swedish army as a godly army and had nothing to do with the modifications and improvements to Dutch infantry tactics made by Gustavus in the late 1620s and early 1630s.91 The Swedish Intelligencer, The Discipline, and the weekly corantos were written for popular consumption, meant to stir Protestant support for the English intervention in the Thirty Years’ War and were not 89 R. Monro, Monro His Expedition With The Worthy Scots Regiment called Mac-Keyes Regiment levied in August 1626 (London: William Jones, 1637). 90 T.K. Hagen, “Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and the English Press: News, Foreign Policy and Popular Opinion in Early Stuart England,” (Ph.D. diss., University of California-Santa Barbara, 2002). 91 See W. Watts and T. Roe. The Swedish Discipline. London: John Dawson, 1632 and The Swedish Intelligencer (Vols 1–2, 3–4)(London: Nathaniel Butter and Nicholas Bourne, 1632).

226

chapter four

specifically for an audience of military men, though soldiers appear to have gleaned some inspiration from the newsbooks. A recent study of Oliver Cromwell’s military career suggests that the Swedish Intelligencer may have provided the future Parliamentary major-general and Lord Protector with his early military education.92 Alan Marshall claims that Cromwell had nothing but praise for the Swedish monarch and like so many devout English Protestants, he followed the career of Gustavus closely, hoping, and no doubt praying, that the king would save the Reformed religion in Europe and live up to his moniker as the “Lion of the North.” Early in the first edition of the Military Discipline, Barriffe cited the works that influenced his manual, paying a debt to the ancients, Leo the Issurian and the Roman Robertellus, along with modern authorities such as Count Mansfield and Thomas Kellie’s Pallas Armata. Barriffe’s recognition of Monro’s contribution to his understanding of Gustavian innovations led to his inclusion of diagrams explaining the Swedish brigade and a lengthy quote from the Scots’ memoir. Monro had spent seven years in wars, three with the Danish army and four in the service of the Swedes. He opened his memoir with a short introduction to the reader that echoed Clement Edmondes’s emphasis on the value of reading for those in the military profession, Monro lauded the profit a “diligent and serious Souldier dothe reape by reading, and what begaineth above him, who thinketh to become a perfect Souldier by a few yeares practice, without reading.”93 In his description of campaigning with the Danes and the Swedes, he intermixed his narrative of the wars with observations on military history and modern military practice, including discussions of the proper conduct of officers and soldiers in the field, advice on tactics on the march, and preparations for battle, throwing in ancient and modern military adages throughout to spice up the work. Many of the observations in the second part of the memoirs dealt specifically with Gustavus Adolphus as a general and paid tribute to the military acumen of the “Master of Military discipline.”94 Of all the books on war that were printed in English in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Monro’s offered readers some of the most descriptive and heartfelt accounts of A. Marshall, Oliver Cromwell, Soldier: The Military Life of a Revolutionary at War (London: Brassey’s, 2004), 27. 93 Ibid., To the Reader. 94 Ibid., Part II., 127. 92

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

227

the travails of the early modern soldier.95 But what Barriffe referenced was not Monro’s narrative but his appendix, “An Abridgement of Exercise for the Young Souldier,” which was similar in style to the drill manuals found in the works of Edmondes and Bingham. “An Abridgement of Exercise for the Young Souldier” was thirtytwo pages in length and was written to better instruct soldiers in the Swedish innovations. It opened with a description of the Swedish brigade, considered to be one of the most significant of Gustavus’s tactical innovations. The Swedish brigade, composed of between 1800 and 2000 men and officers, was divided into smaller squadrons, each composed of 550 men. Swedish regiments were made up of two squadrons, or eight companies, with the brigade roughly equal to 3½ regiments. Its companies numbered one hundred fifty officers and men, 126 of those were men-in-arms, fifty-four pikemen, seventy-two shot, with the remaining twenty-four men being officers, sergeants, drummers, standard bearers, and passe-volants.96 Smaller and more manoeuvrable than either the Spanish tercio or the Dutch brigade, the Swedish brigade was composed of three long squares of pikes, made up of 216 men, each supported by four shot squares of fifty men each, with another six squares in reserve. The effectiveness of the brigade was not simply a function of its size or manoeuvrability, but was also the result of the firepower the formation was able to produce through the use of volley fire. As a boy, Gustavus had studied the Maurician reforms and he had come to understand the value of close cooperation between pike and shot as well as the importance of drill and discipline. Johan Skytte, who became Gustavus’s tutor in 1604 when the prince was ten years old, introduced him to the study of the arte militarie. Over the next seven years, Skytte had his pupil read the accepted canon on war, including Ceasar’s Commentaries, Vegetius’s De Re Militari, Aelian’s Tacticks, and Frontinus’s Strategemes, along with modern standards such as de Gheyn’s Wapenhandelinghe, Justus Lipsius’s History of Xenophon, and De Militia 95 In his fifteenth observation, Monro did what few other veterans were doing at the time, by pondering the affect of the sight of so much death on his fellow soldiers. He described how the “frequent danger doth encourage the feeblest Souldier, who by daily dangers, and the familiaritie made with death, in stepping over the bodies of dead men, who perhaps never before seene one die naturally, much lesse to see daily and hourely examples of violent death, learning wit, by by-past losses, and experience had in exercise of our calling, being hardened with toyle and travel”. Ibid., 63. 96 Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, (1639), 368.

228

chapter four

Romana, Don Sancho de Londoño’s Discurso sobre la forma de reducir la disciplina militar a mejor y antiguo estado, La Noue’s The Politike and Militarie Discourses, Machiavelli’s Arte of warre, and von Schwendi’s Kriegs Discurs, von Bestellung desz gantzen Kriegswesens.97 The Swedish innovations were to develop out of these readings and from the prince’s training sessions with the Dutch soldier, Jakob de la Gardie and from Gustavus’s experiences in the Polish wars. With his accession to the throne in 1611, Gustavus undertook a reformation of the Swedish army similar to those carried out by Maurice a decade earlier. The Swedish king, however, went a step further, modifying the Dutch model by reducing the number of musket ranks from eight to six and foregoing the use of rolling fire in favour of volley fire. The modifications called for Swedish shot to advance in three lines rather than two, as was commonly practised by Dutch and by the English. Under Gustavus’s methods, the first rank moved forward to fire kneeling down, the second from a stooped position, the third from an upright position. All three ranks fired in unison, producing a wall of fire meant to wither the enemy’s ranks. Once the musketeers had fired, the pikemen would protect them from cavalry as they reloaded or the pikes would march forward, if cavalry did not pose a threat, and using the “push of the pike,” they would drive back the opposing foot. Gustavus also employed smaller platoons of fifty shot to advance alongside the cavalry to harass the enemy pikemen.98 Monro writes that “there is nothing more able for to make a partie of horsemen fortunate, than a reasonable supply of musketiers ever to attend them.”99 The Swedish brigade allowed for the thinning of the lines of pike, a more economical use of manpower that employed shot and pike in an offensive, rather than a defensive manner, giving the Swedish infantry more bang for their buck. Barriffe incorporated only a small part of Monro’s “Abridgement” into his Military Discipline, a section that included a description and diagrams of the brigade providing a simple explanation of how it was formed. Barriffe seems to have approved of its use, stating the formation

97 T.H. Dodge, Gustavus Adolphus (New York: Da Capo Press, 1998), 68; M. Roberts, Gustavus Adolphus (London: Longmans, 1992), 20; M. Roberts, “Gustav Adolf and the Art of War,” in Essays in Swedish History, edited by M. Roberts (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967), 63. 98 Monro, Monro His Expedition, Part II, 31. 99 Ibid., 109.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

229

had “proved so fatall a figure to the house of Austria” but he went on to note that his knowledge of the brigade was “not particularly to be mine own”, but a collection of ideas derived from Monro and from the Swedish Intelligencer.100 Barriffe’s inclusion of a short chapter on the Swedish brigade could hardly be expected to transform English military thinking overnight, and despite the success of the Swedish army in Germany in the first two years of the 1630s, their methods were not automatically championed by English military writers. Instead, English military books and English practice continued to reflect Dutch methods, and it was only when the Civil War commenced that the veterans of Swedish wars, particularly those fighting for the Royalists, began to call for the use of Gustavus’s brigade in England. This led to the oft-described incident just prior to the Battle of Edgehill in October 1642, when Prince Rupert and the earl of Lindsey argued over whether to order the royalist army according to the Swedish or the Dutch methods. Lindsey, who had served with Maurice and later with his successor Frederick Henry, naturally championed the Dutch order of battle. Rupert and Lord Ruthven, both veterans of Swedish service, insisted that the infantry be arrayed using Gustavus’s brigade. Based on the simplicity of the Dutch methods, their universal acceptance in England prior to 1642, and the number of veterans of the Dutch wars in the ranks of Royalist officers, Lindsey rather than Rupert or Ruthven should have won the argument.101 This early in the war, the Royalist foot lacked the discipline and training to effectively carry out the combined arms tactics for which the Swedish brigade was originally intended. Had the Royalists used Dutch methods, as Lindsey advised, there is little evidence to suggest that the battle might have turned out differently. The inexperience of the bulk of the king’s army and the fact that it had only been organized in late summer suggest that the tactical deployment of the Royalists at the start of the Battle of Edgehill using either Dutch or Swedish methods would probably not have changed the course of the fighting that day.

100 101

Barriffe, Military Discipline (1639), 368. Newman, The old service: Royalist regimental colonels and the Civil War, 1642–46, 8.

230

chapter four English Translations of Foreign Analytical Treatises

By the end of the 1630s, the market for analytical treatises in England seemed able to support works by English and continental authors as well as English translations of foreign titles. The Thirty Years’ War continued to rage on in Europe, with France entering the fighting in 1635. In England, the Bishops’ wars began in 1638, the first fighting on English soil since the last war against the Scots at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign. As described in the first chapter, foreign military books were easily purchased by Englishmen on visits to the continent and available through London booksellers. Similarly, translations of foreign treatises had also been available to the English public since the beginning of the sixteenth century. The first continental military book to appear in English was William Caxton’s translation of Christine de Pisan’s Boke of the fayt of armes and of Chyualrye, printed in 1489. Nearly a half century later Peter Betham translated the Italian, Jacopo di Porcia’s The preceptes of warre (1544), into English.102 If the Netherlands was the school of war in the late sixteenth century, the Italian peninsula was the training ground for European soldiers in the early part of the century. Many Europeans, including Englishmen, took an interest in the military and technological developments that were shaping warfare in Italy after Charles VIII’s invasion of the peninsula in 1494. Whitehorne’s three editions of Machiavelli’s The arte of warre, already discussed, were printed between 1562 and 1588 and as I will describe in more detail in Chapter Six, the advances in fortification design that produced trace italienne bastion defences and improvements in artillery also caught the attention of Englishmen in the 1580s, leading Cyprian Lucar to translate Niccolò Tartaglia’s Quesiti, et inventioni diverse (1546)103 into English as Three bookes of Colloquies concerning the Arte of Shooting in great and small peeces of artillerie (1588).104 In much the same way that the Thirty Years’ War would see the Swedish innovations come to the fore, the Italian campaigns of the early sixteenth century witnessed the ascendancy of the Spanish army, 102 C. de Pisan, Boke of the fayt of armes and of Chyualrye, (Westminster: William Caxton, 1489) and J. di. Porcia, The preceptes of warre, setforth by Iames the erle of Purlila and translated into englysh by Peter Betham (London: Edward Whytchurch, 1544). 103 N. Tartaglia, Quesiti, et inventioni diverse (Venetia: Venturino Ruffinelli, 1546). 104 N. Tartaglia, Three bookes of Colloquies concerning the Arte of Shooting in great and small peeces of artillerie . . . (London: John Harrison, 1588). This treatise is examined in Chapter 6.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

231

leading other states to scrutinize their tactics and practices. By the last quarter of the century, translations of Spanish military treatises were being published in England as tensions between the two countries were beginning to increase. In 1582, Nicholas Lichfield translated Luis Gutierrez de la Vega’s A Compendius Treatise, entitled De re militari, containing principall orders to be observed in Martiall affaires, a treatise that was “lately found in the Forte in Irelande, where the Italians and Spaniards had fortified themselves.105 In his dedication to Sir Philip Sidney, Lichfield tells his patron that he has undertaken the translation because he knows of no other work in the English tongue that offers insight into the “necessary instruction and general commoditie of our common soldier” and that provides some understanding of how the enemy thinks. Attaining “the lyke perfection” through observation and imitation, is as Lichfield suggests, the reason why Englishmen might find de la Vega’s treatise worth studying.106 In the 1590s two other translations of Spanish texts appeared in English. The first, Francisco de Valdés’s The Serieant Maior. A Dialogue of the Office of Sergeant Maior, was translated by John Thorins and printed in 1590, while the second, Don Bernardino de Mendoza’s Theoriqve and Practise of Warre was translated by Sir Edward Hoby and appeared in print in 1597.107 All three titles were part of the genre of military books addressing the qualities of the complete soldier. De la Vega’s treatise was written for the newly-minted captain, for the “unskilled souldiers as are not instructed in the art of ordering, or have any light or knowledge what they ought to doe.”108 The Spaniard described how a captain might use his men to maintain the defence of a town (something that would have been valuable for Spanish and Italian troops trying to control Irish towns) and how to move out into countryside to begin operations against an enemy. De la Vega was particularly interested in the maintenance of order in the ranks, which he claimed should be monitored at all times, including the beginning of the march when the baggage train was loaded, during the march when ambushes might threaten the army, and when new lodgings were being arranged at the end of the day. He warns against 105 L. Gutierrez de la Vega, A Compendius Treatise, entitled De re militari, containing principall orders to be observed in Martiall affaires . . . (London: Thomas East, 1582). 106 Ibid., sig. A. ii. 107 F. de Valdés, The Serieant Maior. A Dialogue of the Office of Sergeant Maior (London: John Wolfe, 1590) and D. Bernardino de Mendoza, Theoriqve and Practise of Warre, (London: [s.n.], 1597). 108 De la Vega, A Compendius Treatise, entitled De re militari, The Prologue.

232

chapter four

allowing soldiers to attack local farmers and offers instructions on how to discourage spoiling, which is the theft of food from villagers or crops from the fields or vineyards. In the second part of De re militari, de la Vega addressed the formation of companies into squadrons and the manner by which they are ordered in the field when the enemy approaches. These instructions covered how the pikes and harquebusiers were to march by vanguard, battle, and rearguard and how the baggage train would be dispersed when the enemy was close and when there was no threat to the army. The final part of the treatise addressed how to order ranks and files in squares depending upon the number of men available to the captain and the distribution of victuals in camp. In writing his translation, Lichfield must have felt like a rival who discovered the game plans of the other team the night before the big match. He no doubt believed that de la Vega’s De re militari revealed, once and for all, the essence of the Spanish military mind. John Thorins translated Francisco de Valdés’s The Serieant Maior into English in 1590 for reasons, he writes, that were similar to those of Lichfield. Florins felt the English might “reap some profite” by his words, as if “theyr Sergeant Maior were as well known vnto our men as vnto them selves” thereby unarming the Spaniard and “doffing his Castilian and hostile armour.”109 The translation was dedicated to another of Elizabethan England’s great soldiers, John Norris, who at the time held the post of Lord President of Munster. Valdés was an experienced veteran himself, the maestre de campo of the Spanish forces in the Netherlands from 1567 to 1580 and a well-respected military theorist who had served under Don Sancho de Londoño.110 Valdés’s The Serieant Maior is written as a dialogue between Londoño and Don Alonso de Vargas, a cavalry officer who also served in Alva’s army in the Netherlands. The dialogue, as we have seen in the works of English authors such as Geffrey Gates and Barnabe Rich, was a commonly used method for imparting information on the military arts, with the two soldiers, one younger soldier (in this case Vargas) who seeks out the wisdom and expertise of the veteran Londoño. As the title suggests,

Valdés, The Serieant Maior, sig. A2. Don Sancho de Londoño was the commander of the Lombardy tercio that arrived in the Low Countries with Alba in 1567. He was the author of Discurso sobre la forma de Reducir la Disciplina Militar a Meyor y Antiguo Estado, (Brussels, 1587). See Gonzalez de Leon, “Doctors of Discipline,” 65. 109 110

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

233

the discussion is focused on the office of the sergeant major, an important rank that linked the armies leading officers with the regimental sergeants responsible for organizing men on the march, when lodging, and before and during the fighting. Londoño, with all of his years in Spanish service, describes the rules and precepts of war, those things that define warfare as an art. A more detailed account of the arte militarie than de la Vega’s De re militari, the two men weigh the various ways of ordering squadrons and the placement of shot amongst the pike. English readers would have been interested in identifying any weaknesses that Valdés’s treatise revealed about the Spanish army. For instance, the discussions suggest that on the march, Spanish foot soldiers were prone to become disorderly and lose their formation, especially when they were forced to march in the heat. During such times, their officers were not always able to restore order in the ranks and such knowledge would be of some value to English soldiers fighting against the Spanish in the Low Countries. Valdés also described the methods of encamping used by the Spanish, the ways they entrenched and laid out their camps and how their sentinels were to be arrayed around the camp. Though these practices could hardly be said to have differed greatly among Europe’s armies, an awareness of the enemy’s methods must have motivated some English soldiers to purchase these translations so they might be able to know their opponents better when they arrived in the Netherlands. Edward Hoby’s translation of Bernadino de Mendoza’s Theorique and Practice of Warre, printed in 1597, was dedicated to George Carew, a veteran of the Irish wars who was named lieutenant-general of the ordnance in 1592. Carew had sailed with Essex and Vere to Cadiz and the Azores in 1596–7, and Hoby’s gift of Mendoza’s treatise must have been presented to him on his return home. The dedication alludes to the ever changing nature of warfare on the continent and to the fact that certain military practices could differ from one nation to the other. However, Hoby also recognized that it was common for soldiers from one nation to borrow new practices from other nations and his translation of Mendoza was a means by which this borrowing might be accomplished. Bernadino de Mendoza was another of Spain’s long-serving officers, having spent thirty years in the army. Printed in Madrid in 1595, Mendoza had dedicated his treatise to Don Philip, Prince of Castile, the future Philip III. For this reason aspects of the book are reminiscent of the genre of the king’s mirrors, the instructional manuals for young

234

chapter four

princes. However, rather than dealing with matters of state, the Theorique and Practice of Warre opens with a discussion of the sinews of war: the importance of procuring money for campaigns, grand strategy, fending off internal rebellions, the levying of soldiers for war, and choosing good officers. The remainder of the book deals with the art of war as it was practised by the Spanish in the late sixteenth century, setting out methods of forming infantry squares, the debate over the use of pistols or lances by the cavalry, the ubiquitous discussions describing how to prepare armies for a march, and even a description of the use of prefabricated bridging “that might bee carried vppon any beast.”111 With their forces still dominating the Netherlands and seeking to aid the rebel army in Ireland, the Spanish remained a clear and present danger to England in the 1590s. These translations must have been regarded as one way of comprehending the Spanish military mind and identifying any chinks existing in their armour. If the Spanish were to threaten England with invasion, as they had done in 1588, the translators of these texts held fast to the belief that the English soldier who read these manuals might be better equipped to handle that threat when it materialized. But the question might also be asked, could a proven method of protestant warfare, such as the success of the Huguenot armies against the Catholic League in France, provide a military model for the English soldiers that could be used against the Spanish? In the last quarter of the sixteenth century, a number of French military treatises, authored by Huguenot veterans of the Wars of Religion, appeared in print in France that were later translated into English. Some of these books had a protestant cachet, and though it is very unlikely that there was such a thing as a Huguenot way in warfare, these books still appealed to latesixteenth and early seventeenth century English readers, coming as they did from generals who had proven records against Catholic armies. In the late 1580s, two French military books were translated into English, one from the pen of the renowned Huguenot general, Francois de La Noue and the other, a much more dated work, from the reformer and veteran of the Italian wars, Raimond de Beccarie de Pavie, Sieur de Fourquevaux. Both La Noue’s The Politike and Militarie Discovrses (1587)

111

Ibid., 59.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

235

and Fourquevaux’s Instructions for the Warres (1589) proved very popular works in England and across Europe.112 La Noue’s The Politike and Militarie Discovrses was translated into English by the printer Edward Aggas and became a much-quoted source for Elizabethan and early Stuart military writers, particularly on matters related to cavalry warfare. La Noue’s success in the field and his popularity among English soldiers made him a household name in England long before the publication of his Discovrses and his fame therefore strengthened the authority when the book was printed. Aggas dedicated his translation of La Noue’s work to Elizabeth’s favourite, George Clifford, the 3rd earl of Cumberland, a privateer with a reputation for courage and as a man who could be trusted in a close fight. At court, Cumberland was the Queen’s champion at the Accession Day jousts and was admired for his skill in the saddle. Aggas also paid homage to La Noue in his dedication to Cumberland, stating that the French general richly deserved “the name of a politike & expert Captaine” for his long service in defence of the Protestant faith. La Noue had dedicated the original work to Henri of Navarre and in his epistle to the future king, he summed up “his large discourse of martiall discipline” explaining that it “teacheth how to use and well employ our weapons: it exhorteth every one in his vocation to embrace pietie & to honor Justice: It teacheth Princes, Lordes, and generally all gentrie the true path & high way to climbe to virtue, and to recover the auncient honor of France.”113 Directed as it was to the king of Navarre, the work was similar to Mendoza’s Theorique and Practice of Warre in that it was concerned with the wise use of military force to obtain political ends—those ends being the country’s political unity after the long and bitter civil war. La Noue began with a broad sweep of the problems facing France and offered possible solutions to overcoming the moral shortcomings he believed precipitated the political and religious crisis that had

112 F. de La Noue, The Politike and Militarie Discovrses of the lord De La Nowe (London: For T.C. and E.A. by Thomas Orwin, 1587) and R. Fourquevaux, Instructions for the Warres. Amply, learnedly and politiquely, discoursing the method of Militarie Discipline (London: Thomas Man and Tobie Cooke, 1589). Thomas Spaulding described Fourquevaux’ Instructions for the Warres as “one of the most widely read military books of the time” being translated in Italian and Spanish as well as English. See T. Spaulding, “Early Military Books in the Folger Library,” The Journal of the American Military History Foundation, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn, 1937): 96. 113 La Noue, The Politike and Militarie Discovrses, sig. A5.

236

chapter four

gripped the commonwealth for thirty-five years. One hundred pages into the treatise, he turned his attention away from political affairs to explore military matters. La Noue naturally drew upon his own lengthy experience in the wars in writing the book, but he also gleaned what he could from ancient authorities, as well as examples from the long history of French involvement in European wars, and he even went as far as to borrow from Spanish practices. He expected French captains to be as well versed in the art of war as he was, and urged them to read the writings of “skilfull Captaines in warlike affaires” so when they mustered their men for training “they might prepare them for time to come: exercise them, and by lively exhortations print in their harts the goodly portraiture of honour.”114 Just as Humphrey Gilbert had done in England, La Noue proposed the formation of academies to train nobles in the arts of war and government. He favoured sending young noblemen to university but recognized that some families wished to educate their children at home. The academy would offer the best of both worlds as they would be established in “every head city of the realm,” and therefore be considerably closer to home for some families. The curriculum was specifically focused on training the bodies and minds of young nobles, something that the universities were not wholeheartedly committed to. The curriculum was similar to that proposed by Gilbert, with students learning to backe a horse, to run at the Quintain sometime armed & sometime unarmed, to handle their weapons, to vault & leap, whereto might also be added swimming & wrestling, for all these make a man strong & nimble . . . To have in our own language, lectures out of the auncient writers ye interest of moral virtue, policy, & war. They might also be instructed in y e Mathematics, Geography, fortifications, & some most usual languages.115

Once this combination of book learning and martial skills was completed, the student aged between fifteen and seventeen years, would commence their apprenticeship in arms. Traditionally, young Frenchmen had received their training in a foot company where they had been taught to be archers. La Noue, however, warned that sending these teenagers into the ranks of the harquebusiers could do more damage than good. While they might be taught to fire a gun and learn the skills

114 115

Ibid., 181. Ibid., 73.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

237

of soldiering like marching or standing guard, it was just as likely that they could fall into blaspheming “quarrelling with friends, playing away all even to the shert, filthie lust after harlots, and for the fulfilling of all disorder, and unbridled liberties.”116 To protect the apprentices this life of debauchery, La Noue informed parents that they should arrange to send their sons in groups so that they could support one another and that they also be placed under the watchful eye of an honourable captain who would train them and keep them from falling prey to the vices practised by the common soldiers. There was much in The Politike and Militarie Discovrses that was useful to the English soldier. The densely packed work covered the three pillars of early modern warfare, infantry, cavalry, and siegecraft, and La Noue offered advice on a wealth of battlefield situations. For the gentlemen soldier willing to read closely, the instructions would have been of great value in training soldiers or ordering them in the field. Despite its wide readership, the information found in Fourquevaux’s Instructions for the Warres, would, however, have been less valuable to the Elizabethan and early Stuart soldier. The work, translated by the engineer Paul Ive, also included the translator’s own manual on fortification design, The Practise of Fortification. Ive’s decision to translate Instructions for the Warres and to include his own book on the construction of trace italienne fortifications as an addendum seems to have been an attempt to draw on the famous name Fourquevaux and bring his own manual to the attention of English readers. Born in 1509, Fourquevaux was the descendent of an ancient noble family who had served in the Italian wars in the early sixteenth century. After his career as a soldier had ended, he became governor of Narbonne and later the French ambassador to the Spanish court of Philip II. Fourquevaux died in 1574, the Instructions for the Warres having been written in 1548, at the end of his military career. The threehundred-page treatise was divided into three books, the first directed at those responsible for raising, outfitting, and training of armies, the second to the captain general, whose duty it was to guide men into battle, and the third covered the course of wars, siegecraft, and the laws governing war. In the first book, Fourquevaux’s examples from ancient and contemporary French and European history would not have been alien to

116

Ibid., 78.

238

chapter four

English readers versed in the treatises of Matthew Sutcliffe or William Garrard. Fourquevaux put great stock in the expertise of the ancient soldier, believing their training and tactics to be superior to that of modern armies. He wished to see a compact, well-trained national force, composed of Frenchmen (rather than mercenaries), which was free of corrupt officers and a thieving soldiery. As we have seen, this was as common a refrain in France as it was in late Tudor and early Stuart England. Fourquevaux framed the first book around raising a force of 25,000 able-bodied men, drawn from the four corners of the kingdom. His force was similar to the English militia; it would be under local commanders and training would take place on “idle daies” when the men selected for local bands would be called together to exercise. The larger legions would muster twice a year. A great deal of attention was paid to training, though primarily with staff weapons rather than firearms, an aspect of the work that dates its writing to the mid-sixteenth century when harquebusiers were still in the minority in European armies. Fourquevaux’s battalions combined the ancient models of the Roman legion and Greek phalanx, in a somewhat complicated mix of pikes, halberds, and harquebusiers, supported by heavy and light horse. As he explained it every one of our legions should be 3600, ordinarie pikes of the body of the battalion, 420 for the flankes, and 170 extraordinarie Pikes for the forlorne hope, which are armes that the Phalanges did use. Besides I would have 600 halberds, 420 harquebusiers for the flankes, 680 for the forlorne hope, all which are arms invented in our time.117

He did depict the legion as it should be arrayed in a battalion, which may have aided in ordering the men before battle if such a formation were to be used. Yet, his effort to amalgamate the ancient with the modern was not always easy to follow and Edward Hoby’s advice to Carew, that styles of war differed from nation to nation, was quite evident in Instructions for the Warres. It should be remembered though, that English authors, as we have seen, were just as guilty of proposing overblown and unworkable formations based on their own studies of the ancients. Instructions for the Warres was said to have been a favourite of Christopher Marlowe, who used it in the writing of Tamburlaine in the 1580s and who most likely was given a copy by Ive himself, as both men knew 117

Ibid., 72.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

239

one another from their days at Cambridge in the 1570s.118 It may have served the playwright well, but the popularity of Fourquevaux’s book with English soldiers is not as easy to determine. Based on references in early Stuart works, Instructions for the Warres was much less influential than La Noue’s The Politike and Militarie Discovrses, undoubtedly owing to the fact that it was the product of an earlier age. There were, however, some sections of the first book that would have resonated with late Elizabethans, particularly those that were devoted to encamping or to the use of pike against horse. These would have been just as relevant to the art of war at the end of the century as they had been in Fourquevaux’s time. Books Two and Three followed in the tradition of the “complete soldier” genre, describing the duties and responsibilities of the captain general, the individual whose task it was to lead the legions into battle. Drawing on ancient models, the Fourquevaux’s captain general was expected to learn from the lessons of the great Roman generals, to avoid encirclement, as had been the case at Cannae, or to use deception, as Scipio had done in Spain when he altered his commonly used battle formation to lure in and defeat Asdrubal. Not all Fourquevaux’s models were ancient; he cited battles in the Hundred Years’ War and the more recent wars in Italy and against the Turks in Hungary. The captain general was expected to keep good counsel, surrounding himself with “wise and expert men,” to use good judgement, particularly when preparing and leading his legion into war, and to be skilled in setting up his camp and building defences to protect it from a surprise attack. The final book explored the methods of ending wars quickly, setting out, among other things, how the captain general might control a hostile population, how prisoners could be interrogated to obtain information about the movements of the enemy, and how to use that information to meet the enemy before they were ready for battle. In a lengthy section on siegecraft, Fourquevaux offers up various adages for dealing with towns and fortifications that refuse to surrender. The advice was sound, but the examples were more or less medieval, the fortresses more often than not were castles, complete with high towers and curtain walls, and not the trace italienne fortifications that were now common to Italy and the Low Countries by the 1580s.

118 R. Logan, “Violence, Terrorism, and War in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine Plays” in War and Words: Horror and Heroism in the Literature of War, edited by S.M. Deats, L.T. Lenker and M.G. Perry, (Lanham, MD: Lexington Book, 2004), 71.

240

chapter four

New translations of European texts slowed in the early Jacobean period, undoubtedly the consequence of the Anglo-Spanish peace, but also due to the conclusion of fighting in France, which saw the victory of Henri IV and a consolidation of the country under Bourbon rule in 1598. The appearance of the long list of English titles that were based on Netherlandish methods and have been discussed up to this point, offer one possible explanation for the lack of interest in new translations of foreign manuals between 1604 and the early 1630s. With French and German works, particularly those of Wallhausen available to English readers, and with the increase in the number of English manuals on the military arts printed in the same period, there was little, if any, reason to produce new English translations of continental military books. There was a plan by London bookseller and translator Edward Blount to publish English translations of Melzo’s Regole militari sopra il governo e servitio particolare della cavalleria and Basta’s Il governo della cavalleria leggiera in 1631, however, Blount died before the works could be completed and no one else took up the project.119 It was not until the late 1630s and early 1640s that translations of continental treatises were again being marketed by English booksellers. France’s entry into the Thirty Years’ War and the Bishops’ Wars with the Scots seem to have sparked new interest in continental titles. It was French military practice that caught the attention of John Cruso, the Cambridge scholar who was responsible for the standard text on English cavalry practice, The Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, printed in 1632. In the late 1630s Cruso undertook translations of two French analytical treatises, Sieur du Praissac’s The Art of Warre (1639) and Henri, Duc de Rohan’s The Compleat Captain (1640), both of which were printed by Roger Daniel, who by this time had set up his printing shop in Cambridge.120 A second edition of Du Praissac’s The Art of Warre was printed in 1642, on the eve of the English Civil War. Like de La Noue, du

119 E. Arber, ed., A transcript of the registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, A.D. vol. 5, 233. These two books were entered into the Stationers’ Register on 8 December 1631, Blount died in c. 1632. See Gary Taylor, ‘Blount, Edward (bap. 1562, d. in or before 1632)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004). 120 S. du Praissac, The art of warre, or Militarie discourses of leavying, marching, encamping; and embattailing an armie. Of building, defending, and expugning forts and fortified cities. Of ordinance, petards, and fireworks. Of the severall duties of officers, and souldiers (Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1639) and H. du Rohan, The Compleat Captain, Or An Abbridgement of Caesars warres (Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1640).

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

241

Praissac and du Rohan were both experienced Huguenot soldiers who had fought in the Wars of Religion. We know more of the life of du Rohan, from the established noble house of De Rohan than we know of du Praissac, who appears to have served in the Low Countries, as evidenced by the examples he cites from the sieges of Bommel, Ostend, and Sluys. For this reason, his work, which was first printed in 1614, fits well with the other analytical treatises that examined Dutch practice published in England in the early seventeenth century.121 Du Praissac’s The Art of Warre covered infantry drill and siegecraft and reflected his knowledge of the Dutch practice, though he still held on to some of the practices common to the French army in the religious wars, notably the large infantry squares numbering as many as 4000 men. Replete with woodcuts, The Art of Warre included brief chapters covering the arts of embattling, encamping, and fortifications. The wood cuts depicted the postures for pike and shot in abbreviated forms, four postures for the shot (caliver shouldered and firing, musket shouldered and firing) and eight for the pike (ordered, advanced, level, sloped, charged, trailed, charged at foot, charged at rear). Cruso offered few clues as to why he chose to translate du Praissac, though Barbara Donagan has indicated that it was Philip Skippon who suggested Cruso undertake the translation.122 His dedication to Lord Matravers, the Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk, and to the members of the Artillery and Military companies of Norwich, once again suggests an intention to assist the local military societies with their training in much the same manner that Bingham, Cooke, and Barriffe had written for the edification of the London soldiery. Keeping with the theme of other analytical treatises, Cruso indicated in his dedication that the subject of The Art of Warre was “preparation and action” and could help in training the company in its postures and motions as well as in the formation of battalions before battle. The Bishops’ Wars were clearly on the mind of the translator, who stressed to the societies’ members that these were “times of action” that required “every true subject to imploy his talent for his Majesties service.”123 Cruso’s decision to translate du Rohan’s The Complete Captain grew out of similar concerns for the defence of Norfolk. The first part of S. du Praissac, Les questions militaries (Paris: M. Guillemot, & S. Thiboust, 1614). Donagan, “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War,” 84. 123 Du Praissac, The Art of Warre, To the Gentlemen of the Artillerie and Militarie Companies. 121 122

242

chapter four

du Rohan’s treatise, an abridgement of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, was dedicated to leading knights of Norfolk and Norwich, while the second part, “A Treatise of Modern War” addressed contemporary military concerns. This second part was dedicated to Thomas Glenham, deputy lieutenant of Suffolk and a colonel in the county’s trained bands, a man who Cruso recognized as a soldier of “known abilities.”124 As for the original author, Du Rohan had risen to prominence in the first quarter of the seventeenth century and assumed the leadership of the Protestant party in France soon after the assassination of Henri IV in 1610. He sought to protect the Huguenot gains that resulted from the Edict of Nantes issued by Henri in 1598 and was not averse to using military force to guard against attempts to weaken the position of the reformed religion. His study of modern warfare included a series of short chapters, providing general rules and principles covering the selection of soldiers, the use of infantry and cavalry arms, the rudiments of siegecraft, and useful adages on waging war and defending states addressed to the prince. After his years of experience and a familiarity with the military practices of various European armies, du Rohan realized that he could not address “all the functions of warre,” but instead sought to offer up some general examples that readers were meant to mull over before deciding upon the best course of action.125 Ancient and modern precedents were used, with du Rohan hoping to inspire some of the “delicate captains of our time,” who had, he said, grown soft from living leisured lives. Foreign translations, like du Rohan’s represent only a small proportion of the military books printed in England in the early Stuart period. Over the previous century, Englishmen had drawn on Italian, Spanish, French, and Dutch sources, accepting some practices, discarding others, to create a hybrid of the “complete soldier” model that suited

Ibid., 104. Thomas Glenham (1595–1649) was a relative of the Sackvilles (see n. 114) whose father was Sir Henry Glenham and his mother, Anne Sackville. He was described by Clarendon as a “a gentleman of a noble extraction and a fair fortune . . . who had spent many years in armies beyond the seas, and of courage and integrity unquestionable”. Glenham served in France and in the Netherlands in the 1620s and commanded a regiment in the Second Bishops’ War. He joined the royalist army and worked his way up through the ranks, first as a cavalry officer and then as colonel-general of the forces in Yorkshire. See A.J. Hopper, ‘Glemham, Sir Thomas (1595–1649)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) and Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of. History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Edited by W.D. Macray (Oxford: Clarendon Press, l888) Vol. II, 286. 125 Rohan, The Compleat Captain, 105. 124

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

243

their military needs. As the next part of the chapter illustrates, early Stuart analytical treatises were increasingly tackling matters related to the preparation of armies for battle in purely modern terms, slowly jettisoning ancient examples and adages and making use of examples from the continental wars in which they so recently served. Preparation and Action: Infantry Tactics Broadly speaking analytical treatises addressed the fundamental elements of infantry warfare, often referred to by sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury writers as “preparation and action.”126 Preparation meant any matter pertaining to “men, money, instruments and victuals,” while action was determined to be all that took place in the field—including marching, encamping, and embattling.127 Though marching and encamping were judged by contemporaries to be “active” pursuits, these actions remained (at least on paper) relatively rational and orderly activities that took place before armies entered into combat. For this reason, sets of rules and regulations governing the movements of armies could easily be devised to help soldiers master the skills required to organize large numbers of soldiers. Borrowing from humanist scholars, whose work relied heavily on accepted “Notions and Maximes of Rule,” military writers sought to construct a discourse on war along similar lines, setting out a series of rules that moved from “singularitie to Catholick conceptions, and returne[d] again the same way.”128 English soldiers found that these logical maxims and rules fitted neatly into the world of the military arts, a world where strict hierarchies of command, encampments set out in orderly rows, and soldiers arranged neatly in ranks and files were the order of the day. Early modern warfare, however, was not simply about marching and encamping, and “action” also implied the strategy and tactics of armies in battle. Because the chaos of a melee could not be quantified in quite the same manner as the countermarch, most English military writers were left to ponder the “sundry stratagems” of files, companies, or regiments as they were organized prior to battle. Combined operations

126 127 128

Du Praissac, The Art of Warre, sig. A3. Ibid., sig. A3. Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 3.

244

chapter four

between horse and foot were sometimes assessed, but most English soldier-authors depicted mounted troops in an auxiliary role, either attacking infantry that were disorganized or fleeing the battlefield, or operating in small units against enemy foragers or supply lines. Detailing the movement of whole armies, or even two or three regiments during battle proved beyond the imagination of many authors. This was because when two armies were thrown together, the breakdown in communication that accompanied the beginning of a battle left officers and soldiers to their own devices. This explains why so many soldier-authors reminded their audience that the common soldier (and the officer) should learn the sound of the drums or trumpet, or the methods of signalling using flags, as these were the best ways for commanders to direct the ranks once the fighting began. Tactics for engaging the enemy in small numbers, such as skirmishes, ambushes, or forays against fixed positions were more easily explained, as these operations required that men act independent of large units, thereby making it possible to describe each man’s responsibilities. Although it would be another two hundred years before Clausewitz posited his notion of the “fog of war,” English military writers appear to have recognized its existence all the same. For this reason, they kept tactical discussions to a minimum and stressed the importance of instilling order and discipline among the rank and file. There was an awareness that once a battle began conditions on the field deteriorated rapidly and only armies that were well trained and well led could expect to come away victorious. As Robert Ward explained, “soldiers well exercised, and acquainted with dangers, feare them not . . . [t]hey goe about the business it self; how hard soever it be.”129 Soldier-authors time and again reiterated that poor command, disorganization, and ill-disciplined troops could quickly undermine the effectiveness of any early modern army. It was for these reasons that analytical treatises devoted page upon page to identifying and imparting a number of general precepts related to military discipline and organization. The practice of establishing a set of general principles to govern the theory and practice of the military arts and defining the rules and regulations of military behaviour was common to military books across Europe, a product of the perfect soldier genre discussed

129

Ibid., 174.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

245

throughout this work.130 Barriffe described the most commonly accepted precepts as the “frequent practice and inuring of his Soldiers to the use of arms: together with his well ordering and contriving these several forms and figures of his Battels.”131 Part of that instruction also included educating officers and their men in their duties and responsibilities, the rudiments of infantry training (usually a description of the pike and shot postures followed by a discourse on the motions of armies), and the proper methods of outfitting of troops with the “habiliments & necessaries appertaining to the wars.”132 Constructing military treatises around a set of general precepts, gave the art of war a universal quality, making it possible for any educated soldier to replicate the motions of war as set out in the texts. Readers need not follow the instructions to the letter, as adaptation was expected when new situations or circumstances arose. For instance, Ward called on commanders to “affect the plaine and readiest way in exercising, which may best suite with the actions and capacities of plaine Souildiers.”133 The precepts acted as a guide, blending the best ancient and modern theories and practices of war to assist those not versed in military affairs and to challenge the thinking of those who had military experience. The rules and procedures need not be carried out lock step, but were to be used as a framework to instruct and train, with adjustments made to suit the conditions of battle. To be able to confront a range of battlefield situations, each soldier was expected to understand the duties and responsibilities of his rank. Listing the duties of each rank had its roots in ancient didactic military works, and the first job of any new recruit, even in modern armies, is to understand what they are expected to do and whose orders they are expected to follow. Vegetius had written De Re Militari to improve the training and practice of the Roman army and European and English authors set down their rules and precepts for similar reasons, in fact the basic outline of De Re Militari remained the template for the military manual throughout this period. Soldier-authors, themselves veterans of many years of service, stressed that the explanation of these duties was primarily intended for those young officers “that never followed the

Anglo, The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, 21. Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man (1639), To the Right Worshipfull, Sir Ralph Bosville. 132 Rich, The Fruites of Long Experience, 6. 133 Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 211. 130 131

246

chapter four

wars.” Officers were counselled to know where they fit into the chain of command, what their superiors expected of them, and what they might expect of their subordinates.134 This meant providing a detailed description of the duties of all of the ranks of the army, from drummer to general. While all of the analytical treatises printed in the early Stuart period addressed these duties in one fashion or another, a great deal of attention was paid to the rank of captain, the office held by members of local gentry, and the rank charged with overseeing training and exercising of the trained band companies. Knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of rank reflected the social hierarchies present in English society, with gentlemen of quality expected to lead by example. Contemporaries believed noble birth gave command a lustre that those of a lower station were naturally inclined to follow. That said, the gentry were not expected to shirk their duties nor to take military service lightly. Analytical treatises depicted senior officers as renaissance men, learned in both the liberal and the martial arts. Officers should be able to read and write, to speak several languages, and be schooled in arithmetic and geometry. Religion, wisdom, and temperance were to govern their actions, and they were expected to be free of corruption, making sure that their soldiers received all the pay owed to them. Officers were told to follow these precepts and to study the art of war before they passed their expertise on to others. “It is requisite [a soldier] practise himself first of all to be a perfect private Souldier,” wrote Edward Davies, “before he be drawne to the desire of bearing office, which were to set the cart before the horses, and worke by contraries; for first wee must learne to obey, and then it is lawfull to governe.”135 Analytical treatises also listed traits that all soldiers were expected to possess. In The Art of War and England’s Traynings, Davies set out six traits: silence, obedience, “secretenesse,” sobriety, hardiness, and truth and loyalty, which he considered the foundations of good soldiering. Edward Cooke included valour, freedom from bribes, and moderation in expense among his list, while Francis Markham added wisdom and justice. Markham warned that the profession of soldiering, possibly more so than any other profession, required men to possess these qualities, as strength of character was needed to endure “all the miseries that

134 135

Ibid., 194. Davies, The Art of War and England’s Traynings, 25.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

247

can be conceived.”136 If soldiers were not taught to control their inner passions, “Baseness, Rashnesse, Murther, Robbery, [and] Ravishment” were bound to follow. Senior officers were expected to have already learned how to control their passions, but corporals and sergeants were constantly warned against falling prey to the baser forms of behaviour, most notably drunkenness, gaming, swearing, and whoring. The actions of men had to be strictly governed or an army could disintegrate in the first moments of encountering the enemy. If each soldier was aware of his duties and equally accepting of the much greater responsibilities owed to his god, his prince, his commanders, and his comrades, the army in which he served was destined to be victorious. Early Stuart writers naturally extended this view to include the militia company, which would become the army if England’s shores were invaded by a foreign foe. Improving militia training was the utmost concern of English soldier-authors and there was a general consensus among them that training would not improve unless local militia captains took a more active role in the proceedings. The reason for this was quite simply that the gentlemen who were given the job of captaining local companies were the “fittest men to make a Souldier” and if an army (or a militia company) was to function properly, it required that men of noble birth command the common soldiers.137 Ward described the rank of captain as “one of great consequence” which was best held by men of “excellent quallity and of undaunted valiant resolution.”138 “The unexpertness of a Captaine” cautioned Ward, could lead to the “ruine of Armies and destruction of the Commonwealth.”139 Hexham’s captain also held an honourable place among the company, and as “the chiefe of a company, [he] ought to be very capable of his charge.” The captain was required to carry himselfe with austerity, & gravity in the point of his command, that he may be obeyed, feared, and respected of his souldiers: so should hee also carry him selfe towards them, as a loving and kind father (seeing they must live and dye together) in paying them duely, in helping and relieving them in their wants, necessities, and sicknesses, neither must

136 137 138 139

Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, 20. Ibid., 17. Ward, Anina’dversions of Warre, 200. Ibid., 200.

248

chapter four he be given to covetousnesse in keeping backe from them that which is their due.140

Muster masters and sergeants may well have been given the task of carrying out the basic training of the local bands, but without the active participation of the local gentry as captains, the militia system would fall into disarray whenever the bands were called out for service. Barriffe stated it plainly enough in a poem in his manual urging the gentry to make military service “fashion[able]” again. Rather than leaving training up to the muster master, members of the gentry were told to learn the skills required to carry out infantry drill. The poem asked Why in our Country do we Captains chuse, That have no skill nor artfull inclination They do themselves and Country much abuse: I thinke the Cause of this fault in our Nation Is, that our Gentry holds it not in fashion But some, perhaps, will say, I am to bold There’s no such need for Captains to have skill. The Muster-masters have enough (some hold) The Captains and the Countoes for to fill. So whilst the Muster-master doth the labour. The Officers may play upon a Tabour But stay: me thinks, one puls me by the sleeve: And tells me that I have my self forgot. Wherefore of doublings, here I take my leave: Intreating those that read, mistake me not. Let Muster-masters take their money, then; But let the Captains exercise their men.141

Though militia captains had the responsibility for selecting the junior officers who were to assist in training, they were ultimately responsible for overseeing training and eventually leading the company through the various motions of war at musters or in battle. This meant that at some point in the process of training their companies, local captains had to lead their troops through these motions, or evolutions, of war, which included forming “Rings, Esses, Dees, Battailes, [and] Squadrons, turning one rank through another, in leadinge them to skirmish, & in such sort practise them daily.”142 140 141 142

Hexham, Principles Of the Art Militarie, 1. Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, 107. Davies, The Art of War and England’s Traynings, 121.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

249

The Five Vowels Taking a company into battle required knowledge of the motions of war, or the “Five Vowels,” as they were commonly known in the day. To know all five vowels was to be able to lead your soldiers through the distances, facing, doubling, countermarching, and wheeling. Barriffe explained that “without one or more of the vowels, no word can be spelled, so without one or more of these, neither forme, nor action can be performed.”143 The five vowels were drawn from ancient antecedents, particularly Aelian’s Tactiks, and were considered so important that Barriffe dedicated 160 pages of his Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man to explaining them.144 The majority of early Stuart authors agreed with Barriffe, suggesting that motions were the “life of the Armie” and “the definition of the Arte Militarie.”145 Breathing life into an army required training men to effectively carry out the motions and this rested on the ability of commanders to instil order into the ranks. Disorder, wrote Cooke, “is the confusion of a Battell, but good order prevents this confusion. Therefore all commanders, as such as in them lies, must studie to prevent this in time.”146 No officer could expect to take his men through the “five vowels” without first organizing them into orderly ranks and files. Diagrams and illustrations depicting company formations were common to a number of late Tudor analytical treatises, including Styward’s The Pathwaie to Martial Discipline, Garrard’s The Art of Warre, Clayton’s Approved Order of Martial Discipline, and Barret’s Theorike and Practicke of Moderne Warre. These formations had a static quality, with movement rarely illustrated. The quality and instructive value of the engravings left much to be desired. Elizabethan engravers lacked the expertise of their continental counterparts and it was not until the early Jacobean period, when a small number of Low Countries émigré printers had established themselves in England, did English books begin to reflect the influence of new engraving techniques. The improvements that followed produced higher quality illustrations and during the first half of the

Ibid., 27. John Bingham’s commentary in Tactiks of Aelian lists four rather than five motions, as the Greek separated distances from the other four motions while seventeenth-century commentators combined them with the other motions. 145 Kellie, Pallas Armata, or Militarie Instruction for the Learned, 28. 146 Cooke, The Character of Warre, Ch. XXIIII. 143 144

250

chapter four

century publishers, possibly buoyed by greater profits from improved sales, were able to afford the purchase of copper plate engravings to incorporate into their books.147 When Elizabethan woodcuts did illustrate movement, they most often depicted the snail formation, in which the ranks marched out of a circular formation, firing in a line as the “snail” uncoiled. However, Garrard points out that this ring formation was not to be used in battle, but only to help officers “to traine yr imperfect.” Men were to be brought into the ring, so they could “heare and understand any precepts.”148 Once the men were trained in the use of their weapons, the drummer would lead the harquebusiers out in single file march, giving them the opportunity to practise holding and preparing to fire their guns. As Clayton pointed out in his Approved Order of Martiall Discipline, training men for battle often entailed teaching them how to “march by degrees” and little else.149 Ranks were formed according to their weapons, calivers first, pikes next, and halberds or bills surrounding the ensign and positioned amidst the pikes. Clayton informed his captains to “marche them about awhile tyll you may view your whole companie, to see whether they be of like strength, and in good order in every place.”150 But the introduction of the Maurician system of drill into England brought about significant changes to training, with a much more complex set of drills and exercises to follow than those Clayton recommended for the late Elizabethan soldier. To educate readers in the motions of war, it naturally followed that manoeuvres would begin with the simplest and move on to the more complex. The first step was to organize men into files, the basic unit for training men and work on keeping them in order while marching.151 The file lengths were based on the Dutch methods, which were usually determined to be five to ten men deep for pikemen and eight to ten for shot, but as Firth and

147 R. Godfrey, Printmaking in Britain: a general history from its beginnings to the present day, (Oxford: Phaidon, 1978), 13. 148 Garrard, The Arte of Warre, 90. 149 Clayton, Approved Order of Martiall Discipline, 24. 150 Ibid. 151 The number of men recommended for a single file varied in the early seventeenth century; in 1602 Clement Edmondes suggested between eight to ten, Gervase Markham stated there should be no more than ten men deep in his Souldiers Accidence and though Henry Hexham did not specify the exact numbers, his diagrams depict ten in each file.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

251

others have noted, when the Civil War began the file lengths reflected Swedish practice, with lengths being six deep.152 The debate surrounding the matter of file lengths has raised questions about the didactic value of treatises written in the late 1630s. The contention is that the failure of English military authors to address the shift in tactical thinking, particularly following the success of the Swedish armies, negated much of what the Caroline military writers had to say about infantry tactics. Evidently files of eight to ten were retained through the peaceful years of the 1630s because there was no apparent need to change training manuals, even though Englishmen came to know of the Swedish methods from European books and pamphlets by the beginning of the Bishops’ Wars. Dutch practice was accepted as English practice. At different times, authors recommended files six, eight, or ten men deep, but this always within the context of the Dutch methods espoused in the manuals and analytical treatises.153 The file was a small enough unit, whether composed of five or ten men, in which to train new recruits and to make them feel comfortable marching, holding or firing their weapon. A file could easily circle up, be instructed by a veteran sergeant or muster master using either written instructions or verbal commands, and then be incorporated into the ranks when the whole company was mustered. As Barriffe described in his six day exercises, this kind of training should take place each day during musters, but if it appeared that some files were more in need of attention and extra training than others, the motions could be carried out by those with experience, while the inexperienced could be brought in when they had mastered drilling with pike or shot. After being taught to stand and march in individual files, soldiers were then organized into ranks. According to Davies, the distances between ranks and files were set at either six feet or three feet square, with soldiers using their outstretched arms to measure their distances. The extended arm, with the hand meeting that of the soldier beside him, was used to measure six feet; the elbow of the bent arm meeting the bent arm of the man next to him measured three feet.154 Each soldier was expected to maintain the proper distance and on command to either close ranks on the approach of the enemy, or to double the

152 153 154

Firth, Cromwell’s Army, 94. Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, 13. Davies, The Art of War and England’s Traynings, 139.

252

chapter four

ranks to lengthen their lines. If soldiers failed to hold their distance, gaps appeared and squares could easily be broken, creating the chaos and confusion that Cooke had warned against. To further simplify the process for instruction, diagrams and figures such as those found in the manuals of Weymouth and others commonly found in analytical treatises to illustrate the proper distances and the methods for doubling ranks. Once the distances were established and doubling was taught, companies were trained in the third vowel, facing, which referred to the turning of the entire company (or parts of it) to confront the enemy, whether to the front, left or right flanks, or the rear. The ratio of pike to shot was not set in stone, and militia companies were forced to do what they could with the weapons and men that were available. Hexham suggested that when exercising a company of foot, there should be a 1:1 ratio (40 pike and 40 shot without officers),155 while the Swedish Brigade had a pike to shot ratio of 1:1.3. Companies were to be arranged with sleeves of shot to the right or the left of the ranks of pikemen. These sleeves could be turned to face an approaching enemy, or marched to the front or the rear of the pikes to meet threats from either direction. A company that could learn to face quickly could use this motion when the terrain restricted their ability to wheel or countermarch. Analytical treatises generally recommended that training should take place with companies numbering one hundred men and that one drummer be allocated to each company of this size. Larger companies should be allocated drummers for each one hundred men in the formation. The drummer, described as “the voice of the Commander,” was to stand between the third and fourth ranks and beat the commands for facing the enemy.156 After mastering the motion of facing, training in the more complicated movements of wheeling and countermarching took place. Wheeling meant turning the company on a fixed point, thereby bringing the sleeves of musketeers on the flanks to occupy the front of the formation, while divisional wheeling split the square into two so as to position the shot to the front and the pikes to the rear. Ward noted that wheeling was an effective way for a company to reposition

155 Hexham, The Principles Of the Art Militarie; Practised in the Warres of the Vnited Netherlands, 21. 156 Ibid. Also see Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, 11.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

253

itself so that the best soldiers faced the enemy, or as a way of gaining the advantage of the wind or the sun.157 In training men to wheel, the companies were taught to march in unison, to maintain their distances and to rely on their file leaders and their bringers up (the last men in the file) to keep order among the files. This kind of unit cohesion was also necessary when undertaking the countermarch, a technique first used by the ancient Greeks, but one resurrected by Maurice and Willem Lodewijk in the 1590s as a manoeuvre well suited for soldiers carrying caliver or musket. The Maurician countermarch was designed to allow a rank (or two ranks) to discharge their weapons with a volley against the enemy and then retire either through the other ranks to the rear to reload. By the time that the last rank had fired a volley, the first rank would have reloaded their weapons and been in position to fire a second round, thereby creating an almost continuous wall of fire. The countermarch could be used either to gain ground, to reposition a company, to face an enemy approaching from the rear or the flanks, or to maintain one’s position as that continuous firing was brought to bear against the enemy. The countermarch gained in popularity outside of the Low Countries in the first quarter of the seventeenth century and by 1635 Barriffe was commenting that he knew of at least thirty variants of the countermarch being used by European armies.158 He was of the opinion that those variations complicated the art of war and that one need only know the three countermarches first used by the ancient Greeks; the Macedonian, Lacedamonian, and Chorean countermarches. These were the names commonly employed by military writers in the period, but the tactical underpinnings and practicality of each motion was still a matter of debate. Barriffe complained that divers men, are divers for their opinion concerning the Macedonian and Lacedamonian Countermarches. Some will have the Macedonian, A Counter-march of gaining ground; because it transfers the Battalia, into the ground before the Front. Others will have it, A Counter-march to losse of ground; because (say they) the Enemy being in the Reere, it makes a semblance of flying. Some will have the Lacedamonian, A Counter-march of gaining ground: because the Enemy appearing in the Reere, it makes a semblance of charging or falling on. Others call it, A Countermarch of

157 158

Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 254. Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, 109.

254

chapter four losse of ground because it looseth all that ground the Battalia stood upon; taking in stead thereof, the ground behind the Reere.159

Barriffe also cautioned against placing too much stock in the tactical advantages of the countermarch, calling it the motion that was “least beneficall, to this our moderne Discipline.”160 He appeared content to forego a lengthy debate on the matter and summed up his opinion by emphatically stating that “taking the ground before the Front, is gaining ground: and that to leave the ground we stood on, to take ground next behind the Reere, is losse of ground.”161 Barriffe’s effort to simplify the countermarch was just one more attempt to rationalize the art of war and rid tactical operations of their complexity and uncertainty. Once the motions of war were mastered, commanders merely had to concern themselves with properly outfitting their armies. Training required that men be taught to move in unison and efficiently carry out the “five vowels” without failure; however, a truly proficient force also had to be outfitted with the “habiliments & necessaries” of war, either with pike, caliver, or musket. While some schemes called for the return of the long-bow or the creation of hybrid weapons, like William Neade’s “double-armed man,” whose pike-cumbow provided offensive and defensive capabilities, most writers accepted that pike and shot were the preferred weapons of the day.162 Habiliments & Necessaries of War Early Stuart commentators still considered “trailing the pike” to be a noble pursuit that required a great deal of strength and skill. Pikes were expected to be at least fifteen feet in length, preferably made of ash with the last four to six feet of the shaft encased in iron to protect the sharpened point from being cut from the end by swordsmen. According to Davies, the points should be kept sharp and the company should all carry pikes of the same length, or they would look “uncomely, and

Ibid., 108. Ibid., 109. 161 Ibid., 108–109. 162 W. Neade, The double-armed man, by the new inuention briefly shewing some famous exploits atchieued by our Brittish bowmen: with seuerall portraitures proper for the pike and bow (London: Miles Flesher for I. Grismand, 1625). 159 160

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

255

seeme to the beholders like vnto Organpipes.”163 Francis Markham, who wrote a detailed description of the pikeman in his Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, noted that it had been traditional for the soldiers to wrap velvet, silk, or other types of material (often matching the colours of the company captain) around eighteen inches of the handle to facilitate holding the weapon, but this practice had fallen into disuse. Nevertheless, it was still considered an effective way of training young soldiers, since it showed them “the true place where he shall carry his Pike in Marching, Shouldering, Sloaping and the like.”164 It was always recommended that pikemen be “tall, comely, active and valient” and that they also arm themselves with broadsword and armour, usually a Spanish morion, gorget, cuirass, and taces to protect the thighs and pouldrons to protect the shoulders and arms. Armour was to be either black or russet in colour to avoid light reflecting off the shiny surface and giving away the army’s position.165 Writers advised soldiers to train in their armour so that it would not be cumbersome when they were called upon to wear it into battle. Regular training in armour was also considered the best way of strengthening soldiers and preventing “negligence and sloth.” Citing Vegetius, Cooke warned his readers that if soldiers neglected to don their corslets in training, they might soon grow complacent and find their bodies “weakened by idleness.”166 This was one reason why commentators frowned upon the practice of borrowing armour from others for training, although the primary concern with borrowing was that it would do little good in the event of an invasion, since soldiers who lacked equipment could not be supplied quickly enough and therefore companies would be sent into action lacking the requisite equipment. In 1642, at the beginning of the Civil War, Donald Lupton published A Warre-like Treatise of the Pike, which weighed the value of the pike in the English army.167 Dedicated to the earl of Essex, Lupton’s work pondered whether the time was right to introduce more muskets and half-pikes into the ranks and weed out the pikemen in favour of greater

Davies, The Art of War and England’s Traynings, 135. Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, 39. 165 Ibid., 39. 166 Cooke, The Character of Warre, Chp. III. 167 D. Lupton, A Warre-like Treatise of the Pike (London: Richard Hodgkinson, 1642). 163 164

256

chapter four

fire power. A veteran of Charles Morgan’s German campaign of 1627, Lupton served as a cleric but may well have taken up the corslet as well as the collar. It is uncertain how long he served in Germany, but he was back in England by the early 1630s. He also dedicated his treatise to the colonels and captains of the London trained bands, who would soon be called upon to defend the city against the king’s army. Lupton informed his readers that he had seen the musket and the half-pike practised with “Ease and Activity by many ingenuous and Martiall spirits,” a possible reference to the training taking place at the artillery gardens in and around London in the lead up to the war. Lupton’s treatise had little effect on the tactical considerations of either the Parliamentary or Royalists army where the question of pikes was concerned. Though he recognized that preparing for war was essential in keeping the country from falling prey to what he described as “effeminacy and cowardize,” his message got lost in his sermonizing about the common shortcomings of soldiering, particularly the intemperance, gambling, and cruelty that he no doubt witnessed in Germany.168 Lupton argued that it is “not enough to have weapons for a Defence unlesse also they can Offend” and the half-pike, when used in conjunction with greater numbers of muskets, made it more of the latter than the former. The half-pike was lighter and therefore easier to carry on the march, making armies faster and able to manoeuvre quickly in the field. His experiences with Morgan suggest that he and his comrades were overburdened by the weight of their weapons and armour, which he says they cast away [put into carts], and this undermined their ability to fight when fallen upon by an ambush. Lupton wished to see the introduction of light and portable weapons that a soldier “can fight stoutly upon the suddaine, whenas by long marches and hot weather he is tired under his Armes: Soldiers should take a pleasure in bearing them, but they should not be burthened under them.”169 He found the pike was also unwieldy in offensive operations, it was difficult to carry, and it had no long range capabilities, like the musket. Apart from its ability to bring down a horseman, Lupton could find few kind words for the sixteen-foot pike. But Lupton’s plea that the pike be “slighted or forgotten” made little sense at a time when early in the war, the Parliamentary and Royal-

168 169

Ibid., 16–17. Ibid., 42.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

257

ist armies were finding it difficult to arm their troops with adequate numbers of weapons, be they pikes, muskets, or calivers. In the summer of 1642 men on both sides were marching off to war carrying cudgels and scythes and they hardly had the luxury of disregarding a weapon that was still plentiful, easy to produce, and considered an integral part of the English arsenal. An ancient weapon with a noble lineage, the pike was still a part of the arsenals of all Europe’s armies; the pike squares remained, to all intents and purposes, the queen of battlefield. However, Lupton and others made much of the Maurician reforms and the greater reliance placed upon firepower, and it is clear that while the musket was gaining popularity in England in the early 1620s, the costs that accompanied putting a musket in the hands of members of the trained bands remained a problem for which there was no easy answer. Edward Cecil wrote in his “Dutie of a private soldier” in 1617 that the pike continued to be favoured in England while the musket had been “much neglected.” Cecil, however, placed great faith in Maurice’s views on the value of firearms. Maurice believed that it was the musket that should hold the place of honour in an army, and Cecil wrote that Maurice. would give reputation to the Musquett . . . He would have those soldiers, that had served the longest (for their experience & assurance sake) to carry Musquetts. He would make entire companies, aswell of Musquetiers, as of Pikemen: and Commend the Musquetiers to the ablest and bravest Captaines. No occupation requireth soe long a practice to perfect a man in it, as this of soldiership; and soe of all weapons now for long a time as the Musquett, were it brought to perfection, that is, to hitt the Marke, there would be little for pikes to doe but in the execution. Prince Maurice has studied the Musquett more than any souldier before him . . . And his speciall affection to this weapon can not be disavowed.

Cecil went on to state that his own countrymen were beginning to practise more with firearms and that there were now competitions at the butts to promote its use. When it came to purchasing more weapons, the programme of standardization, with muskets replacing calivers that began in the 1610s was still continuing in 1642 when the war began. Even with the apparent victory of the firearm over the bow, there remained surprisingly little discussion on the upkeep and maintenance of gunpowder weapons in the military literature published in England in the period. Cleanliness was, of course, next to godliness, and Thomas Styward had recommended that “souldiers keepe their armour and weapons faire, cleane and serviceable in a readinesse at

258

chapter four

everie sodaine.”170 Robert Monro warned that before going into battle, it was imperative that a soldier check the barrel of his muskets to make sure that it was free of dirt or debris. He also advised officers to punish their men for leaving their weapons behind or for not keeping them clean.171 Most treatises handled the requirements of shot in a few paragraphs, offering brief outlines for outfitting musketeers and suggestions, as Monro had, on how to keep your weapon battle-ready. Francis Markham’s Five Decades of Epistles of Warre offered one of the lengthier discussions of firearms, but even this was by no means exhaustive. On the matter of cleanliness, Markham advised that along with the barrel, soldiers should check that the bore, pan, and the touch-hole were free of impediments and well looked after. He explained that the weapon could either misfire, or worse, not go off if soldiers failed to keep their piece in good working order. The pan should be “tight and the touch-hole vnworne, for if it bee otherwise, the one will scatter and lose powder, the other will blow backe in the Souldiers face, or else recoyle and doe greater mischiefe.”172 Markham echoed the sentiments of others when he advised that the men required to carry and fire an unwieldy piece like the musket should be “strong, square, and of a good, solid, & well knit constitution,” with smaller men given the lighter bastard musket.173 To bear the weight of the musket and to lessen the force of its kick, the musketeer also needed to carry a forked rest that was to be of a length that best suited the height of the shooter (though four feet seems to have been the recommended norm). According to most writers, shot were not required to wear armour, apart from a morion, as they were weighted down with a bandolier for gunpowder charges, a short sword, and, in the case of musketeers, the rest. Naturally, authors called for frequent practise with caliver and musket, even though the powder for training was not always adequate for local militias to undertake live fire exercises so as to reach the level of skill that authors expected. Davies indicated that a man would only be considered a soldier when he was trained to the extent that he could “handle his peece with due dexterity, and his pike with an assured agilitie,” while Barry counselled soldiers to follow the example of the Turkish Janissaries, who were “most experte in armes trough 170 171 172 173

Styward, The Pathwaie to Martial Discipline, 52. Monro, Monro His Expedition With The Worthy Scots Regiment, 9. Ibid., 35. Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, 33.

“a

few men rightly instructed to manage armes”

259

theyre continuall exercise.”174 Furthermore, regular practice with firearms was not only carried out to improve a soldier’s skill with his weapon, it was also a way of making the ranks safer for all. Soldiers ill trained in the use of firearms were very likely to kill their own comrades by accidentally setting off their weapons or lighting the powder in their bandoliers, killing the man in front or beside them, or possibly themselves. Therefore, soldiers were encouraged to master the various postures to prevent their weapons from going off half-cocked. Markham warned that when moving through the postures, a brush of an article of clothing could “kill sometimes him that marketh behind, sometimes him that is before, sometimes sets fire on him that beares it, and sometimes wounds his Officer that comes to give him direction.”175 The concerns of contemporaries indicate that training men in the proper use of muskets may not have been as easy as some historians have suggested and that regular practise was the only way to make a soldier efficient and safe at the same time. Analytical treatises were all things to all soldiers. As Ward explained in 1639, he had undertaken his Anima’dversions of Warre as “a generall discourse of every part of the body of Warre.”176 As far as infantry tactics and training were concerned, analytical treatises provided officers with instruction in what Ward described as the “plaine and readiest way in exercising, which may best suit the actions and capacities of plaine Souldiers.” These books laid out a set of modern precepts for acquiring military proficiency. Focusing as they did on the concept of officer training, these works provided another means of standardizing practice; offering a quick and handy reference for checking the duties and responsibilities of officers and men, the basic elements of drill, and the more complex “five vowels.” When war erupted in the summer of 1642, officers called upon to train and command their men in these manoeuvres at least had some instructions for carrying out these tasks. Once soldiers were trained in these basic elements of infantry warfare, they could be employed to meet the full “brunt of the enemies fury.”177

174 175 176 177

Barry, Militarie Discipline, 9 and Davies, Art of War and England’s Traynings, 3. Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, 35. Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 211. Ibid., 211–12.

CHAPTER FIVE

“THERE IS GREAT NEED FOR REFORMATION”: MILITARY BOOKS AND MOUNTED WARFARE How may we reforme disorders, and avoide future dangers, of compassion of my loving countrymen, and fellows, whereof some still followe the warres, and mere love of my countrey . . . for if we have warres, what more convenient, then to reason and talk of warres. Matthew Sutcliffe, Practice, Proceedings, and Lawes of Armes (1593) It seemeth not a little strange to mee, that our Nation, (against all reason) should afford the serving on foote, so much, and on horse back so little. Sir Edward Cecil, “A Demonstrance of the Cavallrie” (c. 1630)

Early Stuart England harboured a vibrant military community of professional and amateur soldiers eager to keep pace with the innovations and developments in infantry warfare emanating from Europe. Evidence suggests that the methods of drilling and exercising pikemen and musketeers depicted in books helped to improve training being carried out at muster grounds across the country, though these instructions could not rectify all the problems facing the reform of the trained bands. When examined together drill manuals and analytical treatises dedicated to infantry warfare can provide us with a fairly good picture of the evolution of English military practice in the years leading up to the Civil War. Yet the same could not be said for the relationship between printed books and the training of mounted troops. During this period, Englishmen appear to have taken little interest in the reformation of the cavalry and military literature closely mirrored the sentiments of the nation. Of the ninety-four books and manuals printed before the English Civil War, only one, John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie (1632), was dedicated solely to cavalry practice. The dearth of printed material on cavalry even left Cruso to ponder the reasons why his fellow countrymen took such little interest in mounted warfare. He asked why it was that “among so many authors ancient and modern, which have written of the Art Militarie, is it not strange that hardly any hath fully

262

chapter five

handled that which concerneth the Cavallrie?”1 Cruso was correct in asserting that cavalry was not “fully handled” before 1632, but there were other English military writers who broached the topic in books printed between 1603 and 1645. The English, as one historian notes, stuck to their “ancient customs” as far as cavalry was concerned. 2 Though they were not innovative, they could still be successful in the field. There were many instances of the effective use of English horse in Ireland where heavy and light cavalry were at times, able to dominate battles against Irish foot soldiers. In the Netherlands, Leicester’s heavily armoured cavalry, carrying lances, had shown that they too could turn back experienced Spanish pistoleers and light cavalry. English cavalry, fighting alongside the Dutch army in their victories at Turnhout and Nieuwpoort, proved that they were equal to the task of fighting continental armies. But these instances tended to be the exception rather than the rule; the English saw themselves as a nation of infantrymen and by the beginning of the seventeenth century, military culture and the content of military books reflected that tradition. In this chapter I explore the English military books and manuals that included instructions for exercising the cavalry by examining the chasm that existed between the theory and practice of mounted warfare in the years leading up to the Civil War. Although there were a number of analytical treatises with sections devoted to cavalry practice, as well as a host of horsemanship treatises offering advice on training, outfitting, and exercising horses for war, these texts appear to have had only a slight impact on English military culture before 1642. This might be the result of what Bruce Boehrer has recently described as the “social devaluation” of the horse.3 This devaluation must be seen in military terms, since the training of horses for pleasurable pursuits, such as racing and hunting, remained popular with the elite. I begin the chapter with a brief survey of the late Elizabethan military theories on cavalry warfare and an assessment of the horsemanship treatises written in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, but only in so far as the latter texts related to the preparation of horse and rider for the rigours 1 J. Cruso, Militarie instructions for the cavallrie (Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel, 1632), To the Reader. 2 Trim, “Fin de siècle. The English Soldier’s Experience at the End of the Sixteenth Century,” 8. 3 B. Boehrer, “Shakespeare and the Social Devaluation of the Horse,” in The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline and Identity in the Early Modern World, edited by K. Raber and T. Tucker (London: Palgrave, 2005), 91–111.

“there

is great need for reformation”

263

of the battlefield. The second half of the chapter examines the small number of early Stuart works, including those of John Bingham, Francis and Gervase Markham, and Robert Ward, that addressed mounted warfare and called for the reform of the cavalry troops of the trained bands. Only when the Civil War broke out, and Englishmen were forced to train their horses for war, was greater attention paid to treatises on cavalry practice. John Vernon’s The Young-Horseman or the Honest plaindealing Cavalier, a widely popular manual, was printed in 1644 and that same year a second edition of Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie also appeared. These works have been noted for their importance in training new recruits, and even some old hands, but when all was said and done, cavalry troops in the English Civil War, particularly the Royalist cavalry under Prince Rupert and the earl of Newcastle, appear to have relied upon the riding skills they acquired from hunting and other pleasurable pursuits and not from any training or study of mounted warfare. This may well support Oliver Cromwell’s famous claim made early in the war that his horse troops, composed of “decayed serving men and tapsters” paled in comparison with the Royalist cavalry of “gentlemen sons, younger sons and persons of quality,” men who had clearly been brought up in the saddle.4 Late Elizabethan Theories on Mounted Warfare During the last decade of the sixteenth century, six of the analytical treatises on the art of war published in England included short sections on cavalry tactics. Williams’s A briefe discourse on Warre (1590), Smythe’s two works, Certain Discourses (1590) and Instructions, Observations, and Orders Mylitarie (1595), Garrard’s The Arte of Warre (1591), Sutcliffe’s The Practice, Proceedings and Lawes of War (1593), and Barret’s The Theorike and Practicke of Moderne Warre (1598), all weighed the changes to mounted warfare at the century’s end and offered suggestions as to how to improve the state of English cavalry. There was a consensus among these authors that Englishmen preferred fighting on foot, rather than on horseback, and that there was no indication that the country would alter years of

4 Quoted in J. Barratt, Cavaliers: The Royalist Army at War 1642–1646 (Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2000), 2.

264

chapter five

military tradition to become a nation of cavalrymen.5 Barret described how the “memorable battles of our famous kings of England, obtained with their foot companies against proude Cheualry of France, as at Agincourt field & sundry other of their honourable battles” was evidence that disciplined English infantry could defeat the best cavalry troops on the continent.6 The English victories over the French cavalry at Crecy and Agincourt in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were the work of the archer and dismounted knight, and by the sixteenth century, the ascendancy of pike and shot over heavy cavalry had again proven that infantry, not cavalry, was the queen of the battlefield. The eclipse of the gentlemen-at-arms, or “men of quality,” as they were known in England, had been a gradual process, with the remnants of heavy cavalry still gracing continental battlefields in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. While the twilight of heavy cavalry owed much to the widespread use of firearms, its demise was also the result of the high cost of maintaining and outfitting horse and rider. A single gentleman at arms might bring as many as five mounts on campaign, and most commentators believed that this made no economic or tactical sense. The sheer number of animals in reserve was not only wasteful, but also burdened armies with long baggage trains that made them susceptible to ambush or attack from light cavalry. During the second half of the sixteenth century, European states found that they could raise and maintain 5000 light cavalry for almost the same cost as 1000 heavy cavalry.7 Militarily, light cavalry were more versatile, moving much quicker than the lumbering knight, thereby making it possible to extend an army’s control over wider areas, exploiting weaknesses in the enemy’s rear and at its flanks. In England, the direct descendent of heavy cavalry was the demilance: horsemen described by contemporaries as being “as well mounted as the men at armes.” The demilance wore three-quarters armour that included bacinet, cuirass, pouldrons, vambraces, gauntlets, and tassets. They carried the “demi” lance which was smaller in length and lighter in weight than the heavy lances used by the men-at-arms. Demilancers also carried pistols and a sword that were to be used in the event

5 6 7

Barret, The Theorike and Practicke of Moderne Warre, 139. Ibid., 139. Williams, A Briefe discourse of Warre, 27–28.

“there

is great need for reformation”

265

that their lance broke during combat.8 Barret claimed in 1598 that the difference between the men-at-arms and the demilance was negligible, though he did find the latter to be more versatile and better suited to the manner that “our warres are now conducted.”9 He asserted that the men-at-arms had been “too heavily and unapt,” while the demilance could serve multiple purposes on the battlefield, being used to breake on a squadron of pikes, first shaken or disarrayed by shot, as to encounter the enemies horse, to backe & succour the Petronels and Hargulutiers being distressed, to conduct their owne, and to detrusse the enemies convoy in company with carbines and other Shot, to surprise the enemies troupes vpon advantage spied, and in general, good for most peeces of seruice for horse.10

Despite the fact that demilancers were considered more versatile than their predecessors, the English saw little reason to maintain great numbers of these horsemen and, like the gentleman-at-arms, they had all but disappeared from the English military landscape just two decades after Barret first praised their battlefield versatility. The Yeomen of the Guard and the Gentlemen Pensioners in the reign of Henry VIII had accounted for the bulk of English heavy cavalry. As the gentlemen-at-arms fell into decline, these companies soon lost their military importance. The Pensioners did retain some of the appearances of a martial institution—a contingent served as Charles I’s bodyguard at the Battle of Edgehill—but their role in training young cavalry officers for future campaigns had ceased by the end of the reign of Elizabeth I.11 Gilbert Millar describes the twilight of the Gentlemen Pensioners as the “last phase of medieval militarism in England,” with the “real beginning” of the British Army taking place in the seventeenth century.12 The decline of the Pensioners as a military institution, and as the focal point of cavalry practice in England, also created a void in the military culture that was slow to be filled. Not only were the Pensioners well-respected horsemen, but they were also some of the country’s leading breeders of horses. While they did not completely Ibid., 16. Barret, Theorike and Practicke of Moderne Warre, 142. 10 Ibid. 11 Members of the Yeomen of the Guard and the Gentlemen Pensioners usually took small retinues with them into battle and this provided young aristocrats and gentry with a means of entering the ranks of the cavalry. See G. Millar, Tudor Mercenaries and Auxiliaries 1485–1547, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1980, 7. 12 Ibid. 8 9

266

chapter five

relinquish either of these roles, the number of men who served in the wars and participated in martial displays at home did decrease over the course of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. As William Tighe noted in his study of the Elizabethan Pensioners, by the end of the queen’s reign the band came to “resemble more a displaced male privy chamber than a disciplined force.”13 The disappearance of the demilance from England had occurred for reasons similar to those surrounding the extinction of the men-atarms on the continent; the rationale for cavalry wearing three-quarters armour was questioned, not only for reasons of cost, but also for its utility in battle.14 As Matthew Sutcliffe reasoned, it was best to leave the armour at home, since it was “but a weake defence against shotte.”15 He observed in 1593 that European armies were now making greater use of light cavalry, “much like Albanian stradiots,” and that if the English were to engage in wars against European states they must adapt to change and make use of various types of light horsemen.16 By the late sixteenth century, theorists considered that armies should be balanced with contingents of both heavy and light cavalry. Heavy cavalry should be made up of cuirassiers, horsemen who were still heavily armoured but who discarded the lance in favour of the sword and pistol. John Cruso claimed in 1632 that the cuirassier was invented “by discharging the lancer of his lance.”17 Light horse companies, composed of hargulatiers, carabins, and dragoons, were expected to provide succour to the heavy cavalry, harassing attacking infantry formations and stragglers. Late sixteenth-century English theorists, while certain that light horse played an important role in the field, were still uncertain which types of cavalry contingents best suited the country’s military traditions. For a short time at the end of the sixteenth century, lancers, demilancers, cuirassiers, hargulatiers, carabins, and dragoons all coexisted in the military literature (and it appears in the field) in a kind of theoretical

13 W.J. Tighe “The Gentlemen Pensioners in Elizabethan Politics and Government,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1983), 125. 14 See Cruickshank, Elizabeth’s Army, 118 and Fissel, English Warfare 1511–1642, 103. 15 M. Sutcliffe, Practice, Proceedings and Lawes of Armes, 181. 16 Ibid., 181. Stradiots, a term taken from the classical antiquity, were light cavalry used by the Greeks and Albanians. The resurgence of this form of cavalry in the sixteenth century was a direct result of the introduction of firearms. 17 Cruso, Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, 30.

“there

is great need for reformation”

267

muddle, with some writers clinging to ancient and medieval methods, while others painted a more up-to-date picture of cavalry practice, citing the success of light horse and carabins in the French Wars of Religion. For instance, Sir John Smythe, who was never one to wholly conform with the accepted military wisdom of the day, wished to see all the heavy cavalry (lancers/demilancers) supported by contingents of light horsemen, some who carried firearms, as well as squadrons formed according to “ancient use,” who carried bows and crossbows.18 Smythe placed greater faith in the bow, worrying that the mounted hand gunner would fail to discharge his piece, owing to the “uncertaintie of these weapons,” or would risk life and limb trying to fire his weapon at close range. In Smythe’s eyes, mounted archers were therefore much more reliable as they “may work very certan [with] great effect to the mischief of men and horses.”19 Smythe reasoned that bowmen could fire their weapons from a distance with their arrows and bolts still likely to find the target. These troops could also harass infantry and support the heavy cavalry whenever the need arose. Yet, most late Elizabethan writers disagreed with Smythe, finding no place for these ancient methods among modern practices. Williams argued against the use of “ancient customes,” putting his faith in the “terror of Muskets, Calivers and Pistolls.”20 Like Williams, most English theorists were keenly watching events unfold on the continent, where the French Wars of Religion and the Low Countries campaigns provided ample evidence that cavalry equipped with sword, pistol, or harquebus could be highly effective against disorganized or fleeing infantry and in reconnoitring the enemy, procuring forage, and securing bridges. These wars led theorists to recognize that horsemen “are most necessary in divers respects,” and that light horse had shown themselves to be particularly effective.21 The English did have some experience with light horse contingents, notably the Northern spears that served along the Scots border. The Northern spears had a fine reputation, growing out of years of service combating incursions from the north. They were said to be “skilful

18 J. Smythe, Instructions, Observations, and Orders Mylitarie (London: Richard Jones, 1595), 165. 19 Ibid., 176. 20 Williams, A Briefe discourse of Warre, 34. 21 Sutcliffe, Practice, Proceedings and Lawes of Armes, 181.

268

chapter five

with al such weapons as they do use in the service of the borders.”22 They carried light lances and wore coats of mail, and during the Elizabethan reign, they served the northern counties well. But by the beginning of the seventeenth century, they too were becoming obsolete. The improvement in relations with the Scots following the accession of James I saw the reduction, and eventual elimination, of detachments of Northern spears. Yet, even before the Jacobean peace, military commentators recognized that the border horse lacked tactical flexibility and that they should be replaced by cavalry carrying firearms. In 1590, Williams compared the Northern spears with the continental hargulatiers—cavalry that wore no armour and carried firearms—and found the English horse wanting. He went on to call attention to fact that the hargulatiers “were far better than spearemen,” owing to the variety of roles the former could play on the battlefield. Acting as mounted infantry, hargulatiers could move quickly to secure bridges, hold towns, or attack convoys, or could bee directed to assaile troupes at their lodgings, either in villages, streights, or fields, where it requires too great a march for footmen to keepe companie with the horsemen . . . when the horsemen approach the enemie, if it bee in a village, lightly they must passe through barriers and narrow streights, bard with wagons, both of victuals, & of men of warre, where commonlie the Enemie keepes guardes & watch. If the passage bee such, either in entering a village or straight that horsmen cannot finde place to enter and to charge, these hargulatiers light on foot, & do no lesse dutie than foote hargabushiers.23

Williams and Sutcliffe found light cavalry to be more economical (always a concern for the parsimonious English) and also better suited to English military traditions. For instance, hargulatiers, carabins (or petronels as they were known in England), and dragoons had more in common with the lightly armed Northern spears than they did with the heavily armed demilance. It was also believed that light horsemen were more effective against invasion, as they could move quickly to meet invading troops where they disembarked or as they moved inland. Nevertheless, late Elizabethan writers remained at odds with each other over the future of English cavalry. This seems to reflect the realities in the field, where heavy cavalry and light cavalry operated with a great 22 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, and Orders Mylitarie, 170. The Northern Spears were also referred to as “javelins”, “prickers” or “Border Horse.” 23 Williams, A Briefe discourse of Warre, 31.

“there

is great need for reformation”

269

degree of success in the Nine Years’ War in Ireland and to a lesser extent in the Low Countries. In reality, the writers were caught between two worlds, with many still unwilling to write off heavy cavalry, but also aware that the gentlemen-at-arms and lancers were becoming less effective in the field against shot-on-horseback by the beginning of the seventeenth century. Of course, any confusion as to the composition of the English cavalry made it all the more difficult to establish a set of standardized instructions for training horse troops. Consequently, late Elizabethan writers found it easier to discuss tactics rather than training. Descriptions of arms and armour of the various types of horseman were common to most of the treatises that broached the subject of cavalry, with descriptions usually followed by a discourse on the role of horsemen in battle. There were no instructions on organizing men into ranks, nor were there directions on how to fire a pistol or carbine from horseback. The silence may be indicative of the fact that there was little or no training actually taking place, either at the muster ground or among contingents of Elizabethan horsemen sent to the Netherlands. Therefore, new recruits were probably forced to rely on skills that they had acquired from hunting or riding for pleasure, while others gained experience in tournaments or the tilting yard, two forms of martial exercise still being practised at the end of the sixteenth century.24 Those with no experience were no doubt taken aside by veterans and given brief instructions before entering a fray in much the same way that file leaders and middle men trained young infantrymen. New recruits would have been told to stay close, watch, and learn. In tightly packed squadrons, these new men could be sandwiched among the veterans in their first attacks and moved to the front and flanks as they matured into hardened cavalry troopers. For the most part, training appears to have been by happenstance. It was up to the soldier to prepare himself

24 Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly has suggested that rather than declining in military importance, the emphasis of the tournament shifted in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries to include events more readily suited to the changing nature of mounted warfare in the early modern period. Her research found that throughout Europe there was a “great increase in the popularity of other equestrian exercises which gradually displaced the joust and tilt.” These exercises included running at the ring and running at the head. H. Watanabe-O’Kelly, “Tournaments and Their Relevance for Warfare in the Early Modern Period,” European History Quarterly, 20 (October 1990): 455.

270

chapter five

for battle. If he did not prepare adequately, he undoubtedly suffered for his shortcomings. Ultimately, late Elizabethan commentators could provide few concrete recommendations to reform the cavalry. In fact, there seemed to be a tacit realization that any reform would be hard come by, especially as each passing generation saw fewer and fewer men training their horses for war. The popularity of the new horsemanship or haute école, the highly stylized form of riding that became the precursor to modern dressage, further whittled away at the ties between equestrian culture and military culture. Sutcliffe tried to warn his countrymen against forsaking the war horse, imparting a gentle jibe at those who had taken to more leisurely activities in and out of the saddle. He wished men would set aside those pursuits long enough to prepare themselves (and their horses) for war, wishing only for “liberall mindes and good order, that some part of that [which] is now spent in suret, silkes, golden laces, and other vanities, may be employed in keeping horses for service.25 Warfare and Horsemanship Treatises Training horses for service was a time consuming and costly undertaking that required great commitment and patience on the part of the rider. If there was one point on which all writers of English military books could agree, it was that mounted troops must be taught to manage their horses long before they went to war. Controlling a mount, making it gallop and stop, turn and wheel, or face a forest of pikemen, were skills that took years rather than weeks to learn. Traditionally, equestrian training had been taught to English gentlemen from a young age, as it was understood for centuries that regular practice was required for rider and horse to better understand one another. Once riders had

25 Sutcliffe, Practice, Proceedings, and Lawes of Armes, 185. In the wars of Henry VIII the English were forced to rely on mercenary contingents to fill the ranks of the cavalry. This problem was never rectified in the later Tudor period since the costs of outfitting contingents of heavy horsemen proved too great for Elizabeth I’s government. Companies of English horse were raised for service in the Low Countries, but often through the largesse of leading courtiers. After taking command of the English forces sent to the Netherlands in 1585, the earl of Leicester personally raised 350 horse troops, with another 650 levied by the counties to meet the agreements of the Treaty of Nonsuch. Small contingents of cavalry continued to be sent to the Netherlands and to France as part of the English forces under Sir Francis Vere and Sir John Norris, respectively.

“there

is great need for reformation”

271

developed their talents, they could participate in tournaments and tilts that often accompanied local celebrations and festivals.26 In his chronicle of London, John Stow cited William Fitzstephen’s description of medieval pastimes and sports in the capital that horsemen took part in. “Every Friday in Lent,” wrote Fitzstephen, a fresh company of young men comes into the field on horseback, and the best horsemen conducteth the rest. Then march forth the citizens’ sons, and other young men, with disarmed lances and shields, and there they practise feats of war. Many courtiers likewise, when the king lieth near, and attendants of noblemen, do repair to these exercises: and while the hope of victory doth inflame their minds, do show good proof how serviceable they would be in martial affairs.27

For the members of the second estate, horsemanship and martial skills went hand-in-hand.28 Skill on horseback, notes historian Dennis Showalter, “reflected pride of craft,” and it was this pride that remained a highly visible aspect of noble culture well into the nineteenth century.29 It is safe to say that the status and authority of England’s knightly class was founded in the saddle. Through training and fighting together, gentlemen came to form “a corporate self-consciousness, a cosmopolitan fraternity of arms, [that was] confident in its solidarity and revelling in its traditions.”30 The corporate character of medieval aristocratic military culture was further reinforced by the exclusivity of this group and the important role that wealth played in defining entry into its ranks. Only those who had the resources to purchase warhorses and armour could expect to maintain their status as knights.31 The important relationship between wealth and mounted warfare had long been recognized and

See J.R.V. Barker, The Tournament in England (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1986), 17. J. Stow, A Survey of London Written in the Year 1598 (London: Sutton, 2005), 96. 28 I have included a detailed discussion of horsemanship texts primarily because it is difficult to delineate where the term service begins and ends. A horse used for pleasure or for sport, might also be used for war in seventeenth England. J.R. Hale includes treatises on horses and riding in his survey of books of military interest printed in Venice between 1492 and 1570. See J.R. Hale, “Printing and Military Culture of Renaissance Venice” in Renaissance War, Studies edited by J.R. Hale (London: Hambeldon Press, 1983), 429– 467. 29 D.E. Showlater, “Caste, Skill and Training: The Evolution of Cohesion in European Armies from the Middle Ages to the Sixteenth Century,” The Journal of Military History, 57 ( July 1993): 409. 30 R.L. Connell, Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons and Aggression (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 90. 31 C. Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), 15. 26

27

272

chapter five

was, by no means, solely a product of feudalism or medieval Europe. The ancient Greeks had acknowledged that wealth was a necessary requirement for cavalry service and according to Xenophon, the men best qualified to serve in the cavalry were those who possessed both “wealth and physical condition.”32 Renaissance authors also singled out horsemanship as one of the most important skills a gentleman might possess. Baldassare Castiglione’s courtier was expected to be an “accomplished and versatile horseman” with “knowledge of horses and all the matters to do with riding.”33 Likewise, Machiavelli encouraged his prince to hunt, thereby “accustoming his body to hardships” that he might confront in war.34 Montaigne praised the war horse in his Essays, observing that “among other outstanding qualities both Caesar and Pompey the Great were said to be fine horsemen; and Caesar is said in his youth to have ridden, bareback and without bridle, at full gallop with his hands behind his back.”35 Mirroring the prescriptive texts of continental Europeans, the Englishman Thomas Elyot noted in The Boke Named the Governour (1531), that “to ryde surely and clene on a great horse [is] the most honorable exercise, in myne opinion, and that besemeth the astate of every noble persone.” For Elyot, gentlemen honed their horsemanship skills for two reasons: the first being the psychological effects of the “maiestie and drede” that the sight of a man aboard a “fierce and cruell beaste” had on “inferiour persones,” and the second being its military significance, especially in the “pursuete of enemies and escapying imminent daunger, when wisdome therto exhorteth.”36 Roger Ascham, the scholar and tutor to Elizabeth I and the earl of Leicester, maintained that for gentleman “to ride faire, is most cumlie for him self, most necessarie for his contrey, and the greater he is in blood, the greater is his praise the more he doth exceede all other therin.”37 Ascham’s contemporary, Humphrey Gilbert, when devising his curricu-

32 From Xenophon’s Cavalry Commander in Hiero the Tyrant and Other Treatises (London, Penguin, 1997), 68. 33 B. Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier, translated by George Bull (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 62. 34 N. Machiavelli, The Prince, Translated by George Bull (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 48. 35 M. Montaigne, The Complete Essays (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 322. 36 T. Elyot, The Boke Named the Governour (London: J.M. Dent & Co. 1907), 78. 37 Ascham is quoted in Ruth Kelso, The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth Century, (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964), 154.

“there

is great need for reformation”

273

lum for Elizabeth’s Academy, recommended the employment of “one good horseman to teache noble men and gentlemen to ride.” Gilbert put forward that the training should include, exercising them to runne at Ringe, Tilte, Towrney, and cowrse of the fielde, yf they shalbe armed. And also to skirmish on horsebacke with pistolles, not taking for the learning of any one of them above 10s. by the moneth, he finding them horses for that purpose, and shalbe bownd to theare 10 greate ready horses for the said exercize.38

By the early seventeenth century the traditional forms of training on horseback, the tournaments and tilts, were occurring with less frequency in London and in the provinces. The practice of feats of arms among the English elite was in decline and an ever widening rift between martial culture and equitation was resulting. Gentlemen no longer saw the appeal for showing “good proof how serviceable they would be in martial affairs” and instead, took greater interest in riding for pleasure. In The Complete Gentleman, Peacham lamented the passing of an age with the end of the tournament, noting that in “our launces now adayes,” (of what wood soever they are made of) there is nothing so much danger as hath beene in times past as neyther in our moderne practise of warre have they almost any use at all. The Prince of Orange hath abandoned them, having not a launce in his whole Armie, but hath Carbines in their roome. Spinola hath some troopes of them, yet not many, as I observed. Those of Shertogen-bosch vnder Grobbendoncke, are esteemed the best horse Spinola hath.

As Peachman indicates, there were some who still pined for the days of heavy cavalry, but after years of peace, most Englishmen were indifferent to martial exercises on horseback. The traditional venues for riding, the tournament and the tiltyard, had been eclipsed by the manège, the site of the “new horsemanship.” This method of riding developed in mid-sixteenth century Italy and soon spread to France, where the methods of the Italian riding masters, the cavallerizzi, were perfected. Thanks in part to the publication of Italian and French treatises on horsemanship, enthusiasm for this form of riding spread across Europe with Englishmen flocking to Italy and France to learn from the continent’s finest riding masters.39

Gilbert, Queene Elizabethes achademy: a booke of precedence, etc., 4. Both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I brought Italian cavallerizzi to their courts. Henry employed Alexander de Bologna, and Mathew de Mantua in the royal stables while 38 39

274

chapter five

The new horsemanship or haute école, as it came to be called, caught on quickly in late Tudor and early Stuart England, where nobles and gentry found it to be a suitable substitute for tilting and a form of riding that was free of danger. Though the authors of horsemanship treatises first trumpeted the value of their works for training horsemen for war, the haute école evolved into an art form that demanded far more training then a mounted soldier would ever need on the battlefield. Arthur Dent called the military side of the new horsemanship nothing but an “elaborate pretense.”40 With its “airs above the ground,” its levades, caprioles, and courbettes, the haute école was all about showmanship, despite claims made by writers who insisted these jumps were to be used against an enemy in battle.41 Christopher Clifford, author of The Schoole of Horsemanship (1585), described the equestrian exercises of the haute école as making a horse “fit to dance on a carpet” and informed his readers that he had no intentions of teaching such methods. Clifford’s manual was written to “teach those, whose noble mindes delight in armes” and he called the use of the haute école techniques in battle “a thing very dangerous.”42 Yet, as much as Clifford and other English authors of horsemanship texts hoped their manuals might prepare horsemen for war, the introduction of the haute école did not improve the state of English cavalry. In actuality the new horsemanship most likely retarded it, particularly as the riding ring came to replace the tilt yard, tournament, and muster ground as the traditional venues for military displays on horseback.

Elizabeth’s Master of the Horse, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, arranged for the well respected Pavian riding master, Claudio Corte, to spend six months in England in 1565. In 1576, Leicester also invited the Neapolitan riding master, Prospero d’Osma, to inspect the royal stud farms and to suggest ways that the English could improve their native stock. Alongside men like Corte and d’Osma, the nobility and gentry actively sought to improve not only the art of riding, but also the poor state of England’s breeding stock, something that was accomplished by the beginning of the Civil War. See J. Thirsk, Horses in Early Modern England: for Service, for Pleasure, for Power (Reading: University of Reading, 1978), 16. 40 A. Dent, Horses in Shakespeare’s England (London: J.A. Allen, 1987), 93. 41 Karen Raber notes that the haute école was “only useful to the soldier for inculcating an extra degree of obedience and skill at ground work.” See K. Raber, “ ‘Reasonable Creatures’ William Cavendish and the Art of Dressage,” in Renaissance Culture and the Everyday, edited by P. Fumerton and S. Hunt, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 43–44. 42 C. Clifford, The Schoole of Horsemanship (London: Thomas Cadman, 1585), To the Reader.

“there

is great need for reformation”

275

The first works on the haute école appeared in the early Elizabethan period and immediately began to influence the art of riding in England. Thomas Blundeville’s A newe booke containing the arte of ryding, and breakinge greate horses (1561) was the first English treatise on the subject and was a translation of the Italian riding master Frederico Grisone’s manual Degli ordini di calvalcore (1552).43 Blundeville’s manual went to five editions during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the last four editions published under the title, The foure chiefest offices belonging to horsemanship. Written “for all Gentlemen, Souldyours, Sevingmen and for any man that delighteth in a horse,” A newe booke containing the arte of ryding, and breakinge greate horses did much to popularize the haute école in England.44 However, as Blundeville penned the second edition of the work in 1580, he could muster little praise for his audience of gentlemen and soldiers, first chastising them for allowing horsemanship to fall into decay, before deriding them for their lack of knowledge of riding. These shortcomings were made all the more evident at musters, “where oftimes you shal see some that sit on their horses like wind shaken redes handling their hands & legs like weavers. If the horsemen be good, then the horse for hys parte shal be so evel broken, as when he is spurred to go forward, he will go backward.” Blundeville worried, and rightfully so, that chivalric culture was crumbling due “partelye for lack of arte, & partly for lack of exercise.”45 He believed that without good training in the saddle, gentlemen were more likely to embarrass themselves than instil fear or trepidation in their enemies. He went on to recommend that readers find inspiration in examples from history, learning from the glorious victories of Alexander the Great, who was carried across Central Asia on his loyal horse Bucephalus, or Julius Caesar, who owed his success in battle to a good, strong horse. Blundeville also recognized the value of a good cavalry in modern warfare, singling out Charles VIII’s invasion of Italy in 1494, as evidence of a masterful use of mounted troops.

43 See F. Grisone, Degli ordini di calvalcore et modi di conoscere le nature de’ cavalla emendore I uitii loro, et ammaestrargli per l ‘uso della guerra & commodita’ de gli huomini (Venetia: Vincenso Valgrisi, 1552). 44 T. Blundeville, A newe booke containing the arte of ryding, and breakinge greate horses (London: William Seres, 1561), The Epistle. A second edition was printed in 1580 under the title, The foure chiefest offices belonging to horsemanship, (London: Henrie Denham, being the assigne of William Seres, 1580) and later editions appeared under this same title in 1593, 1597 and 1609. 45 Ibid.

276

chapter five

The haute école was meant to rectify the problems Blundeville identified, thereby transforming the art of riding in England and producing highly skilled mounted warriors. Blundeville’s treatise instructed riders in how to control their mounts, calling for the mastery of a series of intricate manoeuvres in the manège. Horses were taken through their paces with the ultimate goal of producing fine mounts to be used for military service, hunting, or riding for pleasure. When manuals like Blundeville’s first appeared, authors stressed the importance of training horses for war, addressing both the military and the aesthetic, while at the same time emphasizing the nobility of riding. However, by the beginning of the seventeenth century, it was apparent to many contemporary commentators that the martial was giving way to the graceful. As Treva Tucker has pointed out, the popularity of the haute école actually helped to erode the links between military culture and equestrian culture. Tucker suggests that the haute école marked an important transitional period in the development of the French nobility and she believes that for the most part, the new horsemanship had little military value, providing “a substitute, nonmilitary venue for the display of vertu.”46 A similar transformation was occurring in England in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, as Englishmen traded the tilt for the manège. The change did not have the same ramifications for the English aristocracy as it did for the French, owing to the fact that the English never tied their military authority to heavy cavalry in quite the same way as the French had done. Nevertheless, the introduction of the haute école did help to shift the focus away from the military, regardless of what the authors of horsemanship treatises were telling their readers about the benefits of such exercises. Indeed, Blundeville’s comments imply that a divide already existed in the 1580s. Queen Elizabeth’s Gentlemen Pensioners represent a case in point. As the Pensioners raison d’être as a company of heavy horsemen waned in the late Elizabethan period, some of its members eagerly took to the new horsemanship, even authoring books on the haute école. Thomas Bedingfield, who translated Claudio Corte’s Il cavallarizzo into English in 1584 as The Arte of Ryding, was a member of the Gentlemen Pensioners from 1567 to 1603.47 He described his work as T. Tucker, “Early Modern French Noble Identity” in The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline and Identity in the Early Modern World, edited by K. Raber and T. Tucker, (London: Palgrave, 2005), 293. 47 C. Corte, Il cavallarizzo (Venetia, Giordano Ziletti, 1562). 46

“there

is great need for reformation”

277

being concerned with “the making of horses for service” and he too raised the alarm against only using horses for “pompe or pleasure.”48 To train a horse for war Bedingfield recommended the newer techniques emanating from Italy, as well as some older, more traditional methods, such as tilting at the ring with the heavy lance. This exercise was deemed necessary “for skirmish, for battle, and for combate, either offending or defending.”49 Gentlemen, he went on, must “labour also to make your horse to love the lance & sword, by shewing them to him when you ride: and in steed of a rod, laie them overthwart the horse necke, and betwixt his eares.”50 Once comfortable with the sight of the weapons, the horse needed to be made fit for war. Bedingfield told his readers to be sure to keepe [the horse] well breathed; and run him often times up and down among hills & uneven grounds. You shall likewise put him to leape ditches and hedges: but remember, that at first, those leapes be not great, but as you find the horse disposed, so you may put him unto larger and hier [sic] leaping. You must also manie times bring him unto the turnie and fight with swords, against another man armed. With you may first disarmed, with your sword drawne, trotting or galloping to and fro against another man, having likewise his sword in hand; so as first used to his fained fight and noise of armes, he may be bold to doo the like in earnest. Also to incourage your horse, let the horse of him that commeth against you, retire and seeme afraid, as though he would flee for feare.51

Taking a horse into battle required it also be familiar with other animals, and that it not be frightened by the chaos of the battlefield. To this end, Bedingfield proposed that one accustom the horse to blows about the head as strokes which offend horses most are those that be given upon their faces. Therefore to the end of your horse may beare them without harme or impatience, you shall do well to arme him with a shaffron; and in the stable use him unto the sounds of trumpets, drums, and ratling of armour: which being first done, the rest will feare hime the lesse.52 48 T. Bedingfield, The Art of Riding, conteining diverse necessarie instructions, demonstrations, helps, and corrections appertaining to horsemanship, not heretofore expressed by anie other Author. Written at large in the Italian toong, by Master Claudio Corte, a man most excellent in this Art (London, H. Denham, 1584), sig. Aii. 49 Ibid., 8. 50 Ibid., 94. 51 Ibid., 93. 52 Ibid., 94.

278

chapter five

John Astley’s The Art of Riding (1584) was yet another commentary on the new forms of riding. Astley, a Kentish gentlemen and Elizabethan courtier, whose son would go on to serve as a Pensioner in the last decade of the sixteenth century, dedicated his treatise to two members of the company, Henry MacWilliam and William Fitzwilliam.53 MacWilliam and Fitzwilliam were also asked by Astley to write a letter to the readers, which they dedicated to their fellow Pensioners, describing the company as a group of “valorous young Gentlemen.”54 Like Blundeville, Astley borrowed much from the Grisone’s Degli ordini di calvalcore and as with other English authors, he continued to make the connection between the equitation and the art of war, remarking that “the said kinde of Riding is an Art to make an horsse, for the service aforesaid [war and feats of arms], obedient to his Rider.”55 Astley focused much of his treatise on a rider’s use of his hands, and warned that those who lacked knowledge of the proper use of bits and reins would find it difficult to exercise their mounts in the tilts. Improper technique, warned Astley, maketh our horsses forsake the tilt oftentimes: for it is well neere a common thing, that when a horsse dooth passe along the tilt, to see him carrie his head rather from, than forward the same. The reason is, because he that passeth him, draweth his bridle hand toward the tilt, thinking thereby to cause the horse to yield his head and bodie toward the same, and dooth not perceiue, how by that motion of the hand, he streineth the right reine which is on the right side of the horse, that is from the tilt, and slacketh the left reine next unto the tilt, so as the horse cannot for his life keepe his head towards the same.56

The manuals of Blundeville, Bedingfield, and Astley were followed by a fairly long list of works instructing Englishmen in the techniques of the Italian and French schools of horsemanship. Included among them were Clifford’s The Schoole of Horsemanship (1585), three more didactic manuals from the pen of Gervase Markham, A Discourse on Horsemanship (1585), Cavelarice or the English Horseman (1607) and a Faithful Farrier

53 Henry MacWilliam, of Middlesex, served as a Gentleman Pensioner from 1564 to 1586 while William Fitzwilliam of Northamptonshire was a member of the company from 1572 to 1603. See Tighe, “The Gentlemen Pensioners in Elizabethan Politics and Government,” 408–409 and 366–67. 54 J. Astley, The Art of Riding, (London: Henrie Denham, 1584), To our verie loving Companions. 55 Ibid., 2. 56 Ibid., 64.

“there

is great need for reformation”

279

(1640), Michael Baret’s An Hipponomie or The Vineyard of Horsemanship (1618), William Browne’s The Art of Riding the Great Horse (1628), and Thomas de Gray’s The Compleat Horseman and Expert Ferrier (1639). Like the earlier horsemanship manuals, these authors also borrowed what they could from Italian and French horsemanship treatises and it was not until the mid-seventeenth century, and the publication of the William Cavendish’s New Method and Extraordinary Invention of Dressing Horses (1667), that a truly English school of riding was to emerge. All of these texts, including Cavendish’s, cited the importance of “service in the warres,” but fewer and fewer were setting out specific instructions on how to train horses specifically for war, as the Elizabethan manuals had done. Even the veteran Markham made no mention of the military training in his treatise Cavelarice: or the English Horseman.57 Other early Stuart works on horsemanship, such as Baret’s An Hipponomie or The Vineyard of Horsemanship and Browne’s The Art of Riding the Great Horse, overlooked the role of the horse in warfare, paying absolutely no attention to the subject.58 The only treatise to raise concerns about the decline of martial horsemanship was De Gray’s The Compleat Horseman and Expert Ferrier, which appeared on the eve of the Civil War. De Gray felt that too many horses were being trained for racing and hunting and he argued that his countrymen needed to breed more horses for war. With tongue in cheek, he insisted that since England apparently had no war horses, we could at least “furnish our selves with horses of speed to runne away from our Enemy.”59 In light of the inadequacies of the English cavalry in Second Bishops’ War, de Gray’s comments may not have been too far fetched! De Gray’s fears were but further indication of the chasm that existed between the English notion of the complete horsemen and that of the complete soldier. By the beginning of the Civil War, few changes had actually taken place since Blundeville first warned Englishmen that their chivalric culture was in decline. Despite all that had been written about horsemanship, martial prowess was increasingly overlooked 57 Markham’s works remained popular throughout the seventeenth century with many of his instructional treatises printed in three and four editions. 58 M. Baret An Hipponomie or The Vineyard of Horsemanship (London: George Eld, 1618) and W. Browne The arte of riding the great horse also a direct order to make a horse seruiceable for the warres, with the bitt: very necessary for these dangerous times: with the practice of riding the maze and ring (London: S.l. For R. Thrale), 1628. 59 T. de Gray, The Compleat Horseman and Expert Ferrier (London, Thomas Harper, 1639). See de Gray’s dedication to Charles I.

280

chapter five

by authors writing in this particular genre of instructional texts. In fact, by 1639, horsemanship treatises had become the preserve of the sportsman and not the soldier—a further indication of the devaluation of the horse’s military role in English society. As Joan Thirsk noted, by this time, training horses for hunting and racing had come “at the expense of their role in war.”60 While the horsemanship literature offered ample advice to the huntsman and the jockey, the soldier went almost unnoticed. This left it up to the soldier-authors to provide a set of instructions for the cavalry, a task, observed John Cruso in 1632, that few men had been eager to take up. Jacobean Military Books on Cavalry Many of the soldier-authors already discussed served as foot soldiers, having little or no experience with cavalry or training horsemen for war. Consequently, their books reflected their own experience and also the proclivities of the majority of the English soldiery serving abroad. Thomas Fisher, the Low Countries veteran and author of Warlike Directions, or the Souldiers Practise (1634) may well have been echoing the sentiments of his fellow foot soldiers when he stated bluntly that if he had been appointed “any command with the horse as I have with the foot-companies, I should likewise set downe some observations concerning the exercising and imbattailing of them. But for this, and some other reasons at this time I omit.”61 Fisher never explained those other reasons, but it is safe to say that he lacked sufficient knowledge of cavalry tactics, possibly seeing little fighting on horseback during his days in the service of the States. A survey of the military books printed in the first thirteen years of the reign of James I reveals no extant analytical treatises or drill manuals that addressed mounted warfare. Clement Edmondes made no mention of cavalry in The Maner of Our Moderne Training and de Gheyn’s Exercise of Armes was intended to instruct infantry and not the cavalry. De Gheyn did, however, produce a set of engravings of cavalry postures, but these were never printed as part of a drill manual.62 It was not until 1616, Thirsk, Horses in Early Modern England, 17. Fisher, Warlike Directions, or the Souldiers Practise, 61. 62 Kist notes that de Gheyn completed the engravings for a manual, The Exercise of Cavalry, but they were never published as such, appearing only as a set of engravings 60 61

“there

is great need for reformation”

281

and the publication of Bingham’s Tactiks of Aelian, that the matter of training mounted troops was raised in an early Stuart military book. Bingham dedicated five of Tactiks’ fifty-four chapters to cavalry. However, those chapters discussed ancient tactical formations that had little in common with the realities of early seventeenth-century warfare.63 The cavalry formations Bingham described, such as the rhombe and wedge, were by this time obsolete. At the same time, he did offer some commentary on mounted warfare that would have been useful to early modern readers. Tacticks discussed the proportion of horse troops to foot troops, as practised by the armies of Alexander, Darius, and the Romans, and he also discussed the value of various types of mounted troops. Aelian had originally described the role of the horse in war as secondary to that of the foot, a judgement that would have resonated well with the English. In Tacticks, Aelian asserted that horses gave armies greater speed and manoeuvrability, and they should be used to spoile and destroy, whatsoever the enemy hath growing, to make prey on his Castle, burne his homes, kill his people, surprise his places of strength, and to embarre him from doing the like to vs, to bring and convay provision for our Campe, to shut in the enemie, that give not out his campe for like causes, to hinder the enemies march by falling on the reare.64

Aelian’s advice on cavalry was augmented by Bingham’s own set of instructions as part of The Exercise of the English. In his appended manual, Bingham included a section titled “The order and discipline beholden in Horse-troopes, or in Cavalry” that was to be the model for a number of drill books on cavalry training printed before and during the English Civil War. As was the case with so many English military books, Bingham’s instructions on exercising horse troops were perfunctory, with just two sentences explaining the hierarchy of command and an equally succinct description of the two types of cavalry common to the Dutch wars, the harquebusiers and the cuirassiers.

without directions in the manner of his 1607 Wapenhandelinghe. Kist, ed., The Exercise of Armes, vii. 63 Bingham, Tacticks of Aelian, See Chp. 18, “The fashion of horse-battailes; the Rhombe, the wedge, and the Square”; Chp. 20, “The place of horsemen in the field, and the number of usuall horse-battailes, and the degree, and names of the officers of the Horse in generall.” Chp. 44, “Againe of the Horse-battaile called the Rhombe, and the foote half-moone to encounter it.” Chp. 45, “Of the Horse-battaile Heteromekes, and of the broad-fronted foote battaile to be opposed against it.” and Chp. 46, Of an other kinde of Rhombe, and of the Epicampios Emprosthia to encounter it.” 64 Bingham, Tactiks, 100.

282

chapter five

He described the first as being armed with a carbine and pistols and outfitted with a cuirass and “light headpiece.” Harquebusiers were to act as mounted infantry, but he did not discuss how they were to operate in the field. The cuirassier was to wear a cuirass of proof and carry two pistols, each with a “barrell 26 inches in length and a bore of 36 balls per pound.”65 Companies, according to Bingham, were to reflect Dutch practice and operate in files of five deep.66 Later, Cruso and Ward would disagree with Bingham, claiming that fi les of six were acceptable, since the doubling ranks of six would form lines with even numbers. Bingham closed his section on cavalry with a list of the commands associated with the three of the four motions, that of opening and closing ranks, countermarching, and wheeling, practices that mirrored those used by the infantry. Bingham’s experience in the Netherlands had served him well in describing the training and tactics of modern foot soldiers, but his knowledge of the methods used by continental horse troops remained limited. He made no reference to any of the leading European works on cavalry, notably Melzo’s Regole Militari sopra il Governo e Servitio della Cavalleria or Basta’s Il governo della cavalleria leggiera, which were available across Europe before 1616. Wallhausen’s Ritterkunst, the other major work on cavalry printed in the second decade of the seventeenth century, was published in the same year as Tactiks and would not have been available to Bingham at the time he was writing his manual. Yet, however brief his remarks, Bingham’s instructions on cavalry were to become the foundation for the government’s 1623 drill instructions and also the model for a number of privately printed manuals that appeared in the first years of the Civil War. The Jacobean Privy Council’s decision to use parts of Bingham’s The Exercise of the English for its own drill manual no doubt grew out of Bingham’s influence on the War Council, but also appears to have come from a lack of any suitable set of instructions in the English language dedicated to the training of horse companies. As far as horse troops were concerned, the Privy Council’s Instructions for Musters and Armes of 1623 advised deputy lieutenants and muster masters to first order the horse into files of six and to follow the training methods similar to those used by the infantry. Training of the horse was to take place

65 66

Bingham, The Exercise of the English as found in Tacticks, 175. Ibid.

“there

is great need for reformation”

283

under the direction of the captain of the band or his lieutenant or cornet, and like the foot, officers were to have those men who “dwell next unto them” to train together on holidays. Men were expected to show up for musters on horses that they had previously trained on and new men, and new horses, were not be brought to musters, as they would be unaccustomed to the exercises used there. This added to the problems of effectively mustering horse troops, as it was undoubtedly difficult to have men consistently train on the same horse and with the same file members. Training a new recruit to become part of an infantry file, or having a member of the militia arrive at a muster with a borrowed musket, pike, or corslet was not a major disruption to infantry drilling. However, asking a man to put a new horse into a file and then carry out exercises, such as the four motions or skirmishing, would, as the Instructions noted, “bee made vain” by inexperienced horsemen.67 Beyond these brief comments on cavalry the Instructions of 1623 offered no further directions for the managing of horse troops. Engravings of postures for horse had been printed on the continent, but the Privy Council did not include a set of engravings of postures for horsemen, like the ones that Roger Daniel had printed for the infantry.68 The re-issuing of the Instructions in 1625 brought no changes to the 1623 edition and while there were minor alterations to the 1631 edition, the directions for horse troops remained the same as they were when first printed. Along with the advice mentioned above, the 1623 Instructions requested lieutenants take “special care” in finding men to serve on horseback. Officials were warned not to accept replacements at musters and make sure that the horse and rider were sufficiently outfitted to carry out training. The Privy Council continued to call on the gentry and clergy to provide horses for musters and fined, or at least attempted to fine, those defaulters who failed to provide mounts. The language used in the Instructions suggests that concerns for raising detachments of horse were foremost in the minds of the Council, and that training appears to have taken a back seat to the task of simply getting members of the bands and their horses to the musters.

Privy Council, Instructions for Musters and Armes (1623), sig. B3 v. Along with the de Gheyn prints described in n. 61, postures could also be found in Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen’s Ritterkunst (1615) and Kriegskunst zu Pferdt (1616). 67 68

284

chapter five

Nevertheless, there is evidence that when sufficient numbers of mounts could be raised, some militia companies were able to make attempts to carry out training exercises. At Ludlow Castle, the earl of Northampton took an avid interest in the training of horses where he “alwaies provided of 18 goodly and brave young Horses, the which are daily trained in all points of warre (at Ludlow Castle-yard) by one of his Gent: of the Horse, who is an expert and sufficient Rider.”69 The papers of John Scudamore, a captain of the Herefordshire horse and the county’s deputy lieutenant in the mid-1620s, contain notes and letters that provide some insight into the training of the horse troops under his command. During his lieutenancy, Scudamore did what he could to improve the state of both the horse and the foot companies of the Herefordshire trained bands. As Ian Atherton has explained, Scudamore took his job overseeing the militia with the utmost seriousness, believing that the survival of free-born Englishmen depended not only on the exercise of martial valour by gentlemen seeking to live out their masculinity within the precepts of the code of honour, but on training and practice in arms. The code of honour, the concept of chivalric virtue, demanded regular training in arms, not just the display of military prowess in exceptional times of war.70

In an effort to better understand the nature of continental warfare, Scudamore corresponded with his younger brother, Barnabas, who was serving in the Low Countries. Barnabas sent instructions on the training and tactics used by the Dutch that John tried to emulate on the muster ground. His copy book includes sketches of formations and notes about drills for the horse and foot that were sent to his muster master. In a letter titled “Rules of Order of the Horse Troope,” dated c.1626, Scudamore offered suggestions to his muster master on drilling the horse that bear similarities to the instructions for cavalry found in Bingham’s The Exercise of the English.71 In the letter, Scudamore called for the troop of horse to practise opening files to the right hand and to the left, before learning to countermarch. Following the practising of these motions, he asked that the troop learn to wheel, a motion he described as the “the principle thing to do well in exercising a horse Davies, The Art of War and England’s Traynings, To the Reader. I. Atherton, Ambition and Failure in Stuart England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 37. 71 BL, Add. Mss. 11050, fol. 233r. 69 70

“there

is great need for reformation”

285

Troope.”72 He then advised the muster master divide the troop into two divisions, “forming one against the other” to practise skirmishing. Each man was to prime his weapon so as to “let false powder on fire,” with “every man to discharge his pistols to the Aire.” Following that, the troop was to be “drawne there out by fyles, to give fire against a mark.”73 The use of false fires and skirmishing implies that the company did more than trot in file before returning to the alehouse for refreshments. Though Scudamore fit John Cruso’s description of a good captain, one who had “good horses and good arms” and was a good example to his soldiers, the training in Herefordshire was hardly representative of muster grounds across the rest of the country. The Council’s efforts to improve the training of horse troops ultimately failed and despite having issued regular instructions to the lords lieutenant and their deputies to muster the horse, there were simply not enough men like Scudamore who were committed to improving their companies. Throughout the 1620s and 1630s, letters from deputy lieutenants to the Privy Council decried the poor state of county horse troops, while revealing their frustrations with raising sufficient numbers and fining defaulters who refused to serve or pay for mounts. In his treatise, “A Demonstrance of the Cavallrie,” written in the early 1630s, Edward Cecil called Surrey one of the worst shires in the country for their horse troops and set out a variety of reasons why the bands were so badly trained. While the exercising of arms for the foot companies in London and “in all the principall Towns and Cities” was “delighted in” by the populace, Cecil, who had served in the cavalry in the Low Countries and was no novice, recognized that horse troops were “a great stranger unto this kingdome,” and “little looked after.”74 There seemed to be little interest in breeding horses for war and, he said, there was no “publicke encouragement or rewards, at home for men of our profession.” Cecil reasoned that this was because his countrymen believed that the channel protected them from danger and that few saw the need to train with horse or to practise riding at musters. He went on to say that unlike the continent, wee have no nurseries nor academies to breed Horsemen in, as there bee in other Countries: that maie bee our enemyes. Men are not borne

72 73 74

Ibid. Ibid. BL, Royal c.xxiii., fol. 9r.

286

chapter five Souldiers, but must be bred for it. Those nurseries make the French nation, somuch to extol in Horsemanship: essentially to extol those yt doo but imitate them: as much as an Originall is more excellent than the Copie.75

The horse troops could not be expected to improve, Cecil told the king, unless muster masters, who were usually chosen from the infantry, were chosen instead from the cavalry. The muster masters have never have bin used to Serve on Horseback: that there is so vast a difference betwixt those two services; that whosever hath spent all his time among the foote, and was never Served on Horseback: will be as farr to seeke, whom hee . . . footeman in regards to a Horseman hath but little to do.76

The problems Cecil identified were common in many of England’s counties. Most deputy lieutenants and their muster masters were not enthusiastic about raising and training their horse companies, nor did band members seem happy to bring their horses, as well as their weapons to yearly musters. With such terse instructions from the Council on training the cavalry, and since many of the captains lacked proper training themselves, there were undoubtedly many who were uncertain as to how to organize and train their horsemen. The instructions they received from the Privy Council were quite inadequate for the task at hand. It was commonly accepted that there were three kinds of horse troops in the early Jacobean period, the cuirassier, the harquebusier, and the dragoon. The 1623 Instructions described the weapons and accoutrements of each, but even here there was uncertainty about these designations, especially with reference to the difference between the harquebusier and the dragoon. The Instructions designated that cuirassiers be fully armoured, with “Gorget, Curats, Custases, Pouldrons, Vambraces, a left hand Gauntlet, Taces, [and] Cuirass,” and carrying pistol, sword, as well as firelock.77 In 1623, the Privy Council depicted the harquebusiers and dragoons as similar kinds of troops, who carried either the harquebus, dragon, or carbine into battle. However, over the course of the early seventeenth century, the cuirassier went the way of heavy cavalry and the demilance, and by the beginning of the Civil War, there were only

75 76 77

Ibid., fol. 33r. Ibid., fol. 9r. Privy Council, Instructions for Musters and Armes (1623), sig. B2.

“there

is great need for reformation”

287

two types of cavalry in England; the harquebusier and the dragoon. The harquebusier became the standard cavalry trooper of the Civil War, carrying sword and pistol, while the dragoon served as mounted infantry but dismounted to fight. Those Jacobean and Caroline military commentators who wrote on mounted warfare often found it difficult to distinguish between the various types of cavalry, sometimes writing about types of horsemen whose days had long since passed. In his Five Decades of Epistles of Warre printed in 1622, Francis Markham presented such a dated picture of cavalry practice, reflecting on mounted warfare as it was in mid-to-late sixteenth century, rather than the early seventeenth century. Markham offered a brief explanation of the duties and responsibilities of the three most significant cavalry officers, the colonel, the captain, and lieutenant, and set out who “ought to receive the upper hand in dignitie,” that is, the officers who had precedence in rank among the horse and foot company.78 Such discussions were common to many English military books, particularly as the variety of mounted troops expanded to include the three types of horsemen noted above. What is most surprising about Markham’s epistles is that he saw fit to devote much of his discussion of cavalry to the gentleman-at-arms and their weapon of choice, the lance. In his description of the duties of the colonel of the horse, Markham addressed the raising of a regiment of heavy cavalry by a gentleman-at-arms, all suited in full armour “down to the Greave,” carrying “large straight Launce well headed with steele, an arming Sword, and a Mace or Battle Axe at his Saddle pomell.”79 Markham painted an anachronistic portrait of the Jacobean warrior, the result, it would appear, of his days in the Low Countries at the end of Elizabethan reign when he witnessed the death throes of the French gendarmerie. Where training was concerned, Markham’s discourse extended only to the gentleman-at-arms. His aristocratic horsemen were caught between the old and the new, preparing for action at the tilt-yard and not the battlefield. When he did offer guidance, his instructions were still grounded in the previous century. His officers were to be “perfit and absolute horseman” who, “not knowing onely how to bestride and sit vpon a horse fair armed without motion,”

78 79

Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, 137. Ibid., 166.

288

chapter five but how and in what manner both to mooue himself and the horse, making unreasonable Beast doe reason to all his commandements, and by motions of his hand, legge, or body, to vnderstand as from a sensible language to performe all things belonging to mans reasonable pleasure. In plainenesse he shall not onely bee a good Horseman himselfe, but also shall with diligence labour to make his whole Troupe good horsemen, teaching them first how to sit vpon their horse in faire and comely posture, carrying their bodies straight and vpright, the right hand bearing his launce, or Pistol coucht vpon his thigh.80

Clearly, Markham’s audience in the Five Decades of Epistles of Warre were members of the aristocracy, but there was a distinct difference between his analysis of infantry warfare, which is modern and reflective of Dutch practice, and his assessment of mounted warfare, which remained anchored in a bygone era. This, however, was not the case with Gervase Markham, who also added his voice to the literature devoted to cavalry in The Souldiers Accidence (1625). On the title page, Gervase proclaimed his forms of training horse troops to be “from the latest and best experienced armies.” The treatise was one of the first detailed explorations of drilling companies of mounted troops printed in Jacobean England, though it relied heavily on Bingham’s The Exercise of the English and the Privy Council’s Instructions of 1623. His chapter on cavalry was written to assist in training the militia and began with an explanation of the election of men and horses (as his brother had done three years earlier), before moving on to examine the arming of cuirassiers, harquebusiers, and dragoons, and the form and manner of training horse troops. Markham also mentioned the lancer, but unlike Francis, he qualified his discussion, speaking of them in the past tense and claiming that “[i]n the old Warres, and before Fire was got to that height of excellence to which it is now arrived, the first and principall Troope of Horse were called Men at Armes, or Gentlemen at Armes, because the bodie of the whole Troope consisted of Noblemen, Knights, and Gentlemen.”81 Gervase then went on to detail the duties of the two other types of “ancient horsemen,” the demilances and the light-horse or pistoliers. Markham concluded his introduction to the chapter by stating that he had only given a history of these troops “for your knowledge, not your example” and that

80 81

Ibid., 138. Markham, Souldiers Accidence, 38.

“there

is great need for reformation”

289

to these our present time, wherein the uttermost strength of fires is found out and explained, and to shew you that which you must onely imitate and follow; you shall know, that all our Horse-troopers are reduced to one of these three Formes.82

The three forms Markham spoke of were the cuirassiers, harquebusiers (or carbines), and the dragoons. There was a much clearer distinction between the three forms Markham described and those discussed in earlier manuals, with the harquebusier defined as mounted troopers and the dragoons as “a kinde of footmen” on horseback. Contrary to his brother’s treatise, Gervase’s descriptions did reflect current military practice (though some anachronisms were still present), as well as accepted methods for training horse and rider. The instructions for training horsemen at musters were carried out in much the same manner as the training of infantry, which allowed infantry officers to train horse troops. A file leader, two middle men, and a bringer-up would be selected based on their experience and act as leaders for the men in their file.83 Gentlemen soldiers in the troop were expected to act in these positions, while men with less training would fill in as followers, as indicated.

° File Leader

I Follower ° Middle man ° Middle man I Follower ° Bringer Up Once the files and ranks were established, Markham called for training to begin with a series of simple drills meant to ascertain whether a soldier could control his mount. The horse was made to move forward, backward, and to stand still, and then trotted and galloped in a circle. To prepare horse and rider for wheeling, Markham advised his readers Ibid., 41. According to Gervase Markham, “it shall not be amisse (for the speedier perfecting of the men) first to labour the Leaders of the Fyles (which should be the most sufficient men of the Troope) in all these lessons before shewed, and then to make every Leader to instruct the Fyle he leadeth, which will not only make the Teachers strive to be excellent for their owne glorie sake, but also stirre in the other (which are taught) a brave ambition to equall or exceede those that informe them.” Markham, Souldiers Accidence, 55. 82 83

290

chapter five

that “a verie large Circumference” be made to simulate motions commonly carried out on the battlefield. There was “no motion more necessarie,” as it was used in “the Charge, in every conversion, but chiefly in wheeling.”84 Teaching the horse to turn quickly, or terra terra, prepared the animal and rider for countermarching and facing, two motions that were carried out before beginning a charge or repelling a charge by an enemy. After learning to control the mount in a file, troopers would be taught to master the use of the pistol. Markham described the weapon as a pistol-snaphance, which was a pistol with a snaphance lock. The snaphance lock was a flintlock that was common to pistols and to carbines used by English horsemen during the Civil War.85 Markham restricted his discussion of weaponry to the pistol and did not address the petronel or the dragon, the larger firearms used by dismounted cavalry. He listed nineteen postures for charging a pistol, fourteen for preparing the weapon, and another five for discharging it. The inclusion of the postures brought some degree of standardization to the process of loading and firing a weapon on horseback and, in this respect, it made the training of horsemen similar to that of the infantrymen. The postures, however, were far too painstaking to be carried out in the field and later manuals discarded such instructions altogether, claiming that cavalry should carry two or three loaded weapons which were fired at the enemy. After firing their weapons, cavalry either charged the enemy with swords, or wheeled and returned to a safe place to reload their pistols. The final section of Markham’s chapter covered the motions associated with the cavalry, the opening and closing ranks, doubling, countermarching, and wheeling that were also used by the infantry. In the Souldier’s Accidence, Markham set out the commands for each motion, directing his instructions to the file leaders responsible for leading men through these manoeuvres. Because of the complexity of the motions, Markham found he had to later expand on these points in his Soldier Grammar, printed in 1628. He explained that the “the Motions and Imbattaylings of Horse, which being more difficult and strange, doth more amaze the minde of the industrious Learner, and are harder

Ibid., 51. The modern best description of the weapons used by cavalry in the English Civil War can be found in Firth’s Cromwell’s Army, 85–87. 84 85

“there

is great need for reformation”

291

attained unto by Discourse, without some plainer Demonstration.”86 Yet, that demonstration relied almost exclusively on examples drawn from Bingham’s Tacticks, in which Markham returned to ancient methods of embattling—notably the use of the rhombe and the wedge—formations that contemporary authors deemed too dangerous to use in modern battle because they exposed the ranks at the apex of the formation to the full force of the enemy’s defences. As with Gervase Markham’s works on infantry, his discourse on embattling horse reveals a lack of understanding about the realities of warfare and does little to bolster his reputation as a military authority. The publication of Markham’s Souldier’s Accidence and Souldier’s Grammar in the mid-1620s coincided with the Caroline government’s call for the creation of the Exact Militia and the onset of the war with Spain. Once again, Markham seems to have recognized, as he had in 1615, that there was a market for military books and that his two volumes would be of some assistance to officers seeking to bring about a reformation of the trained bands. Though his section on training horsemen did little more than reiterate what others, including the Privy Council, had said about instruction, Markham did a good job in setting out the “first rules and precepts” of cavalry training. His explanation of these basic elements of training proved more enlightened than his instructions of embattling those same troops. Once again, Markham cannot be wholly slighted for his contribution to the military literature of the day, as he was the lone voice addressing the training the horsemen for war in the last half of the 1620s. John Cruso’s MILITARIE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CAVALLRIE and Caroline Books on Cavalry Before the publication of John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie there were no military manuals in English dedicated solely to cavalry practice [fig. 16]. Cruso was not a veteran but a former Cambridge University student, who undertook the writing of the treatise to fill what he believed was a gaping lacuna in the library of English military books. Unlike many of the soldier-authors already discussed, Cruso’s interest in the subject appears to have been purely academic. There is much

86

Markham, Soldier’s Grammar, 43.

292

chapter five

about his background that we do not know, but he seems to have had some military experience serving in the Norwich trained bands in the 1620s, though he never participated in the Dutch Revolt or the Thirty Years’ Wars, despite the claim that he made his way to Holland in support of the Dutch cause.87 A close reading of the Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie reveals that Cruso took most of his information from sources available to him in England and at no time does he allude to any personal military experiences. Instead, the Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie was most likely written while Cruso was at Cambridge and was based on ancient and foreign sources that were either available in college libraries or purchased from local booksellers. Much of Cruso’s inspiration came from renowned contemporary European military writers such as Melzo, Basta, and Wallhausen, as well as the Dutch philosopher Justus Lipsius. Cruso also remained true to the humanist traditions of the day by borrowing from a long list of ancient military thinkers that included Vegetius, Frontinus, and Scipio Amiratus. On matters related to horsemanship, Cruso turned to Pierre de La Noue’s La Cavallerie françoise et Italienne (1620) and Antoine de Pluvinel Instructions du Roy (de France) en l’exercice de monter a Cheval (1624), both valuable sources of instruction on the management and training of horses.88 Cruso deemed a detailed discussion of training young horses, similar to those found in Blundeville, Bedingfield, and Markham, to be unnecessary and limited his analysis of horsemanship to two pages, stating that “for any further directions for the art of riding and managing the horse, I referre the reader to them [in this case de La Noue, Pluvinel, and divers others] which have written of horsemanship ex professo, whose books are every where obvious.”89 As with other English military books, Cruso wrote Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie for an audience of young gentlemen soldiers, untrained and inexperienced in war. He hoped that his treatise would be a “manuduction to those, that are desirous to be instructed in the first rudiments or confused knowledge of this Art: or else as an

87 O. P. Grell, “John Cruso” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 88 Pluvinel’s Maneige Roy ov lon pevt remarqver le defavt et la perfection dv chevalier en tovs les excercices de cet art, deignes des Princes, fait & pratiqué en l’instruction du Roy par A. A . . . . le tout grave & representé en grandes figures de tailles douces par Crispan de Par etc. (Paris: Crispian de Pas for Guillaume Le Noir, 1624) was also translated into German and appeared in folio editions in 1628 and 1629, and later in 1640. See Cockle, A Bibliography of English Military Books Up to 1642 and of Contemporary Foreign Works, 187. 89 Cruso, Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, 35.

“there

is great need for reformation”

293

Figure 16. The title page of John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie (1632). Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

294

chapter five

occasion to the judicious Masters of it, friendly & favourably to correct or supply what they shall finde here to be amisse or wanting.”90 He also believed that his rules and instructions could offer further impetus for the reformation of the horse companies of the trained bands. On the final page of the 1632 edition he wrote that he was well aware of the “continuall & serious calls” from the crown and council for the lieutenants to do more about the poor state of those companies. Though we know that most of those calls went unheeded, Cruso’s treatise was considered a useful guide for assisting county officials with all matters related to the cavalry practice. The 1638 Instructions for Musters and Armes urged lieutenants and muster masters to refer to Cruso’s book and subsequent references to the work in other military books says much about its popularity (though the extent of its influence in reinvigorating the training is much harder to determine). In turn, Cruso was also sending his readers to the analytical treatises and drill manuals on infantry warfare for guidance with the training of horse troops. In three different sections of Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie he states that infantry texts could be used to assist horse troops in learning the motions of war and the proper techniques for firing pistols and muskets. In the first instance, Cruso indicated that many of the motions used by the infantry, such as the formation of ranks and files and the designations for each part of those formations, be it the front, flank, or rear, were common to both the horse and foot. To make it easier for muster masters who might be untrained in cavalry practice, he advised they take what they could from infantry manuals and apply it to the horse troops. On the subject of firearms, harquebusiers and dragoons were to refer to infantry manuals for instructions on loading and firing their weapons since the infantry books were “in such abundance.” In Cruso’s opinion, the great number of infantry books actually detracted from the study of warfare and were “in need of an Index expurgatorious.”91 For dragoons, who dismounted to fire, he again noted that there was no lack of books “for the practicing of the foot” that might be referred to for guidance.92 Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie fit the mould of the “complete soldier” literature, with Cruso arguing that any reforms should be carried

90 91 92

Ibid., 108. Ibid., 44–45. Ibid., 98.

“there

is great need for reformation”

295

out “according to the practice of the Low-countryes, which will be found not unfitting to be appropriated to this kingdome.”93 Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie opened by setting out the duties and responsibilities of cavalry officers from the general down to the common trooper. Cruso then moved on to explain the arming and exercising of the three types of cavalry, the cuirassier, the harquebusier, and the dragoon. It was in this latter section that he explored the best ways to reform the English horse and revealed his true feelings about the state of the country’s mounted troops. The horse, he believed, played an important (and noble) part in the defence of the realm, but that its nobility was being undermined by the “clown[s] laden with arms.”94 By his estimation, reformation of the horse could only occur when the clowns were sent home and “well chosen, well armed and well disciplined” men were picked to replace them.95 Discipline required training and it was training that the bands were lacking. To improve the state of the horse, Cruso called for the regular exercising of companies, but only with horses that were ready for service when they arrived at musters. They first had to be made fit for service, so that the rider be able to command to pace, trot, gallop, or runne in full careere; also to advance, stop, retire and turn readily to either hand, and all alacritie and obedience . . . to bring him to this readie turning, he is to be ridden the ring, and figure 8, first in great compasse, and so in a lesse by degrees, first upon his pace, then on the trot, and so to the gallop and careere.96

In keeping with accepted practices found in the horsemanship treatises, Cruso called for men to acclimate their horses to the sights and sounds of war, to get them used to the smell of gunpowder, to the sounds of the trumpet and the musket, and to ride the animal close to others or direct him toward a musketeer firing a false fire to prepare the horse for a charge.97 Drawing on La Noue and Pluvinel, Cruso also proposed

Ibid., 26. Ibid., 34. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 Instructions for acclimating horses to the sounds of war were commonly found in the horsemanship treatises, suggesting that this was an accepted practice for preparing horses for battle. In his memoirs written some time in the 1610s, Edward Lord Herbert of Cherbury describes just such a set instructions. “To make a horse fit for wars,” Herbert wrote, “embolden him against all terrors, these inventions are useful; to beat a drum out of the stable first, and then give his provender, then beat a drum 93 94

296

chapter five

that mounts be trained on different types of terrain, and to swim and to leap. To train horse and rider for war, he also recommended practising with the lance, though he did state that lancers were no longer a fixture in the Low Countries. Cruso illustrated these exercises, including engravings of lancers shown running at the ring and lifting a hat off the ground with the tip of the lance. Even though the lance had fallen into disuse, he implied that it could be used to improve dexterity and horsemanship [fig. 17]. Once a rider could manage his horse, he was expected to be able to fire a pistol from the saddle and to engage in combat with a sword. Before the arrival of Gustavus Adolphus and the Swedish methods of cavalry warfare, the caracole was the most commonly used cavalry tactic employed by continental armies and training in England (when it took place) mirrored this practice. The caracole required each rank to move forward at a trot, fire their pistols, and retire to the back of the formation to reload. More often than not, instead of wheeling and reloading, cavalry carried two or three loaded pistols that they discharged and then retired. Few believed that the tactic was effective, as horsemen, eager to fire their pistols that were only effective at close range, often fired in too much haste and too far from their enemy. Despite these shortcomings of the caracole, it remained in use until the 1630s when Swedish cavalry reforms of Gustavus Adolphus saw the caracole discarded in favour of the use of shock, with horsemen firing their pistols and then drawing their swords and charging. The Swedish reforms also saw the end of the use of three-quarters armour and the favouring of the buff coat with the protective cuirass and pot helmet that became popular in England in the Civil War. The use of lighter armour made it much

in the stable by degrees, and then give him his provender upon the drum; and he is acquainted herewith sufficiently, you must shoot off a pistol out of the stable, before he hath his provender; then you may shoot off a pistol in the stable, and so by degrees bring it as near as you can till he be acquainted with the pistol, likewise remembering still after every shot to give him more provender. You must also cause his groom to put on bright armour, and so to rub his heels and dress him: you must also present a sword before him in the said armour, and when you have done, give him still more provender: lastly, his rider must bring his horse forth into the open field, where a bright armour must be fastened upon a stake, and set forth in the likeness of an armed man as much as possible; which being done, the rider must put his horse on till he make him not only approach the said image, but throw it down; which being done, you must be sure to give him provender, that he may be encouraged to do the like.” See Edward, Lord Herbert. The Life of Edward Lord Herbert, of Cherbury; Written by Himself (London: Saunders and Otley, 1826), 86–87.

“there

is great need for reformation”

297

easier to fight with sword in a melee. Evidence points to the fact that when horse companies of the militia were trained, they continued to be taught to caracole. The Swedish cavalry reforms, like their infantry reforms, were not canonized in the English military literature before the English Civil War and the history of the evolution of tactics during the fighting suggests that both the caracole and the Swedish cavalry tactics existed side by side in the first years of the war. In time, owing to the influence and reputation of Prince Rupert, the Swedish methods eventually came into favour. Before the war, horsemen trained to carry out the caracole by firing at a mark, a practice used by Scudamore’s company in Herefordshire in the 1620s. Ranks would be ordered to trot ahead of the company, to fire at a post, and then to retire to the left or right to reload. To assist novice cuirassiers in learning how to fire a pistol on horseback, Cruso included a set of engravings of twenty-one postures for pistol that mirrored the postures for caliver and musket found in infantry drill manuals [fig. 18]. There was a good deal of scepticism among military writers about the efficacy of such lockstep instructions for horsemen. By the 1630s, most commentators were advising riders to go into battle with their weapons already loaded and to reload as quickly as possible without worrying about following a uniform set of postures. Cruso also provided harquebusiers with a similar set of instructions for firing carbines that included twenty steps, while dragoons were expected to follow the same instructions, if mounted, or the common infantry postures, if dismounted. These instructions, and the accompanying diagrams of the motions of war for cavalry, went far beyond any directions for mounted troops offered by either the government’s drill instructions or the privately printed manuals and treatises. Cruso’s treatise also included chapters on marching, encamping, and embattling that addressed the uses of cavalry for gathering intelligence, the role of mounted troops in acting as pickets and guides, the carrying out of ambushes, as well as the more mundane tasks of setting up encampments and garrisons and of foraging for food. He concluded the manual with a series of engravings of the order of battle for several of Prince Maurice’s campaigns in the Netherlands. Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie may not have had an immediate impact on the reformation of the horse, but a number of historians point to its influence once the Civil War began. Its popularity was apparent at least as early as 1638, when the book was mentioned in the Instructions for Musters printed by Roger Daniel and also

298

chapter five

Figure 17. The fully armoured cuirassier from John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

“there

is great need for reformation”

299

Figure 18. The postures for cavalry found in John Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie. By the English Civil War, the postures were no longer seen as a necessary part of cavalry training. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

300

chapter five

in Barriffe’s Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man.98 English Civil War historian John Barratt claims that Cruso’s manual was “a widely used text in the early stages of the Civil War” and Barbara Donagan stated that John Lambert carried a copy with him into exile and spoke of the work with great fondness.99 The influence of Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie can also be observed in analytical treatises written in the late 1630s. Robert Ward included a chapter, titled “The Drilling or Exercising of Horse Troops,” in his Anima’dversions of Warre that made use of Cruso’s treatise, as well as sections borrowed liberally from Bingham’s Tacticks, Francis Markham’s Five Decades, and Gervase Markham’s Souldier’s Accidence and Souldiers Grammar.100 Ward also followed the accepted literary practice of setting out the duties and responsibilities of the officers of the horse troop, and he acknowledged the commonly held belief that officers would find it impossible to exercise a troop of horse “unlesse they be first prepared for that service.”101 He encouraged the use of the ring to prepare the novice cavalier for war and drawing on Grisone’s horsemanship treatise, provided seven pages of instructions for “ordering and riding” horses for service. Ward instructed the rider to learn to control his mount, either “with his voice, with his Tongue, with his Rodde, with his Bridle, with the Caulses of his Legges, with his sturrop, and with his Spurres.”102 Once horse and rider were familiar with one another, and the rider felt comfortable controlling his horse, he could move on to the handling of the sword, pistol, and harquebus and preparing his mount to work in unison with other riders in formation.103 98 Noted in T. Spaulding, “Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie” Journal of the American Militiary History Foundatiuon 2 (Summer, 1938), 109. 99 See Barratt, Cavaliers, 2 and B. Donagan, “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War,” 82. 100 Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 282. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid., 283. 103 Ward offered much the same advice to his readers that earlier writers had on the question of acclimating horses to the din of warfare. The rider was to first acquaint the horse with the “rod or truntion,” so as to control the animal in the melee of battle before introducing the horse to the clang of the sword or the sound of the gun. He recommended that footmen be used to simulate soldiers, with “a dozen or more to stand in his way, making a great shouting and noyse, threatening him with their loude voices, against whom you must incourage him to goe forwards: first with a softy pace; secondly with a troty, thirdly with a gallop, at which time let the footemen retreate, fayning to runne away, also let them threaten them with their staves, Pikes or swords.” Once the animal was used to staff weapons, he was trained to endure “Gunshot, Drumme or clattering armour, or any hideous noyse whatsoever” and also

“there

is great need for reformation”

301

With regard to drilling mounted troops at musters, Ward’s instructions continued to reflect the Dutch methods first introduced into England by Bingham, Cruso, and others. He suggested that files of six be used when drilling a troop of horse and that a troop should number one hundred horses (though Civil War troops were rarely that large, usually numbering around sixty to seventy men).104 The training of the troop fell to the captain, but Ward, harking back to Gervase Markham’s recommendations, recognized the problems that a single officer might face in instructing such a large group. To assist captains, he called upon file leaders to share in the responsibilities of guiding the men through their exercises. Ward described the exercising of such a large group of men as a “tedious and painefull” experience for captains, so it was more convenient to take some extraordinary paines in making every File-Leaders most perfect in their Postures and Motions, and then every particular File-Leader shall teach and instruct the residue of his File in the same manner; from whence will arise such an emulation between each File, who shall be most expert, and make the best performance, that in a short space they will transcend in their Military discipline.105

Unity within, and amongst, the files was an important step in creating a cohesive troop capable of carrying out the various motions of war, particularly wheeling and the caracole. Competition between the files helped to foster a sense of camaraderie and pride among members, and a captain who could establish strong bonds between his soldiers could expect to have an edge over his opponent on the day of the battle. It was these bonds that Cromwell was able to foster among his Ironsides, turning motivated men into a close-knit and effective fighting force. In 1639 Ward was still arguing that file members first learn the twenty postures for firing a pistol on horseback found in Cruso’s Militarie Instructions. After the troops mastered the postures, they were expected to learn the four motions of facing, doubling, wheeling, and countermarching. On this subject, Ward found himself caught between the outdated wisdom of the ancients and the realities of modern warfare. taught to duel with other horses. Ward warned readers that if they failed to prepare their mounts for musters or for war, “they will prove both unfit for service.” Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 291–292. 104 Barratt, Cavaliers, 28. 105 Ibid., 298.

302

chapter five

His instructions for facing and doubling were consistent with Dutch methods described by Gervase Markham and Cruso, but he also felt that the Thessalian rhombe and wedge formations found in Bingham’s Tacticks were also worthy of mention. Ward put great stock in the claims of the ancient Thessalians that the rhombe could operate in any direction, facing “every way with speede” and could not, therefore, be “easily surprised” by attacks to the flank.106 The wedge, on the other hand, was supposed to have greater strength than the rhombe, as the men in the rear of the rhombe would be less likely to make their way into the fight as those at the base of the wedge. Such reasoning may have made sense on paper, but neither formation served much use in the field. Ward’s decision to include these formations in a work printed in 1639 indicates that as far as cavalry was concerned, English military writers continued to subscribe to some fairly outdated and fanciful tactical formations. Lacking experience and borrowing heavily from other writers, Ward may not have known better and most likely reiterated the shortcomings and misconceptions of his predecessors in his own work. Yet, in spite of these faults, Ward did conclude a section on embattling that recommended that the square provided the easiest and best form of embattling cavalry and that it should be arranged with files of six deep.107 This formation, Ward reasoned, best suited contemporary English practice which called upon each rank to give fire and then wheel to the rear to reload. Ward’s Anima’dversions of Warre was the last important study of the art of war printed before the Parliamentary and Royalist armies came to blows at Edgehill. Though lacking Cruso’s detail, Ward did give a more complete picture of the practice of mounted warfare than Bingham and a more balanced assessment of training the horse than either Gervase or Francis Markham. As with infantry tactics and training, authorities on cavalry borrowed and built on the work of their predecessors, picking the choicest morsels from earlier works (along with some of the gristle) so as to flesh out their own treatises. These books and manuals clung to the primacy of Dutch methods and authors continued to see cavalry as a secondary arm, primarily responsible for operating against other cavalry units, carrying out ambushes, or protecting the flanks of the infantry. The instructions provided in these works were fairly consistent, with files consisting of five or six

106 107

Ibid., 309. Ibid., 315.

“there

is great need for reformation”

303

men and companies numbering anywhere from one hundred to one hundred and twenty men (though these numbers were never attained in wartime). Officers and soldiers were expected to be well versed in horsemanship and capable of controlling their mounts and firing their weapons in the saddle. The state of horse troops of the bands was such that practise was paramount to bringing about improvement, but it seemed that the printed instructions available to the militia were all but overlooked. Despite the consistency of the message, the impact of these books and manuals does not appear to have brought about the desired results—the reformation of the horse. When the opportunity did arise to put theory into practice during the Bishops’ Wars and the Civil War, the long years of neglect were all too evident. Cavalry Manuals in the English Civil War Charles I’s decision in 1639 to raise an army to invade Scotland in order to enforce his religious policy quickly exposed the poor state of English cavalry. During the First Bishops’ War, the Caroline government was able to afford an army of 15,000 men, of which 2000–3000 were mounted troops. That army was never put to the test in battle and it stood down after the Pacification of Berwick in June 1639. When Charles decided to pursue his war against the Covenanters the following summer, he ordered the conscripting of a new army, comprising approximately 20,000 foot and 3000 horse. The English armies raised in the Bishops’ Wars were mostly ill-trained and badly equipped conscripts, many being substitutes who replaced those members of the trained bands who refused to travel north to fight the Scots. While a number of soldiers serving in the English cavalry were veterans of the Low Countries and German wars, they could not single-handedly carry Charles’s army to victory. Without proper training, the remainder of this rag-tag force appears to have lacked the ability to carry out even the simplest motions of war. At the Battle of Newburn in August 1640 the English army was finally put to the test and though some of its horsemen fought admirably, the army lacked the discipline to defeat and turn back the Scots.108 According to Mark Fissel, Charles’s forces might have faired better with more preparation, noting that

In his study of the Bishops’ Wars, Mark Fissel noted that the English cavalrymen Henry Wilmot, Sir George Vane, Sir John Digby, Captain Daniel O’Neill, and 108

304

chapter five with a year’s training and with seasoned troops at their disposal, the inexperienced might have become suitable officers. But Charles wanted speedy mobilization and would not allow time for preparation. The rank and file were as new to war as their officers and difficult to drill, for a dearth of experienced non-commissioned officers made training at best fitful.109

There was ample printed material available to assist in the training of foot soldiers, if it had been so desired, but the Privy Council’s continuing neglect of the cavalry had left the English at a great disadvantage in the Bishops’ War. In fact, despite calls for a reformation of the horse, the government paid less attention to the issue of mounted warfare in the 1630s than it had in the 1620s. While the 1623 and 1631 editions of the Council’s drill manual included exercises based on Bingham’s directions in The Exercise of the English, the 1638 edition of Instructions for Musters and Armes printed by Roger Daniel, provided no instructions for outfitting or drilling mounted troops. Beyond the reference in the 1638 Instructions for Musters advising readers to consult the chapters 23 and 24 of Cruso’s Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, the cavalry had to rely on veterans or adapt the instructions for the foot to the exercising of the horse.110 While the notation in Daniel’s manual may suggest that Cruso’s book was readily available to those who sought it out, one must keep in mind that there were probably no more 1000 to 1500 copies of the first edition of the treatise printed in 1632 and that seven years later finding the book might not have been so easy, especially for those living outside London. Consequently, when the English Civil War began, the reformation of the horse appears to have been no further along than when it was first discussed by the Council in 1623. In the first months of the war, both sides would have been able to recruit men skilled in riding, but there is a scarcity of evidence to indicate how the cavalry were trained in the early days of the war. Clarendon described “the arrival of several troops well armed and under good officers, to the number of seven or eight hundred” to Nottingham in August, as Charles was raising his army. Commanded by Charles’s nephew Prince Rupert, these horsemen

Sir John Suckling fought with great tenacity at the Battle of Newburn in 1640. Fissel, Bishops’ Wars. 57. 109 Ibid., 79. 110 See Anon., Directions for Musters: Wherein is shewed the order of Drilling for the Musket and Pike (Cambridge, Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel, 1638), sig. A2v. n. O.

“there

is great need for reformation”

305

were for a time, “all the strength the king had” and armed only with swords.111 The Parliamentary army, which was formed over the summer, had twice as many horse, and they were, according to Clarendon, “excellently trained and appointed,” though further evidence of this is lacking. As the armies closed in in the days before Edgehill, many of the Royalist horse were still without armour and weaponry; “officers had their full desire if they were able to procure old backs and breasts and pots, with pistols or carbines for their two or three first ranks, and swords for the rest; themselves (and some soldiers by their examples) having gotten, besides their pistols and swords, a short pole-axe.”112 Training under such conditions must have been difficult at best and in the months leading up to the beginning of the war, no new sets of instructions were issued by either side with respect to cavalry. If manuals were put to use in training the horse, individual officers were forced to make do with whatever directions were available, including those dating back to the 1620s. As the fighting got underway in the late summer and fall of 1642, cavalry manuals that were available, excluding Cruso’s Military Instructions for the Cavallrie or continental books by Basta or Melzo, were inadequate for the job of training large numbers of horsemen. While new drill manuals were being printed for the infantry, only one of those, The Exercise for Yong Artillery Men Or the Militia of the Kingdome, included instructions for cavalry, and these taken from Bingham’s The Exercise of the English, which dated from 1616. The eight-page manual offered only two pages of drill instructions for the horse, beginning with a description of the types of cavalry (harquebusiers and cuirassiers) and the ranks of officers. This was followed by a brief discussion of opening and closing ranks and a list of the words of command; this was hardly enough information to prepare men for battle. The Royalist army was issued A True Description of the Discipline of War both Horse and Foot (1642), but it included only a passing reference to the horse troops, noting that troops of carbines should number sixty men, besides officers.113 With no other printed drill instructions to draw on, cavalry officers were left to their own devices, either consulting the analytical treatises already noted, accepting advice from veterans, or using any means possible to organize and train their troopers. The 111

293.

112 113

Clarendon, The History of the Great Rebellion And Civil Wars in England, Vol. II, Ibid., 347. Anon., A True Description of the Discipline of War (London: s.n., 1642), 7.

306

chapter five

Royalist cavalry was well stocked with veterans, including Rupert, Henry Wilmot, Patrick Ruthven, and Arthur Aston, and there were undoubtedly an number of captains with experience in the Dutch wars.114 The Parliamentary cavalry was less experienced, but able cavalry officers could be found among its ranks, including Thomas Fairfax, Arthur Haslerig, and William Waller. With command of the cavalry falling squarely on the backs of the nobility and gentry, their lack of military experience was expected to be offset by their natural abilities to lead, and to lead on horseback no less. In the first two years of the war, many of these “natural leaders” were killed or retired from the field after their military skills were found to be wanting. By 1644, command was being bestowed upon gentlemen of lesser station, men like Cromwell and Ireton who had proved themselves worthy in battle and more capable of leading men than their social superiors.115 The changing face of both armies, particularly after two years of fighting, prompted the Parliamentary cavalry officer John Vernon to undertake the writing of a comprehensive cavalry drill manual for the training of new officers. In 1644, Vernon published The Young-Horseman or the Honest plain-dealing Cavalier, a manual that was an informed, modern reading of mounted warfare. As with other manuals, cost was always a concern for soldiers who were paid little and Vernon made a point of keeping the text short and he hoped, affordable, so that “every ordinary Souldier might easily purchase with his money or weare in his pocket to be his continuall advisor, and prove no hindrance unto him in expedyating of his service.”116 Because of his service in the Parliamentary horse, Vernon’s manual is considered an authoritative work that reflected the accepted practice during the war. Yet he too borrowed liberally from earlier works, most notably from Cruso. The forty-four-page manual addressed the duties and responsibilities of cavalry officers and the key figures in the company, such as the quartermaster, the cornet, and the trumpeter. It also provided readers

114 Henry Wilmot saw service in the Low Countries as a cavalry officer in 1635. The Scot, Patrick Ruthven, fought with Gustavus Adolphus in the early 1620s. P.R. Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642–1660 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1981), 322, 416. 115 John Barratt notes a similar change in command on the Royalist side, with professional soldiers John Marrow and Marcus Trevor replacing Lord Cholmondeley and Lord Capel respectively in 1644. See Barratt, Cavaliers, 30. 116 J. Vernon, The Young-Horseman or the Honest plain-dealing Cavalier (London: Andrew Coe, 1644), sig. A2v.

“there

is great need for reformation”

307

with very practical advice on selecting a mount, training and exercising horses for war, and offered detailed instructions and diagrams of the four motions. Vernon made a point of stressing the importance of safety as one of his reasons for writing, advising soldiers on the colour of the horse they chose to ride, suggesting that black, brown, or chestnut mounts were better suited for war than a white horse, as they were more “convenient for thy safety” since white horses were easier to see on a dark night and they might “easier be discerned by the Enemy.” A white horse, as one might expect, was also “commonly aimed at by the Enemies Gunners or Musketiers.”117 Further evidence of Vernon’s experience and his interest in the safety, not only of the rider but that of the other members of the troop, is revealed in his insistence that cavalry troops enter battle with the proper tack and weaponry. He pointed out that a rider’s spurs should not be “overlong,” as they are subject to catching other riders when the troop engaged in close order. Catching on other riders was likely “to unhorse you, or spraine your leg.”118 Reins made of chain and wrapped in leather were also recommended, as they could withstand a blow from a sword or an axe. When it came to weapons, Vernon recommended that riders wear a sword “of a middle length, sharpe pointed and stiffe,” since a longer sword could be cumbersome and difficult to wield on horseback, whereas a shorter one could be “better commanded.” To fend off cuirassiers, he claimed that troopers might want to carry a pole axe, which often worked better in a melee than a sword.119 Vernon advised that it was best to always keep a loaded pistol in reserve so that “if thou shouldst be forced to retreat, and thine Enemie pursue thee, thou maist be able to reward him with that Messenger in they Houlster, and so maist hepily kill him, and by meanes save thine own life.”120 Carrying powder in a flask, rather than in cartridges also was deemed a wiser practice, as powder in cartridges tended to be jostled loose as troopers trotted on the march. Vernon’s experiences in the Civil War, including his own efforts to train and outfit his troopers, points to the fact that his description of

Ibid., sig. A3. Ibid. 119 See Firth, Cromwell’s Army, 110–144 for a more detailed discussion of this point. Firth stated that the pole axe was more often carried by Royalist cavalry then by Vernon’s Parliamentary counterparts. 120 Vernon, The Young-Horseman or the Honest plain-dealing Cavalier, 2. 117 118

308

chapter five

the training of horses and riders are a reasonably valid depiction of contemporary practice and a good indicator for also measuring the authority of earlier works on cavalry. Unlike those who came before, Vernon attempted to simplify his instructions, not overburdening the reader with superfluous directions or examples drawn from the ancients. For instance, he saw no reason to include a set of postures for riders on horseback like those found in Cruso’s Militarie Instructions, stating that the postures were of “little use in service” and were left out of his manual because he hoped to acquaint readers only “with those things that are materiall.”121 At the same time, Vernon felt comfortable accepting practices from other writers, particularly where acclimating horses to the sights and sounds of war was concerned. As many had done before him, Vernon declared that it was best to allow your mount to first get a smell of gunpowder, a sight of fire and armour, hearing of Drums and Trumpets, and shouting of Guns but by degrees, when he is eating his oates you may fire a little traine of Gunpowder in the Manger, at a little distance from him, and so nearer by degrees. In like manner you may fire a Pistoll at a little distance from him in the stable, and so nearer by degrees, and so likewise a Drum, or Trumpet may be used to him in the stable, the Groom may sometimes dresse him in armour, using him sometimes to eat his oats on the Drum head, In the fields when you are on his back cause a Musket and your selfe to fire on each other at a convenient distance . . .122

Yet, the ubiquity of these instructions in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century texts suggests more about a writer’s propensity to borrow than about the actual methods used to acclimate a horse to the conditions of the battlefield. By 1644, dressing animals in armour would have served no military purpose and indicates that despite his years of service, Vernon was still relying on Cruso and other writers for some of the information found in his manual. The Young-Horseman concludes with twenty-four figures depicting the four motions of facing, doubling, countermarching, and wheeling, as they were to be carried out for a troop of seventy-two horse. Diagrams, as I have noted in previous chapters, were common to many of the military books of the day and once again, Vernon appears to have taken his diagrams of the motions of war from Cruso. He did not counsel

121 122

Ibid., 10. Ibid.

“there

is great need for reformation”

309

officers to form formations of wedges or rhombi, as Gervase Markham described, but instead, explained how to attack an enemy that was encamped or to charge an enemy in the field, as Cruso had done. In fact, Vernon’s description of the attack on an encampment was taken directly from the 1632 edition of Cruso’s manual. However, Vernon’s observations on the cavalry charge were more up-to-date than Cruso’s, reflecting the tactics of the Swedes instead of the Dutch. In this case, the caracole had given way to the full blown cavalry charge, in which files of three deep advanced on the enemy at an “easie pace,” firing Carbines at a convenient distance, always aiming at the Enemies breast or lower, because that pouder is of an elevating nature, then drawing neere the Enemy, they are with their right hands to take forth one of their pistols out of their houlsters, and holding the lock up are most firing as before, always reserving on [sic] Pistoll ready charged, spann’d and primed in your houlster, in case of a retreat as I have shown before, having thus fired the troops are to charge the enemy in full career, but in good order with swords fastned with a Ribund or the like unto their wrists, for fear of losing out their hand, if they should chance to misse their blow.123

The second edition of Cruso’s Military Instructions for the Cavallrie, printed in the same year as Vernon’s Young-Horseman, included an appendix in which Cruso called for a similar alteration to the Dutch tactics used in the 1620s and 1630s. The change in the manner of fighting “is not wheeling off (as formerly)” noted Cruso, but by charging through. Every man having drawn his sword in his bridle hand, fires his carbine at 12 or 15 foot distances, and the Pistol so near as hath been shewed before . . . the Carbine leveled at the knees of the enemies horse, because the powder naturally, and also the least motion of the horse, use to raise the muzzle of the piece. Having fired, he presently is to betake the sword (unlesse the enemy by wheeling off, gives him leasure and opportunity to use his second Pistol) and so to charge him on the flank or the rear, and to fight at his best advantage. To this end, the Officers must be very carefull to exercise their Troops frequently, especially in the regimental way (as the sole meanes, under God, to make them victorious) observing to keep their Troops close ferried.124

Ibid., 43. Cruso Military Instructions for the Cavallrie, To the Reader. The 1632 and 1644 editions of the work have the same text, though the 1644 edition does not reproduce the engravings of the postures. The appendix in the introduction to the reader offers no indication as to why the engravings were omitted, but as Vernon indicates, the postures were no longer seen as a necessity when training cavalry troops. 123 124

310

chapter five

As Vernon and Cruso describe it, the war had prompted a rethinking of cavalry tactics. By 1644–5, both sides possessed well-trained and effective troops of horse composed of just two types of horsemen, the harquebusier and the dragoon. The harquebusier dressed in buff coat rather than three-quarters armour and carried a pistol and sword, while the dragoon, carrying musket or carbine, acted as mounted infantry. Dragoons played an increasingly important role in the war, a point not overlooked by Nathaniel Burt, whose broadsheet, Militarie Instructions or the Souldier tried, for the vse of the Dragon, being A part of Cavallrie (1644) argued in favour of an even greater role for dragoons on the battlefield.125 In an effort to give these soldiers the status of cavalry, rather than the more lowly designation of mounted infantry, Burt called for their use in attacking retreating troops. Still using the term cuirassier to describe the more heavily armoured horse troops, Burt suggested that the dragoon “may do better service” than the cuirassiers, owing to the fact that the dragoon could advance slowly upon the retreating army, “following them about musket shot, the cuirassiers being within such distance as is needful, to relieve them, if that the enemy should seeme to charge.”126 The dragoons could also be used defensively, holding off attacking forces and protecting retreats. Burt also found a place for the dragoon at the siege, acting as a rapidly moving force, to plug up any holes that may occur in the lines of circumvallation or contravallation. Burt’s broadsheet was the last of just a handful of printed works dedicated to the cavalry that appeared during the Civil War. To all intents and purposes, Englishmen seemed just as reticent about addressing the subject during the war, as they had been in the decades leading up to it. The reasons for the continuing silence of military writers on the question of cavalry are perplexing, especially in light of the renaissance of mounted warfare during the wars of the Three Kingdoms. Nevertheless, the silence may well have been due to the authority of Cruso’s Military Instructions for the Cavallrie, a work so comprehensive that other writers saw no need to emulate it. The popularity of Cruso’s treatise, which had been given the stamp of approval by most of the leading English military writers of the 1630s and early 1640s, also gave it a

125 N. Burt, Military Instructions or the Souldier tried for the use, of the Dragon Being a Part of the Cavalrie . . . (London, s.n., 1644). 126 Ibid.

“there

is great need for reformation”

311

certain cachet among the military community. However, the influence that Military Instructions for the Cavallrie (and the other works mentioned in this chapter) had on the training of cavalry remains difficult to determine. The proliferation of drill manuals dedicated to infantry training, including the many broadsheets and pamphlets setting out the postures for pike and shot, had become a permanent part of English military culture thirty years before the war broke out, but this was not the case with the cavalry. The reformation of the horse had never taken place and when fighting began, most recruits were inexperienced in the art of mounted war. Individual skills learned from hunting or riding for pleasure probably served the cavalry trooper best, but melding individuals into corporate bodies capable of charging headlong into infantry or other cavalry units came over time by an admixture of training, experience in the field, capable command, able horses, and well supplied troopers. If books and printed instructions did play a role in this process, it was cursory at best. In the end, the Civil War precipitated the reformation of English cavalry that military writers had longed for and that most Englishmen, particularly those footing the bill, had vehemently opposed. The war, it could be said, had opened with Rupert’s cavalry charge at Edgehill and closed with Cromwell’s horse descending upon the Royalist centre at Naseby in June 1645. In between October 1642 and June 1645, cavalry had once again become an effective combat arm; this in a country where men had been more than happy to proclaim themselves foot soldiers. However, with the problems that the Privy Council faced in reforming the horse companies of the trained bands in the 1620s and 1630s, this transformation was significant but, at the same time, difficult to explain. Neither pre-war training nor the influence of drill manuals or analytical treatises appears to have accounted for the change, though the influence of Cruso and Vernon can not be wholly discounted. Necessity, more than anything else, proved the mother of invention. The reformation came, it would seem, through the sheer determination of a few Parliamentary commanders who, through trial and error, defeat and victory, turned decayed serving men and tapsters into a force capable of overcoming gentlemen sons.

CHAPTER SIX

“NECESSARY BULWARKS”: SIEGECRAFT TREATISES IN EARLY STUART ENGLAND Likewise, we must confesse Alexander, Caesar, Scipio and Hanniball, to be the worthiest and famoust warriers that euer were; notwithstanding, assure your selfe, had they knowne Artillerie, they would neuer have battered Towns with Rammes, nor have conquered countries so easily, had they bin fortified as Germanie, France and the Low Countries, with others, haue bin since their days. Although the ground of ancient Discipline is the most worthiest and the most famous: notwithstanding, by reason of fortifications, stratagems, ingins, arming, with Munition, the discipline is greatly altered; which we must follow and be directed as it is now: otherwise we shall repent it too late. Sir Roger Williams, A Briefe discourse of Warre (1590) They will learne you by rote where Services were done: at such and such a Sconce, at such a Breach. Shakespeare, Henry V. III. vi 76

In book two of Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, Niccolò Machiavelli discussed the political and strategic value of fortifications and warned his audience to bear in mind “that fortresses were built eyther for resistance against the enemy, or for defence against any tumult of the subjects. In the first case they are unnecessary, in the second harmful.”1 When Discourses was first published in England in 1636, its readers undoubtedly found some solace in these words, thankful in the knowledge that despite the turbulent times in which they lived, neither foreign enemies nor domestic princes had forced them to encircle their towns with bastions, ramparts, and hornworks. English subjects knew all too well from news pamphlets and from soldiers and travellers returning from the continent that the citizens of Ostend, s’Hertogenbosch, Breda, and Magdeburg had suffered terribly at the hands of besieging armies that laid waste to the countryside and rained cannon shot and mortar

1 N. Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (London: Thomas Paines for William Hills and Daniel Pakeman, 1636), 383.

314

chapter six

shell upon their towns.2 Machiavelli’s words, though reassuring in 1636, were cold comfort just six years later, when the English were forced to shore up their defences and build bastions and ramparts to protect their own towns from marauding armies, armies not of Spaniards, Frenchmen, or Italians, but of English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish. Had England’s isolation from the harsh realities of European conflict left it completely ill prepared to engage in siege warfare when fighting between the Parliamentary and Royalist armies commenced in late summer of 1642? The prevailing attitude among historians has been to suggest that despite the large numbers of veterans who returned from Europe to fight in the Civil War, few had the requisite skills to carry out siege operations or prepare defences. Only through the assistance of continental engineers, such as Bernard de Gomme, John Dalbier, or Captain Roseworme, could the two sides effectively engage in siege warfare. Even though foreign experts were employed to advise the opposing armies in the construction of some of the larger defensive positions, like those at Oxford or Newark, new archaeological evidence indicates that in the early years of the war, Englishmen proved capable of constructing, defending, and attacking fortified positions. In reality, the practice of siegecraft in England was not wholly out of step with that of the continent and Cavalier and Roundhead armies did not necessarily lack the requisite knowledge to carry out siege operations.3 There is evidence in contemporary news reports of Civil War sieges to support the assertion that the methods used by both armies were sound and that when problems were confronted by each side, they

2 Ostend was besieged by Spanish forces from 1601–1604. To take pressure off the Ostenders, Maurice of Nassau undertook an unsuccessful siege of s’Hertogenbosch in 1603. The Dutch again laid siege to the s’Hertogenbosch again in 1629, this time taking it. Both the Spanish and Dutch armies repeatedly laid siege to Breda throughout the Eighty Years’ war. Magdeburg was a Protestant German town encircled by the Imperial forces of Count Tilly in 1631. Its fall and sack led to the massacre of 25,000 of the town’s inhabitants. 3 Peter Harrington’s archaeological research into Civil War sites across Britain has uncovered a number of “buried landscapes of war” that reveal the English to have been more adept students of siege warfare and fortification construction than first believed. See Harrington’s English Civil War Archeology, (London: B.T. Batsford, 2004); “English Civil War Fortifications,” Fort, 15, 1987, 39–60 and English Civil War Fortifications 1642–51 (Oxford: Osprey Press, 2003). Other important contributions to the archeological study of Civil War defences include, S. Ward, Excavations at Chester: The Civil War Siegeworks 1642–6 (Chester: Chester City Council, 1987) and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, Newark on Trent: The Civil War Siegeworks (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1964).

“necessary

bulwarks”

315

often grew more out of financial and material shortcomings, rather than ignorance of the military arts. It is important to stress that any exploration of the evolution of English military books and the subject of siege warfare must account for the fact that sieges were an amalgam—a symphony of fire, earth, wood, and stone in which an orchestra of soldiers, engineers, gunners, and trench masters worked in tandem with the goal of either defending a town or bringing it to its knees. Owing to the array of military and civilian professionals called upon to conduct a siege, from the wheelwright, responsible for fixing the gun carriages and long carts, or the fireworker who made grenades, to the officer who led his men into the breech, siege warfare was a complex and expansive topic, and not one that was easy for military writers to master quickly and effortlessly. In Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, Francis Markham described siegecraft as a “very large field” but one in which “a world of excellent plants . . . grew and flourished.”4 In explaining that world, Markham came to recognize that the literature on siegecraft was written not only for soldiers but by and for “good Schollars, most excellent mathematicians, and rare Enginiers.” This came to mean that military audiences had to be equally familiar with the martial and the mathematical, a development that led J.R. Hale to describe the early modern period as the age of the “mathematical warrior.”5 To provide some sense of the foundations on which the discourse of these mathematical warriors was constructed, I open this chapter with an assessment of continental books on siegecraft and the English response to the transformation of fortification design and siege warfare in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Italian, German, Dutch, and French authors all made contributions to the debates surrounding fortifications and siege warfare, but it was the Italian school that proved most influential in England from 1540 until the 1580s. Elizabethan England also witnessed a mathematical renaissance in the 1570s that was to invigorate the study of siege warfare and its attendant arts. At about the same time, the Italian influence began to wane as

Markham, Five Decades of Epistles of War, 92. J. Hale, “Tudor Fortifications: The Defence of the Realm, 1485–1558,” in J.R. Hale, Renaissance War Studies (London: Humbledon Press, 1983), 63–102 and J.R. Hale, The Civilization of the Europe in the Renaissance (New York: Atheneum, 1994), 574. Hale states that “military mathematics became part of the educational ‘finishing’ of an active man of birth.” 4 5

316

chapter six

English soldiers travelled to the Low Countries and gained first hand experience of the siege tactics used by the Spanish and Dutch. These experiences (and the martial literature that the Eighty Years’ War was to produce) would serve the English well during the wars of the Three Kingdoms. From the 1580s to the 1640s the English were fed a steady diet of siege histories and news pamphlets describing the fighting in the Netherlands. More than just news of the great sieges of the day, many of these reports were written for soldiers with the intent of offering them practical advice on the rudiments of siegecraft. The chapter concludes by examining the specialist literature devoted to gunnery and military engineering and the influence of these books and manuals on the writing of analytical treatises on the art of warfare in the late 1630s. By the 1640s military writers had made a concerted effort to literally complete the “compleat souldier,” that is, to increase the versatility of the gentleman soldier by not only teaching him the art of infantry and cavalry warfare, but also educating him “in Mathematikes, in the martial lawes, in besieging townes, batteries, mines, and each thing else belonging to martiall discipline.”6 Soldiers, Military Architects and Mathematicians By the beginning of the seventeenth century the siege had come to dominate European warfare. Soldiers in European conflicts increasingly spent the bulk of their time either on garrison duty or serving in regiments that were given the task of besieging towns or fortresses. When pitched battles did occur, they often took place when besieging armies clashed with relief armies sent to break a siege.7 The predominance of the siege over the pitched battle in early modern warfare came about as the result of a series of technological changes that followed the invention of gunpowder weapons in the early fourteenth century. With improvements to siege artillery over the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, attackers armed with heavy cannon slowly gained an edge over defenders, who were protected behind the curtain walls of medieval fortifications.

Davies, Art of War and England’s Traynings, 109. G. Parker, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 2. 6 7

“necessary

bulwarks”

317

Historians have traditionally identified Charles VIII’s invasion of Italy in 1494 as one of the turning points in the history of warfare, the date when the medieval castle gave way to a new style of fortification design known as the trace italienne, or bastion fortification [fig. 19]. Debates continue over whether the events of 1494 were truly the catalyst for change, or whether Italian architects and engineers had already come to the conclusion that a new type of defence was needed to withstand the powerful arsenals of Europe’s leading military powers. Without taking sides in those debates, it is safe to say that the Hapsburg-Valois Wars (1494–1559) reinforced any existing doubts about the inadequacy of medieval defences and prompted further changes in fortification design. Those changes saw low sloping masonry or earthen walls of the trace italienne fortress come to replace the high outer walls of the medieval castle. The trademark of the trace design was the angled bastion that took the place of the circular tower that once stood sentry over the European countryside. The polygonal trace was constructed with the efficient use of wide ditches and flanking and interlocking fields of fire that made it difficult for attackers to bring their artillery close enough to breach the walls of these new defences. When all of these elements were put into place, towns and fortresses could withstand heavy bombardment for much longer periods, thereby giving defenders a better chance of holding out against larger and better equipped besieging armies. The English, however, were never enamoured with these new fortresses, despite the increasing presence of trace italienne defences across western Europe. The last serious fighting between Englishmen had taken place in the fifteenth century during the Wars of the Roses and, despite occasional battles with the Scots, towns across England continued to rely upon medieval curtain walls for protection. Henry VIII undertook a programme of modernizing the south coast defences during his reign (additional work to improve those same fortifications and to construct new ones was carried out during the tense years of the Anglo-Spanish conflict in the 1570s and 1580s), but this building programme hardly matched the strides being made on the continent, where vast sums were spent to construct elaborate bastion defences. In The Practise of Fortification (1589), the first English manual dedicated to the subject of the bastion defence, Paul Ive explained the blasé attitude that most Englishmen had for trace italienne fortifications. Ive wrote that these types of strongholds were “not so common amongst vs, (or for some thought altogether so necessary for vs) as for the nations whose countries do lie adioyning together, where an enemie may enter with

318

chapter six

Figure 19. A bastion defence depicted in Robert Ward’s Anima’dversions of Warre (1639). Courtesy of the British Library.

a great number of horse & men vpon the sodaine.”8 Instead the English were “strongly situated in Nature,” as Robert Norton noted in his famous work The Gunner (1628), content to rely on the protection of their natural fortifications: the channel as England’s moat, the jagged rocks and chalk cliffs its bastions, and the populace, its garrison.9 The spread of the bastioned trace fortification from Italy to northwestern Europe has been well documented and it is not the intention of this writer to reassess the vast amount of work on the history of 8 P. Ive, The Practise of Fortification Wherein is shewed the manner of fortifying in all sorts of scituations, with the considerations to be vsed in delining, and making of royal Frontiers, Skonces, and reinforcing of ould walled Townes (London: Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man and Toby Cooke, 1589), The Epistle Dedicatorie. 9 R. Norton, The Gunner, Showing the Whole Practise of Artillerie: With all the Appurtenances thereunto belonging. Together with the making of Extraordinary Artificall Fireworkes, as well for Pleasures and Truimphes, as for Warre and Service (London: Printed by A.M. for Humphrey Robinson, 1628), sig. A3.

“necessary

bulwarks”

319

polygonal fortifications or to investigate the evolution of military architecture in late Tudor or early Stuart England.10 What is important to this study is how Tudor treatises reflected on these European developments and how these works helped to shape early Stuart writings on siege warfare. For much of the Tudor and early Stuart periods, treatises on military architecture, gunnery and pyrotechnics existed outside the fold of “mainstream” military literature, essentially because the military technicians for whom these works were written operated in a separate, and increasingly professional world from that of the soldier. Artillerymen and engineers, though vital to the functioning of armies in the early modern period, had yet to establish their profession within the military ranks, remaining part of an independent military caste until the

10 The impact of the trace italianne fortification on the art of war in early modern Europe has been widely addressed and debated. J.R. Hale explored the subject in a number of books and articles written between the 1960s and 1980s, including; “The Early Development of the Bastion: An Italian Chronology c. 1450–c. 1543,” in Europe in the Late Middle Ages, edited by J.R. Hale, L. Highfield and B. Smalley, (London: Faber, 1965), 466–494; “The End of Florentine Liberty: the Fortezza da Basso,” in Florentine Studies: Politics and Society in Renaissance Florence, edited by N. Rubenstein, (London: Faber, 1968), 501–532; Francesco Tensini and the Fortification of Vicenza,” Studi Veneziani, 10 (1968): 231–289; “The First Fifty Years of a Venetian Magistracy: the Provveditori alle Fortezze,” in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, edited by A. Mohlo and J.A. Tedeschi, (Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1971), 501–529; “To Fortify or Not to Fortify? Machiavelli’s Contribution to a Renaissance Debate,” in Essays in Honour of John Humphreys Whitfield, edited by H.C. Davis, et al. (London: St. George Press, 1975), 99–119; Renaissance Fortification: Art of Engineering (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977); “Tudor Fortifications: The Defence of the Realm, 1485–1558,” in History of the King’s Works, Vol. 4, edited by H. Colvin, (London: H.M.S.O., 1982) 367–401; Christopher Duffy’s two studies of fortifications, Fire and stone: the science of fortress warfare, 1660 –1860 (Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1975) and Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World 1494–1660 (London: Routledge, 1979) offered a detailed survey of the rise of the bastion defence in Renaissance Italy, its apogee in the age of Vauban and eventual demise in the mid-nineteenth century. The first chapter of Geoffrey Parker’s The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road 1567–1659 introduced his thesis that the trace italienne fortification “revolutionized the defensive-offensive pattern of warfare” in the early modern period. Parker developed this theory in detail in his The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West published in 1988. The theory did not go unchallenged, as M.S. Kingra’s, “Trace Italienne and the Military Revolution During the Eighty Years’ War, 1567–1648.” Journal of Military History 57 (1993): 431–446 and John Lynn’s, “The Trace Italienne and the Growth of Armies: the French Case,” Journal of Military History 55 ( July, 1991): 297–330, each of which questioned the revolutionary influence of the bastion defence, the former as it affected warfare in the Low Countries and the latter with respect to France. Simon Pepper and Nicholas Adams added to the growing list of works on the subject with their Firearms and Fortifications: Military Architecture and Siege Warfare in Sixteenth Century Siena (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).

320

chapter six

nineteenth century.11 This separation was reinforced by the institutional segregation that existed between the English Ordnance Board, which organized siege trains and hired gunners, engineers, wagoneers, and pioneers, and the army proper. At the same time, the physical separation between technicians and warriors was mirrored by an intellectual divide, characterized by the evolution of two distinct genres of military writing that catered to each group. There were sporadic attempts by military authors to bridge the gap between the two, but it was not until the late 1630s that English military writers fully comprehended the idea that the complete soldier should be equally versed in both battle array and siegecraft. Consequently, English books and manuals dedicated to the art of war tended to reflect the divisions between engineer and warrior. Those treatises directed at the gentlemen soldier often overlooked siege warfare altogether, rarely broaching the highly technical fields of ballistics or military architecture. However, there were some exceptions, writers who believed that soldiers should not only be trained “to be drawn readily into good order of battell” but “instructed vnto the order of battell fittest in defence of a breach” or in the use of ordnance “placed in the flankers of his Bulwarkes.”12 Whitehorne’s Certain waies for the orderying of Souldiers (1560) had been one of the first English military books to measure infantry tactics alongside fortifications and gunnery. The book reflected the author’s years of service as a mercenary in Italy and North Africa and his writing reveals a keen awareness of the impact of technology on the art of war.13 Whitehorne’s short study of military architecture covers thirteen pages (two chapters) and presents readers with some general rules regarding trace fortifications. The chapters also include six plats depicting various polygonal trace designs and a diagram of gun battery, with guns placed between wicker gabions, battering away at a crumbling bulwark. The inclusion of the latter diagram denotes Whitehorne’s interest in the application of a soldier’s knowledge of fortifications to the eventual destruction of defences. This would occur when the strengths and weaknesses of specific types of fortifications 11 See K. Alder, Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763–1815, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997) and J. Langins, Conserving the Enlightenment: French Military Engineering from Vauban to the Revolution (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004). 12 Anon., A Myrrour for English Souldiers (London: Nicholas Ling, 1595), sig. F. 13 G. Phillips, ‘Whitehorne, Peter ( fl. 1549–1563)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004).

“necessary

bulwarks”

321

were understood and the requisite force was brought to bear on the most vulnerable part of the structure. Whitehorne was not afraid to broach topics that were usually the domain of the engineer or the military architect. He looked at fortresses with the eye of an experienced soldier and a student of the new technology, writing on the length of the curtain walls and the distance between bulwarks, warning that the distance not be too close, as “one bulwarke may hurte the other” and not too long, otherwise bulwarks would be useless and the wall breeched.14 He assessed when to use blunt bastions or angled bastions and the value of larger fortresses (blunter bastions) over smaller ones (angled bastions). He noted the reason for his inclusion of woodcuts of plats, telling readers that it would be “impossible for anye man, to have comprehended that, which I seeke to declare, concerning fortification, although they were experte souldiers.”15 Whitehorne’s inclusion of sections on fortifications, gunnery, and the production of gunpowder singles out Certain waies for the orderying of Souldiers as one of the earliest works in English military literature devoted to the complete soldier. Though primitive in relation to the military books being printed on the continent, it does indicate that English soldiers were assessing the impact of trace fortifications on the art of war and thinking about how these defences might be breeched. If we compare Whitehorne’s work to the books written by Italian soldiers at about the same time, either Giacomo Lantieri’s Dvo Libri . . . del modo di fare le fortificationi di terra intorno alle Citta, & alle Castellas per fortificarle (1559) or Girolamo Maggi and Jacomo Fusto Castriotto’s Della fortificatione delle citta, di M.G.M. e del Captitan I.C . . . Libri III (1564), one becomes quite aware that a cultural lag still existed between England and the continent. Even with Whitehorne’s years of mercenary service, his brief description of siege warfare paled in comparison to the detailed treatises of the Italians.

14 P. Whitehorne, Certain Ways for the Ordering of Soldiers in Battle Array. . . . (London: W. Williamson for John Wight, 1573), fol. 16. 15 Ibid., f. 17.

322

chapter six Siegecraft and the Mathematical Renaissance

Certain waies for the orderying of Souldiers was, nevertheless, a treatise for soldiers. Whitehorne’s interest in fortifications was purely military and his analysis was devoid of mathematical and geometric formulae that were increasingly common to continental treatises on siegecraft. He was curious about how soldiers might overcome or defend trace fortifications and he took only a passing interest in the finer points of their construction. Thanks to their reading of Italian treatises, other Englishmen were aware of how mathematics and siegecraft walked hand in hand. In the 1570s and 1580s England underwent a renaissance in mathematics that had a profound impact on the study of siegecraft. At the centre of this renaissance were the Elizabethan mathematicians John Dee and Leonard and Thomas Digges, men who were all members of Leicester’s circle in the 1570s. All three made significant contributions to the study of mathematics and their work had far-reaching impact on a range of practical applications touching the realms of astronomy, geography, navigation, and the military arts. The English mathematical renaissance rested on the shoulders of Robert Recorde, a mathematician whose vernacular treatises The Ground of Arts (1540), The Whetstones of Wit (1557), and the Pathway to Knowledge (1551), provided the groundwork for the study of arithmetic, algebra, and geometry in England. Recorde was too concerned with mathematical theory to pay attention to its military applications, but his influence was felt nonetheless by those seeking to bring order to the military arts with the aid of the “mathematicall muses.”16 Recorde was cited by Cyprian Lucar in his translation of Niccolò Tartaglia’s respected work on gunnery, Three bookes of Colloquies concerning the Arte of Shooting in great and small peeces of artillerie, printed in London by John Harrison in 1588. Recorde’s mathematical treatises also influenced Robert Norton, who made additions to Recorde’s The Ground of Arts in 1618, before authoring his respected studies of gunnery, Of The Art of Great Artillery (1624) and The Gunner (1628). The scholars that followed Recorde took the study of mathematics one step further and sought to use it in the service of the individual and the state. The Digges family and William Bourne (and John Dee

16 T. Digges, An Arithmeticall Militarie Treatise, named Stratioticos (London: Henrie Bynneman, 1571), The Epistle Dedicatorie.

“necessary

bulwarks”

323

to a lesser extent) championed the use of mathematics on the battlefield, believing that gentlemen soldiers should not ponder entering the service of the Queen without first learning arithmetic and algebra. Dee had no military background but he had travelled extensively in the Low Countries and central Europe and was an influential voice in Elizabethan politics. In his edition of Recorde’s The Ground of Arts, Dee borrowed a page from Whitehorne, arguing that soldiers needed some background in mathematics so as to order troops on the battlefield.17 Thomas Digges also believed mathematical and algebraic formulae were “requisite for the Profession of a Souldier.”18 Digges described his Stratioticos (1571) as “an Aritmeticall Treatise, wholly applyed to Militarie affayres,” which was written as a manual for field officers and emphasized the practicality of mathematics for the placing of soldiers in squares and the encamping of armies.19 Though Stratioticos had been a project started by his father, Leonard, neither the father nor the son addressed the geometry of fortification design in detail in the book, since this topic was to be left to another volume, described in the notes at the beginning of the book as A Treatise of Fortification of Townes, Fortes, and Campes by a methode cleane repugnant to anye hitherto practised, conteyning sundrie sorts of more forcible formes, with Rules of great facilitie by certayne Instruments Geometrical to stake them out . . .20 The proposed treatise never went to print, owing to a protracted lawsuit that eventually led Digges to “discontinue those his delectable studies.”21 Digges claimed he had also written A Treatise of Great Artillerie, and Pyrotechnye that, by 1579 was “long since been finished,” but it too was never printed. Nevertheless, some of the contents of the work on gunnery appeared in Stratioticos and more was added to the 1591 edition of Pantometria. Yet, despite the legal troubles that were to suspend publication of these treatises, there are still clues to be found in Stratioticos that provide some indication of Digges’s views on siege warfare. First, we know from his involvement in a range of projects over the course of his life that Digges was a man of action and that he considered the theoretical and the practical to be of equal importance. When the opportunity arose, 17 See K. Hill, “Mathematics As A Tool For Social Change: Educational Reform in the Seventeenth-Century England,” Seventeenth Century 12 (1997), 24. 18 Digges, Stratioticos, To the Reader. 19 Thomas Digges served as Leicester’s Quartermaster in the Low Countries from 1585–1587. 20 Digges, Stratioticos, Contents of this Treatise. 21 Ibid.

324

chapter six

Digges was eager to bring his education in the mathematical sciences to bear on worldly and military affairs. As a young man, he travelled in the Low Countries where he studied surveying and it was here that he must have gotten his first glimpse of trace italienne fortifications.22 After the first edition of Stratioticos was printed, Digges became actively involved in the administrative work that went into the rebuilding of Dover Harbour from 1582–84 and later applied his mathematical know-how to military matters while serving as Leicester’s muster-master general. Eric Ash considers Digges to have been a “facilitator of knowledge,” that is an expert who acted as a mediator between patron and information (for a price) and a “man of business,” who knew the halls of power and could operate freely within them.23 Digges spent much of his adult life considering military matters and as a facilitator of knowledge, he kept himself abreast of the latest developments in military affairs as I noted in Chapter One. If his short description of his proposed study of great artillery and pyrotechnics is any indication, he planned to deliver a tour de force on the subject that included “sundrye serviceable secretes, hitherto not put into execution by anye Christian Prince.”24 In the last chapter of Stratioticos, “Certaine Questions in the Arte of Artillerie, by Mathematical Science ioyned with Experience,” Digges explained that in the treatise on fortifications, he planned to address approching, besieging and winning Townes and Castels, by Scale, Myne, Batterie, and Famine: Also the Art to Defend & Garde Forts, & Cities, by outward & inward Fortifications, with sundry other Militarie Strategemes, and Policies, put in execution by prudent valiaunt Captaines, and contrarie to al expectation have escaped imminente Perils. For such Precedentes of a wise General to have readily in his memorie upon any opportuntie offered, to be ready to put the like in execution, and to be prepared, that no such Accident or mischiefe can happened, for the which he should not be provided of his Remedie.25

His inclusion of offensive and defensive stratagems for “use by prudent valiaunt Captaines” implies that the work was meant to benefit the soldier, rather than the engineer or military architect. In another section of Stratioticos devoted to encamping, Digges describes the construction of 22 S. Johnston, ‘Digges, Thomas (c. 1546–1595)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 23 E. Ash, “A perfect and an absolute work”: Expertise, Authority, and the Rebuilding of Dover Harbor, 1579–1583, Technology and Culture 41(2) 2000: 267. 24 Digges, Stratioticos, Contents of the Treatise. 25 Ibid., 170.

“necessary

bulwarks”

325

defensive works around a camp, explaining that they should be designed with bulwarks at every corner and a curtain wall for protection. These defences should be built by pioneers and soldiers since “upon suche occasion, hee is not worthie to beare the name Souldyoure, that will not sette his hande to the spade.”26 Later he made a further plea to soldiers, this time with regard to “art of great artillerie or Fortification of Townes, Fortes or Campes,” telling them to acquaint themselves with the Science of Numbers, both Vulgare and Cossicall, as I have in this Treatise taughte, and also with so much Science of Geometrie, as concerneth the measuring of Lengthes, Heyghtes, and Distances, the making of Mappes, and Plattes in true measure and Proportion, and the Supputation of the contentes Superficiall, as you maye reade, at large sette down in my Treatise of Geometricall named Pantometria, so they shall be prepared for my other workes, and for attaining such perfection in the Arte of Souldiorie, for all kinds of services Offensive or Defensive.27

The inspiration for Digges’ initial work on siegecraft appears to have been his trip to the Netherlands, which took place in late 1578, though he may also have been thinking about a study of fortifications before that time. His father’s contacts with military men had clearly caught the attention of the young Digges and sowed the seeds for his study of the military arts well before he left for the Netherlands. He wrote in Stratioticos that he and his father would sit with the “rarest Souldyourds of hys time” and listen to their martial exploits. As a scholar, Digges had obviously read widely, possibly the books on siegecraft and fortification design in John Dee’s library at Mortlake. He read the ancients and the learned continental practitioners of the day, citing the works of the respected military theorists such as the French general, Guillaume du Bellay, and the recognized experts on military architecture—Daniel Santbech, Girolamo Ruscelli, and Niccolò Tartaglia.28 But at the same time, Digges expressed some disdain for the work of these men, citing errors in the mathematical and geometrical rules they applied to the fledgling science of ballistics. Digges, the soldier-scholar, found that his academic counterparts in Europe lacked practical experience, an important ingredient when combining mathematics and the military arts. His

Ibid., 175. Ibid., 175–176. 28 Digges’s reference to du Bellay is a reference to the Instructions for the Warres, by Fourquevaux. Long attributed to du Bellay, the French edition, Instructions sur le faict de la guerre was printed in Paris in 1548. 26 27

326

chapter six

calculations were sounder, he explained, because his knowledge of the military arts was formulated through the exchange of ideas with his father’s military companions and his own years of military service. An English School of Military Architecture, 1560–1600? As with Whitehorne, Digges’s military experience (which was actually quite limited) had shown him that the gentleman soldier could no longer ignore the centrality of the siege in training for war. Digges’s failure to publish his treatise on fortifications meant that at the height of the struggle with Spain in the 1580s the English still lacked a comprehensive treatise in the vernacular that explored military architecture or siege warfare in the same manner as the European treatises on the subject. With the arrival of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries in 1567, fortified garrisons had sprung up across Flanders and the Brabant and by the time the Duke of Parma was preparing his forces to invade England in 1588, the Low Countries was firmly under a “yoke of citadels,” garrisoned by thousands soldiers who made up the feared Spanish and Italian tercios.29 The English troops sent to the Low Countries with Leicester in 1585 had come face to face with these fortresses and news of their strength, coupled with fears of a Spanish invasion, raised questions as to how the English might defend themselves if the Spanish breached the channel. The debates about security fostered renewed interest in coastal defences but also led to discussions about how to meet an enemy that landed its army on the shores. Digges’s A Treatise concerning Invasion, written in 1588, advised that if an enemy should be allowed to come ashore only active and able Bodies be appointed for Weapons, the rest for Pioneers or Labourers: and that such Labourers be enjoined also to have in readiness their Spade, Shovel or Pickax with them, accordingly as at the Musters shall be appointed. These well directed, shall do service with the best in the field.30

Ive, The Practise of Fortification, Epistle Dedicatorie. T. Digges, “A Treatise concerning Invasion” in T. Adamson, England’s Defence, (London: F. Haley, 1680), 5. 29

30

“necessary

bulwarks”

327

The duty of these labourers would be to “always readily be at hand to cast Trenches, or make Sconces, to lodge Shot in Safety to annoy the enemy, and fortify Streights and Passages.”31 Digges had come to know of the sconce, a rectangular earthen fortification with bastions at each corner, in discussions with his father and he must have seen them in use in the Netherlands in 1578 and again when he was there in 1585. Since the sconce was made of earth and wood, it could be quickly constructed at bridges or crossroads to slow an enemy or built around an encircled town and connected by trenches to create a line of circumvallation. The first reference to the sconce in the English lexicon came in 1571, when it appeared in Digges’s first edition of Pantometria and over the next quarter century the English came to realize that the earthen sconce might be the most effective means of security against a successful invasion by the Spanish. Humphrey Barwick, drawing on his experience in the Low Countries, weighed in on the question of the sconce near the end of his treatise, Concerning the Force and Effect of fire and the disability of the Long Bowe or Archery (1594), concluding that the sconce could serve England well if a large enemy force made it ashore. “It is a very bad sconce,” Barwick claimed, that “cannot holde foorth a peece for a day, or longer” and allow time for the defending army to organize to meet the invaders on the ground of its, rather than their enemies, choosing. Much less time, money, and effort went into constructing a sconce than into the massive trace italienne fortresses, making this type of edifice much more suitable to England’s defensive needs. At the same time that Digges was describing how to repel an invasion, Paul Ive was writing his The Practise of Fortification which was printed in 1589 (and a second edition appeared in 1599). The Practise of Fortification was the first English manual on military architecture and explained the “manner of fortifying in all sorts of situations, with the considerations to be vsed in delining and making of royal Frontiers, Skonces, and renforcing of ould walled Townes.”32 In his dedication to William Brooke, then the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and to Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth’s Principal Secretary, Ive called his study a “little treatise” that owed more to the Dutch school of military architecture than to the elaborate Italianate Ibid. Ive’s treatise remained an influential guide for English military writers and soldiers into the 1630s. Robert Ward cited it throughout his chapter, “The Manner of Fortification” in his Anima’dversions of Warre. 31 32

328

chapter six

school. The treatise was in fact a short work, numbering only twentyseven pages, with the first part setting out the methods of establishing the foundation of the fort and the latter half on the construction of the walls, counterscarps, and ramparts. Ive advised his readers that brick or stone obviously made for a stronger fortress, but he was a realist and seemed to understand that if an invasion occurred, the English might not have the luxury of having these expensive materials close by, recommending that what was “next to hand and best cheape must always be taken.”33 This approach was to become the accepted manner for fortifying towns in the Civil War, where earth and wood were more easily come by than the money to purchase bricks and mortar. Ive also included a series of rudimentary diagrams in The Practise of Fortification to assist in the construction of curtain walls and angled bastions. He did incorporate some basic geometry, but attempted to keep the treatise free of any complicated calculations that were to fill books on military engineering in the next century. Ive indicated that the English could no longer be complacent with respect to their defences and that knowledge of such matters was now “knowledge necessarie” so that when it was put in execution, it would be done in such a way “that perfection might be effected.”34 Though perfection may have been a lofty aspiration for a country that had focused so little attention on modernizing its defences, the work of Digges and Ive showed a newfound willingness on the part of the English to fashion their own literature on siegecraft.35 This transformation clearly came as a result of the increasing threat of invasion and the fighting in the Netherlands, where trace fortifications were rapidly dominating the countryside and lengthy sieges were the order of the day for both the Spanish and Dutch armies. By the 1590s, Maurice had altered his strategy of taking on the Spanish in pitched battles and

Ive, The Practise of Fortification, 21. Ibid., Epistle Dedicatorie. 35 The study of fortifications and siegecraft quickly found a place in the education of the gentleman soldier in England. Gilbert’s proposed curriculum for Elizabeth’s Academy called for the hiring of two teachers of mathematics who would teach arithmetic and geometry for the express purpose of educating young gentlemen in “imbattelinges, fortificacions, and matters of warre with the practiz of Artillery, and vse of all manner of Instrumentes belonging to the same. And shall once every moneth practice Canonrie (shewing the manner of undermininges), and . . . draw in paper, make in model, and stake owt all kindes of fortificacions, as well to prevent mine and sappe, as the Canon with all sortes of encampinges and Imbattelinges”. See Gilbert, Queene Elizabethes achademy, 4. 33 34

“necessary

bulwarks”

329

decided instead to engage in a war of manoeuvre and to lay siege to towns in Brabant and Flanders to secure them as strongholds against Hapsburg control. English volunteers in the employment of the States soon found that their regiments had to be equally versed in the making of gabions, palisades, and sconces, as they had been in the infantry tactics of marching and wheeling. Siege Literature: Ostend to Breda When the seventeenth century opened, several thousand English troops were quite literally ensconced in the Low Countries, locked in a fierce struggle with Spanish forces besieging the Flemish port of Ostend. The town, an important strategic point separating the United Provinces from Spanish-controlled Flanders, had been under siege by the army of Archduke Albert since July of 1601 [fig. 20].36 Unwilling to let Ostend fall into Spanish hands without a spirited fight, Maurice had garrisoned the town with a 3000 strong Anglo-Dutch force under the command of Francis Vere, who was acting in the capacity of Ostend’s governor.37 Over the course of the siege, Vere proved a wily opponent of the Spanish, using deception, cunning, and all the means at his disposal to keep Ostend out of Spanish hands. His tenacity grew out of the fact that Ostend represented an important strategic linchpin that both sides in the conflict were eager to control. The Dutch victory at Nieuwpoort in 1600 had been a blow to Spanish prestige and taking Ostend offered the Spanish the opportunity to regain their lost pride and to strengthen their military and religious authority in Flanders. The Dutch hoped to retain the port so that their naval forces could harry the Spanish while their land forces could use Ostend as a base of operations to secure the area around Dunkirk and Nieuwpoort. The siege, as Jonathan Israel has commented, became “the enduring symbol of the Low Countries struggle, and for reasons of prestige, it became impossible [for either side] to withdraw.”38

36 P. Lombaerde, “The fortifications of Ostend during the Great Siege of 1601– 1604,” Fort, 27, 1999, 100. The Archduke Albert’s army at the beginning of the siege numbered around 10,000. 37 Reinforcements increased the garrison from 3000 to 7000 by 1602. 38 J. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 260.

330

chapter six

Figure 20. Map of Ostend from Edward Grimeston’s True Historie of the Siege of Ostend (1604). Courtesy of the British Library.

News of the siege and the heroics of Vere and his troops quickly spread across the channel, prompting English volunteers of noble birth, as well as those of lesser stations, to travel to Ostend to join the fighting. The garrison, supplied from the sea, faced a force three times its strength and despite these overwhelming odds, the Anglo-Dutch troops acquitted themselves well over the course of the three-year siege. The commentators who had previously called the Netherlands the school of war, soon recognized Ostend as the revolt’s master class in siegecraft, designating the struggle as its “Academie” or “universitie.” One called it an “excellent schoole” where “Governours, Captaines, Souldiers, Ingeneurs, Phisitions, Surgions, Pilots, and Mariners” all come, and there they “finde it by experience, that every one of these persons which hath continued but three months in Ostend, is become excellent in his art and vocation.”39 The Englishmen who made their way to the Flemish port proved worthy students. Those that were able to survive sickness, hunger, and incessant attacks by the Hapsburg army were said to have

39 E. Grimeston, A True History of the Memorable Siege of Ostend (London: Edward Blount, 1604), Author to the Reader.

“necessary

bulwarks”

331

left the siege, “speak[ing] like a Master in fortifications, of Ramperes, Bulworkes, Spurres, Counterscarfes, Ravelins, Traverses, Parapets, halfe Moones, Reduites or Block Houses and such like.”40 Reports of the successes and failures of these “schollers newly from this Academie” reached England via letters that were often printed as news pamphlets by London printers and sold by booksellers and chapmen. The accounts, with titles like The Oppugnation and fierce siege of Ostend (1601), Further News of Ostend (1601), and A Breefe Declaration of that which happened aswell within as without Oastend . . . (1602), chronicled the most significant events of the siege and supplied English readers with eyewitness accounts of the fighting.41 When the siege ended with the capitulation of the Anglo-Dutch garrison in September 1604, a history of the three-year struggle was published in French that explained to readers what had “passed on either side.”42 Soon after its publication, Edward Grimeston translated the French history into English as A True Historie of the Memorable Siege of Ostend. The two hundred pages of text, much of it taken from news reports similar to those printed in England, also included a map of the town’s fortifications and the Spanish siegeworks that surrounded Ostend. A diagram of the entrenchments in the south-western part of the town, where much of the heavy fighting took place, was also included.43 News reports and siege histories such as Grimeston’s caught the attention of the English public and helped to etch Ostend into the collective memory of the nation. References to the lengthy struggle Ibid. Anon., Newes from Ostend (London: V. Simmes for Thomas Pauier, 1601); Anon., The Oppugnation, and fierce siege of Ostend (London: V.S. for Thomas Pauier, 1601); Anon., A breefe declaration of that which is happened aswell within as without Oastend sithence the vij. of Ianuarie 1602, (Middleborrow: Richard Schilders, 1602); Anon., A dialogue and complaint made vpon the siedge of Oastend, made by the King of Spaine, the Archduke, the Infanta, the Pope, the Prince Morrice, and the eldest sonne of Sauoye. Translated out of French. Also a true discourse of that which is hapned in the same towne of Oastend, from the fourth day of the moneth of February 1602. VVith certaine newes written towards London, from Italy, Fraunce, Hungary, and other places (London: R. Read for Mathew Law 1602): Anon., Extremities vrging the Lord General Sir Fra. Veare to offer the late anti-parle with the Arch-duke Albertus. Written by an English gentleman of very good account from Ostend, to a worshipfull gentleman his friend here in England; imprinted verbatim according to the originall. With a declaration of the desperate attempt made since, by sayd Arch-dukes forces, for the winning of the olde towne. With an addition of some particulars taken out of the Dutch coppie, receiued since the first impression hereof, (London: William White and Thomas Purfoot for Thomas Pauier, 1602). 42 The French edition was published as Histoire remarquable et veritable de ce qui c’est passé par chacun jour au siege de la ville d’Ostende. 43 Grimeston, A True History of the Memorable Siege of Ostend, Author To the Reader. 40 41

332

chapter six

appear repeatedly in English military literature, a symbol of English resolve, military prowess, and religious fortitude. While these reports and histories were informing and entertaining, they were also considered to be “good for souldiers, who shall learne therein many excellent points of their profession, tried at the cost of other men, and ready to be put into practice.”44 In the 1590s, siege warfare had come of age in the Low Countries and the English were active participants in many of the sieges undertaken by Maurice, and later as part of those directed by his brother, Frederick Henry. Both Maurice and Frederick engaged the Spanish in a series of campaigns to secure key strategic towns in the Dutch Republic, Brabant, and Flanders that saw towns like Ostend, Breda, s’Hertogenbosch, Steenbergen, and Bergen-op-Zoom repeatedly change hands between 1590 and 1640.45 Breda, for instance, was first taken by the Spanish in 1581 and ten years later, it was encircled and retaken by the Dutch. In 1624, three years after the conclusion of the Twelve Years’ Truce, the Spanish again laid siege to Breda, capturing it in 1625 (the surrender being depicted in the famous painting by Velázquez). Breda remained in Spanish hands until 1637, when Frederick Henry took the town after a four-month siege. In each instance, English soldiers fought on both sides, the majority in the ranks of the Protestant Dutch but others also served the Spanish crown. Breda was but one of a number of towns subjected to lengthy and repeated sieges during the Dutch Revolt. Forced to secure towns rather than engage in pitched battles, the Dutch soon developed a system of siege warfare that became known as the “Method of Maurice of Nassau.” Maurice’s approach to siege warfare was a direct one; rather

Ibid. A history of the sieges and battles of Maurice was printed in England in 1613 during the Twelve Years Truce. The work, The Triumphs of Nassau, by Jan Orlers first appeared in Dutch in 1610 as Den Nassuschen Lauren-crans, (Leiden, 1610). The English edition was translated from the French edition Les lauriers de Nassau, (Leiden, 1612) by William Shute, who dedicated it to William Herbert, 3rd earl of Pembroke and Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery and later 4th earl of Pembroke. William Herbert served as Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall (1604–30) and Wiltshire (1621–30) while Philip Herbert served as Lord Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire (1628–30), Cornwall (1630–42), Kent (1624–42), Somerset (1630–40) and Wiltshire (1630–42). Orler’s Triumphs offers a wealth of information about the siege tactics used by Maurice and a good account of the role played by English soldiers in the sieges, of which the work of the Veres is given much attention. For an assessment of Triumphs and of the significance of the Maurician method of siegecraft, see M.S. Kingra, “The Trace Italienne and the Military Revolution During the Eighty Years’ War, 1567–1648”, Journal of Military History 57 (1993): 431–446. 44 45

“necessary

bulwarks”

333

than starving out his opponents, he first carried out lengthy artillery bombardments to soften up a town and its garrison. He also placed his artillery on wooden mats to keep the Dutch cannon from sinking into the soft soil (a tactic that he also used in open battle, most notably at Nieuwpoort in 1600). He was also praised for his knowledge of siegecraft and his constant study of the art. In his journal of the siege of Julich, George Weymouth said that Maurice was considered a “wise & experienced commander [who] hath gotten great advantage of other soldiers in Christendome, ever aplying himselfe, to the knowledge of the Mathematiks.”46 Another Maurician innovation, seen by many as his most significant contribution to the art of siege warfare, had the prince employ his soldiers (in conjunction with pioneers) to dig approaches up to the walls of the town.47 It was at Geertrudenberg in 1593 that Maurice first used his soldiers as labourers, asking them to dig trenches and siegeworks in return for extra pay. Contemporaries quickly recognized the importance of Maurice’s innovations, calling the siege of Geertrudenberg “verie memorable and famous,” owing to the fact that “most of these great [siege] workes were done by souldiers, according to the manner of the auncient Romans, not by constraint but by daily hire; and those dayes they were not upon gard, each of them was imployed in what labour he best liked, getting tenne or fifteen soulds a day.”48 The successful taking of the town in just four months, before a Spanish force could relieve it, was evidence of the success of these new methods. Maurice’s innovations in siege warfare were to prove equally important to the evolution of English siegecraft. The constant flow of soldiers to and from the Low Countries helped facilitate the transfer of information about the Maurician methods and it would likewise help to flood the English language with the vocabulary of siegecraft.49 Successive generations of British soldiers serving in the BL, Royal MS. 17 B. xxxii. fol. 3. By the end of the 1590s, Maurice’s bastion fortifications were some of the finest in Europe. Simon Stevin, Maurice’s engineer, published De Sterctenbouwing in 1594 and it proved a popular treatise and highly influential in spreading the design methods of the Netherlanders. Stevin’s treatise was never published in English, but copies of the French and Dutch editions could be found in pre-Civil War England as evidenced by references in military books printed in the period. 48 Shute, Triumphs of Nassau, 151. 49 William Garrard wrote that soldiers needed to know how to “forme Bulwarkes, Cavaliers, Platformes, straight and crooked, Casemates, Covers, Canoners, Merlones, Curtaines, Scarpes, false Portes, secrete issues for footemen and horsemen, Coun46 47

334

chapter six

Netherlands not only learned to attack and defend bastions and hornworks, but they also found the time to take stock of their experiences and to pen newsbooks and histories dedicated to the sieges they took part in. Three veterans in particular, the Englishmen Henry Gage and Henry Hexham, and the Irishman Garret Barry, all made important contributions to the English literature on siege warfare. Gage and Barry each translated editions of the Jesuit Hugo Herman’s Siege of Breda that was published in Latin in 1627. Hexham penned four works on siege warfare during the 1630s. Henry Gage had an illustrious military career, spending much of his youth in the Spanish army in the Low Countries before returning to England in 1644 to take up the Royalist cause during the Civil War. A Roman Catholic, he served as a company commander at the sieges of Bergen-op-Zoom in 1622 and Breda in 1624.50 Gage distinguished himself at Bergen-op-Zoom, where he is said to have “gallantly performed” until he was wounded in a mine explosion.51 Returning to service soon after, he was part of Spinola’s army at Breda when the garrison fell. After the surrender of the town, Gage left the Netherlands and it was during this period that he translated Herman’s Siege of Breda. Described by his biographer Edward Walsingham, as “a most accomplisht Gentleman, and compleat Souldier,” Gage was later praised during the Civil War for his role in improving the Oxford defences and for his efforts to relieve the Royalist garrison at Basing House in 1644.52 His decision to translate Herman’s history of the siege of Breda appears to have been a reflection of his fascination with the military arts, an interest Firth described as Gage’s “favourite pursuit.”53 Gage hoped his work would have some didactic value, dedicating his translation to the soldiers of England and explaining that he undertook the project to bring the popular text to “souldiers and professours of the art military” not well versed in the Latin tongue.54 terditches, Ditches, Sholders and Counterscarpes, and he must beware that in hys parapettes, he make no windows nor loope holes never small nor great.” See Garrard, The Arte of Warre, 286. 50 A.J. Loomie, ‘Gage, Sir Henry (1597–1645)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 51 E. Walsingham, Alter Britanniae Heros: Or the Life of the Most Honourable Knight, Sir Henry Gage, Late Governour of Oxford, Epitomiz’d (Oxford: Leonard Lichfield, 1645), 3. 52 P.R. Newman, Royalist Officers In England and Wales, 1642–1660, 146–7. 53 Loomie, ‘Gage, Sir Henry (1597–1645)’, DNB, see also Young and Burne, The Great Civil War, 190. 54 Gage, Siege of Breda, To the Souldiers of Our Nation in General.

“necessary

bulwarks”

335

Like Gage, the Roman Catholic Barry took part in the siege of Breda while serving in Ambrosio Spinola’s army. Barry dedicated his translation of the Siege of Breda to his general, a man whose name “danteth and maketh to tremble, not babes or children, but even the proodest, hautiest, and most insulting enime of the greatest Monarches, the King of Spain.”55 Barry believed the text to be worthy of a soldier’s library, translating it for those “desirous to learne some curiosities in the profession of armes.”56 He alluded to the fact that large numbers of young gentlemen from across Europe were flocking to Breda to “better their knowledg in the Artes of warre.” Like the descriptions of Ostend found in The True History of the Memorable Siege, Barry considered Breda to have become the “seminary . . . of the military discipline.”57 Herman’s work offered soldiers and civilians an array of detailed maps of the Brabant and plans of Breda’s fortifications. Drawings of Spinola’s sconces and the redoubts constructed about the encircled the town provide a fairly accurate picture of the types of siegeworks used by the Spanish forces during the ten months of fighting from August 1624 to June 1625. Breda’s elaborate siegeworks and defences were to be the proving ground for hundreds of English soldiers who were said to have served there with “excellent courage” and “resolution.”58 The eventual capitulation and honourable surrender of the town in 1625 did nothing to tarnish the reputation of its English defenders, who under the articles of surrender, marched out of Breda with drums beating and colours flying. Some of the English who left Breda that June day, returned there twelve years later to stand with Frederick Henry’s army as it tried to retake the town from the Spanish. Among Frederick’s ranks in 1637 was Henry Hexham, the man whose career had begun at the siege of Ostend many years before. During the 1630s, Hexham wrote three siege histories; the first was A Historical Relation of the Famous Siege of the Busse, printed in 1630, and a second, A Journall of the taking in of Venlo, Roermont, Strade, the memorable Siege of Mastricht, appeared in 1633. Just after Frederick Henry retook 55 The titles of the two translations of Hugo Herman, Siege of Breda, also differ. Henry Gage’s translation was simply titled the Siege of Breda, while Barry included a reference to his Spanish employers, titling the work The Siege of Breda By the Armes of Phillip the Fovrt vnder the Government of Isabella Acthived By the Conduct of Ambr. Spinola (Louvain: Ex officina Hastenii, 1627). 56 Barry, Siege of Breda, sig. *ij v. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 120–121.

336

chapter six

Breda in 1637, Hexham completed A True and Briefe Relation of The Famous Siege of Breda, which detailed the English role in the retaking of the town. Hexham’s experience before the defences of these towns convinced him of the significant role that siegecraft played in warfare, and led him to also complete a translation of Samuel Marolois’s Fortification ou Architectvre militaire tant offensive que defensive which was printed by John Johnson in Amsterdam in 1631 and again in 1638 [fig. 21].59 Hexham was to later include sections on siege warfare as part of the second and third parts of his Principles of the Art Military. In his pamphlets and treatises, Hexham offered nothing but praise for the Maurician methods of siegecraft, explaining that spending a few hundred pounds to dig approaches and saps proved an effective way to capture a town and to preserve the lives of one’s soldiers at the same time.60 He considered the taking of a town by constructing approaches as honourable and more humane (to both sides) than the practice of blocking up a town and starving it into submission.61 Maurice and Frederick Henry had successfully taken towns by establishing secure lines of circumvallation and contravallation capable of keeping relief armies from bearing down on their forces in the midst of the siege. At Busse (s’Hertogenbosch) the lines stretched around the town in a thirty-mile circuit that Hexham described as having “left not a patch of ground, by which the Enemie might have relieued the Towne, bulwarkes most strongly fortified, sconces, horneworks, half-moones, redoubts and traverses, as likewise the inner lines against the Towne.”62 Hexham’s descriptions and his studies of siegecraft made him the most vocal English proponent of the Dutch methods of this form of war. Analytical Treatises and Specialized Literature on Siegecraft, 1630 –1642 The outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War and the resumption of fighting in the Low Countries in 1621 saw a new generation of English volunteers follow in the footsteps of fathers, uncles, and brothers and

59 S. Marolois, The Art of Fortification or Architectvre Militarie (Amsterdam: John Johnson, (1631) 1638). 60 Ibid., Dedication to Sir Henry Vane. 61 Hexham, Siege of Breda, Dedication to Henry Vane. 62 Hexham, A Historical Relation of the Famous Siege of Busse, 8.

“necessary

bulwarks”

337

travel to the continent to enrol in the academies of siege warfare at Breda, Maastricht, and s’Hertogenbosch. It was the experiences of this generation of English volunteers that would eventually shape the military struggle between the Roundheads and Cavaliers in the 1640s. Sydenham Poyntz, who later served the Parliamentary cause, left for the Low Countries in 1624 to tour the continent with no intention of fighting another man’s war. Not long after his arrival, Poyntz found himself short of money and forced “to take the means of a private souldier in my L. Vaux his regiment under Captayne Reysby,” as part of Spinola’s army. Vaux’s regiment promptly marched off to the siege of Bergen-Op-Zoom where Poyntz was captured by the English. 63 Forced to serve the Protestant cause, his new regiment was ordered to assist in the relief of Breda and there Poyntz served in the trenches alongside some of his more illustrious countrymen, including the earl of Essex and Horace Vere. Poyntz was one of fifty handgrandoes in Vere’s regiment and in his account he described the lines of circumvallation around Breda and the strength of the defences the English encountered during their assault on the Spanish. Upon a narrowe bancke along the River side which leadeth to the Towne at the end of which bancke stood Skonces behinde Skonces with Canons upon them to skoure and cleanse all that should venture to passé that way, yet notwithstanding our English bravely ventured upon that dangerous passe, and fiercely in the darke of night charged the enemies skonces, took in two of them.64

Poyntz and his English comrades performed well in the attack, but were eventually driven from the sconces, owing he says to the cowardice of their Dutch allies who failed to support the attack. The English, in the end, were forced to withdraw to Geertrudenberg to lick their wounds. In just under a year of service in the Low Countries, Poyntz had fought in two major sieges but left his regiment soon after and set out for Germany, leaving Essex, Vere, and the English contingent to continue their struggle with Spinola and his army. Did volunteers like Essex, Vere, Skippon, and these English volunteers know what lay before them when they set out from Dover or London on ships bound for Ostend, Nieuwpoort, or Calais? Did these

63 A.T.S. Goodrick, “The Relation of Sydnam Poyntz 1624–1636”, Camden Society, Third Series, Vol. XIV, 1908, 45. 64 Ibid.

338

chapter six

men realize that once they entered the service of the Dutch, that they would spend much of their time in trenches, facing Spanish guns as they “play[ed] upon our backs [and] cut us very thicke”?65 Had those eager to volunteer bought copies of The Triumphs of Nassau or Grimeston’s Siege of Ostend or even paid a penny for a broadsheet map of the fortifications at Breda?66 Or did they purchase a single volume for their travels, a book that addressed all the “principall parts of the Body of War,” that is analytical treatises that described infantry, cavalry, and siegecraft together? Had a volunteer sought out the last of these books, his options in the first quarter of the seventeenth century would have been fairly limited. Despite the spate of military manuals published in the Jacobean period, particularly between 1615 and 1625, there were few comprehensive studies of warfare in English that also included a discussion of siege warfare, apart from Whitehorne’s Certain waies for the orderying of Souldiers and Garrard’s The Art of Warre, which had been printed in 1591. Garrard’s treatise included fifty pages of general notes on siege warfare directed at military officers, along with a section on the duties and responsibilities of the Master of Artillery. Garrard explained the reasons for the inclusion of the abbreviated comments on siegecraft to his Elizabethan audience, stating that [a]lthough many authors have in long discourses written of fortifications, nevertheless, for that it seemes unto me a thing necessary to be understood of a Souldier, at least wise of hym, which by way of merite, means to obtain recompense of such Captaine Generals, as be famous professors of thys honourable discipline, I therefore resolve with my selfe, to declare my opinion, but onely in generall and not in particular, which I leave to those that be Maisters of this warlike Architecture.67

Yet, by the 1620s, Garrard’s general comments were somewhat dated and there were no other analytical treatises available in English that examined siegecraft from the perspective of the soldier. A keen volunteer could pay a visit to a London bookseller, possibly William Ponsonby, Richard Hawkins, or Humphrey Robertson, to purchase a Ibid., 46. Robert Devereaux, the earl of Essex had copies of Shute’s The Triumph of Nassau as well as histories of the siege of Bulduc and the battle of Nieupoort. Essex’s library also contained “diuers maps in sheets”, (though there is no indication of whether these were English or continental) and Harrens, Geography of the Low Countries. See Vernon F. Snow, “An Inventory of the Lord General’s Library, 1646”, The Library, Third Series, Vol. XXI, (1966): 115–123. 67 Garrard, The Arte of Warre, 283. 65 66

“necessary

bulwarks”

339

manual written by English engineers and gunners, the “maisters” that Garrard had referred to in The Art of Warre. This specialized literature dedicated to the trinity of siegecraft—military architecture, gunnery, and pyrotechnics—was highly technical and written for men whose weapons of war were the spade, the pickaxe, and the quadrant. Treatises like Thomas Smith’s The Complete Souldier (1628), Robert Norton’s The Gunner (1628), and Francis Malthus’s A Treatise of Artificial Firevvorks (1629) did find an audience among gentlemen soldiers and eventually the contents of these works would be incorporated into “mainstream” military books in the 1630s.68 The influence of this specialist literature can be seen in two analytical treatises that were to address the subject of siegecraft, Robert Ward’s Anima’dversions Of Warre (1639) and the second and third parts of Henry Hexham’s Principles of the Art Military (1638, 1640). Ward and Hexham drew heavily on the work of English military engineers and gunners, borrowing illustrations, texts, and charts to fill the pages of their treatises. This acknowledgement of the centrality of siegecraft to the art of war in the 1630s marked a significant stage in the development of the English military treatise, the point when authors began to move away from the narrowly focused study of infantry and cavalry tactics, toward a complete guide to the art of war. The transformation clearly took longer in England than it had on the continent, but by the beginning of the English Civil War, the complete soldier could now carry a single volume with him into the field that provided a fairly detailed and accurate representation of all aspects of “moderne warre.”69 As with infantry tactics, siege warfare had its own rational set of maxims and rules, and Ward and Hexham realized that a gentleman soldier could not be expected to embark for the wars without some knowledge of these rules. Ward’s Anima’dversions of vvarre provides a good representation of this shift in emphasis by writers in the 1630s that witnessed the inclusion of specialized “scientific” subjects in military books. First, Ward did not relegate his chapter, “The Manner of Fortification,” to the back of his treatise, but rather placed it prominently near the front

68 Ball’s Propositions of Fortifications was printed in 1642 but there is no extant copy of the work exists. It is cited in Englands Safety in Navie and Fortifications . . . (London: Jo. Ch. for John Bull, 1642), 8. I wish to thank Peter Harrington for this reference. 69 Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 32. Anima’dversions of Warre was lauded as one of the best military books of the period and was listed in William London’s A Catalogue of the most vendible books in England, Orderly and Alphabetically Digested (London: s.n., 1658).

340

chapter six

in the first book, addressing sieges even before he examined the tactics of foot and horse. He opened the chapter with an abridgement of the common geometric terms related to fortifications and then described the methods of staking out sconces that was common to the work of Ive and to the continental treatises on fortifications. Ward set out the methods for constructing regular and irregular fortresses, drawing on the work of European experts like the Frenchmen Jean de Bar-de-Luc, the royal engineer for Henri IV and the Italian soldier, engineer, and military writer, Giroloma Cataneo. Ward drove home the message that the role of the soldier-author was to assess the methods of warfare that succeeded and to also draw their readers’ attention to the strategies that failed. In his chapter on fortifications, which he subtitled the “Choice Experiments that these late Netherlandish and Swedish Warres have produced,” Ward explored the siege of Breda (1624) and Spinola’s tactics for besieging the so-called “Queene of Garrisons in the Netherlands.” Ward chose Breda because he considered it to be “beautified and strengthened with the absolutest Fortifications that eyther Art or Nature could afford.”70 In his words, Breda was all but impregnable, the ideal fortification on which to base a study of modern siegecraft. Ward outlined how Spinola amassed his armies, and how the Spanish general had been cautious to keep his intentions from the Dutch by encamping several miles from the town. Ward then explained the Spanish efforts to entrench themselves around the town and the extent to which they dug deep lines of circumvallation to isolate Breda and to protect their forces from an attack by a relief army. Once these lines were in place, the Spanish began to move closer and closer to the town, constructing redoubts and forts that were connected by ditches meant to slowly strangle the Dutch garrison. Ward pointed out that not only did the Spanish seal off the land routes to Breda, they also made sure that no boats could make their way to the town to provide supplies or men to assist the garrison. Spinola left no openings for his enemy to escape, and raised upon all Passages, very strong Forts; and upon the Causes (where there was no passage on neither side) he caused very strong Pallizadoes of yong Stadles droven into the earth, and framed together 15 foot high.

70

Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 100.

“necessary

bulwarks”

341

Likewise, crosse the waters that drowned the Meadowes, he made double Pallizado, to prevent the Boates from going to the Towne.71

So well fortified were the attackers, that the relief army raised by the Prince of Orange could do little to assist the beleaguered town, and sensing that “their was no hope of relieving the Towne; he provided for his late Retreate, to which end he raised divers Workes to hinder Spinola from pursuing him.”72 After eleven months, Breda’s garrison was forced to surrender, and Ward included the articles of surrender that were reached by the Governor and the Spanish as evidence of the good will that could exist between attacker and defender, even after a siege of such length. At the end of his short history of the siege of Breda, Ward explained the reasons for setting out Spinola’s methods. In 1637, when the was once again besieged, this time by Frederick Henry, he had as it were, read Spinola’s book. According to Ward, the Dutch army trod the same steps to regaine it, that Spinola had before made use of: Neither had Grolle, Mastricke, of Skinskin Skonce in their Besiegments such choice circumstances belonging unto them, as this famous siege had; Neither had any Towne in Germany beleagured by the Swedes, the like passages that were made use of at this Towne. And this Compendius discourse, may serve to give better light into our former discourse of Fortification; whereby the Ingenious Souldier that hath not seene the manner of a Siege, may hereby informe his judgement, and better his understanding.73

In Ward’s eyes, Frederick Henry’s victory was the product of his calculated study of the siege tactics of his opponents and also a triumph of the rational methods espoused by military writers. Informed judgement, so integral to military command, could be gained in two ways, either through experience, or by weighing the experience of others as the Dutch had done at Breda. To attain the latter, one had to first master the complex anatomy of siege operations. And in this case, anatomy is an apt analogy, since contemporaries considered a fortress to be similar to a man, the bulworkes are the Head, the Flanckes the Eyes, the Curtins, the Armes, and so the other parts: Now if the Head bee not wel-disposed,

71 72 73

Ibid. Ibid., 101. Ibid., 105.

342

chapter six then all the other members will be found ill: even so those bulworkes which are not formed according to the disposition which is requisite, all the fortress is imperfect.74

If the fortress was like a man, then the soldier serving in siege was not unlike a physician, wrote Ward, he “should alwaies have some soveraigne Salve or Antidote to apply according to the cause thereof,” whenever its defences needed repair.75 Applying that salve to any imperfection required that officers have an idea of the component parts of a fortification and how those parts might be protected or exploited. Like medical students, soldiers needed to learn the rather lengthy list of “anatomical” terms associated with the trace fortress, the scenography, as it was called.76 The Frenchman Samuel Marolois claimed in the 1620s that “the definitions of Fortification are by the daly use of armes growne common,” and that it was no longer necessary to explain the terms, though they were still being defined in English treatises as late as 1639.77 Robert Norwood’s Fortification or Architecture Militar, a specialised treatise completed in 1637, but not printed until 1639, opened with a glossary of terms and an accompanying diagram to assist readers in distinguishing the difference between a parapet and a palizadoe.78 In the Art of Warre, Du Praissac had included woodcuts of famous sieges, including Ostend, Rhymberg, and Gulich, with letters to designate the different kinds of defences alongside text which explained how to attack and defend fortresses.79 After the scenography was covered, mathematical primers were sometimes included to assist soldiers in understanding the theoretical underpinnings of siegecraft, the geometry and arithmetic which no discourse on military architecture, engineering and gunnery Ibid., 62. Ibid. 76 See B. Gerbiers, The First Lecture being an Introduction to the Military Architecture, or Fortifications, (London: Robert Ibbitson, 1650), 5. 77 Marolois, The Art of Fortification, 2. 78 R. Norwood, Fortification or Architecture Military (London: Thomas Coates for Andrew Crooke, 1639), 1–5. Norwood hoped that his treatise might be read by Englishmen at home, but that it was meant to be used by those soldiers “applying themselves to the furtherance of our many plantations abroad”. Norwood purports to have been a soldier in his youth, though he did not apparently serve long and later became a mathematician in London. His interest in fortifications grew out of travels in the Netherlands that were unrelated to his soldiering. The manual was a compendium, a compact work written because the author found “little extant in our English tongue of this subject.” A mere thirty-three pages, Fortification or Architecture Military stripped fortification design to its bare essentials. 79 Du Praissac, The Art of Warre, 73–87. 74 75

“necessary

bulwarks”

343

Figure 21. The frontispiece of Samuel Marolois’s Fortification ou Architectvre militaire tant offensive que defensive, first printed in Amsterdam in 1627 and translated into English by Henry Hexham in 1631. Courtesy of the Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

344

chapter six

could omit. Not surprisingly, noted mathematicians and engineers like Simon Stevin, Adam Freitag, and Henry Leysing increasingly shared the page with ancient and modern military heroes. Hexham advised his readers to take up Ramelli’s Mechanick Secrets, Digges’s Pantometria, and Leysing’s Theater of the Instruments, while Ward’s chapter, “The Use of Artillery in Forts,” relied heavily on Euclidean geometry to determine distances and heights of accessible and inaccessible objects. In these primers, technical terms were explained and figures provided to illustrate how the various polygonal shapes were employed in the design of defensive positions.80 Ward opened his chapter on fortification with one such primer, in which he outlined eight geometric propositions for drawing lines and angles, before giving definitions for each of the geometric shapes that were associated with the construction of a sconce or fortress. Soldiers were told that there can be “no perfect fortification, without the use of these precedent figures.”81 According to a lecture given by the Huguenot Balthazar Gerbier in 1650, after the geometric shapes and angles were studied and understood, theory and practice converged in the staking out of the polygonal shape that best suited the natural conditions where the defensive position was to be situated. Without a comprehension of scenography and arithmetic and geometric functions, the complete soldier was at a loss, argued Gerbier, [f ]or that it will availe but little to know what is to be done, when the name is unknown, and the way how to performe it, which ought to be learned by any man who desires to be a perfect Souldier both for his honour and use, for ignorance is despicable, so its prejudiciall: Let not any Souldier then perswade himself, that it can any ways suffice hime to goe just as far as the pronunciation of the Alphabet; for that it availe them no more, when they shall come to be put to the practical part, then it will to any Auditory when they shall onely be told, what followeth.82

As Gerbier saw it, soldiering, at least as it was to be practised by gentlemen, required the integration of various fields of learning, from natural philosophy and arithmetic to geometry and engineering. The siege was where all of these elements intersected.

80 81 82

F. Malthus, A Treatise on Fire-vvorks, (London: Richard Hawkins, 1629), 216. Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 40. Gerbiers, Introduction to the Military Architecture, 5.

“necessary

bulwarks”

345

The Elements of a Siege The maxims and rules associated with siegecraft most often began with a discourse on constructing approaches, galleries, and sconces—the initial stages of any offensive action against a fortified town. In the second part of the Principles of the Art Militarie, Hexham’s chapter on siegecraft, which is one of the best early Stuart works on the subject, offered a long list of the types of approaches and the means used to construct them. Using engravings of trenches, gabions, and chevaux de freis to append his commentary, Hexham explained the accepted methods of constructing trenches.83 Hexham’s manual appealed to the soldier and the engineer, with the author keenly aware of the fact that it was just as important to explain the why of construction, as it was to detail how the trenches should be dug. For instance, advice to English readers called on them to learn from the Dutch methods of Maurice and use soldiers, as well as pioneers, to work in the trenches. Hexham directed officers to employ “200, 300, 400, or 500 lusty souldiers, which are vsed to work, now besides the ordinaries armes, which they carrie, they take downe along with them into the approches spades, shovels, pickaxses, and other materials necessary for work.”84 The siege also had its protagonist, the defender, whose men had to do their share of digging to construct counter-approaches and outerworks to offset the offensive thrusts of their opponents. These countermeasures were be used, Hexham explained, in conjunction with cannon that were to “play continually from all places upon the workemen and approaches, to doe them as much harme as possible.”85 Counter-approaches and outerworks allowed the defender to keep the enemy at bay, and to slowly beat them back with sallies meant to drive enemy workers from their trenches, eventually forcing the attacker to give up their efforts. Such attacks, warned Hexham, must be carried out with care, making sure that the defenders were “not exposed to slaughter, but . . . commanded to fall on with discretion, advantage, and profit, to the end that the Towne or Fort besieged be not bereft of their men by fool-hardinesse,

83 Gabions were large wicker baskets filled with earth that were used to protect pioneers as they dug trenches. Chevaux de freis are sharpened timbers that were crossed to form a defensive line used to fill breaches or create barriers to frontal attacks by foot or cavalry. See Fig 24. 84 Hexham, The Third Part of the Principles of the Art Militarie, 15. 85 Hexham, The Second Part of the Principles of the Art Militarie, 20.

346

chapter six

rashnesse, and imprudencie.”86 Cavalry troops, if available, could be used rather than foot soldiers, since the horse could swoop down upon the enemy and quickly return to the fortress. Sallies might help to drive attackers from their trenches, but they were only useful against positions that were above ground. Mines, however, proved much more difficult to defend against. Mining was as old as siege warfare itself and by the early seventeenth century its efficacy had been proven time and time again. Military books lauded mining as one of the most effective ways of opening a breach in a wall or bulwark. Soldiers might be expected to dig trenches, but mining was best left to the master-miner, usually a miner whose workmen were also miners in civilian life. The Cornish and Northumbrian miners found ample work during the English Civil War and it now appears that mining was much more widespread in the war than has been previously acknowledged. Archaeological digs have uncovered Royalist and Parliamentary mines near a number of English towns and the discovery of well preserved mines at Limerick Castle in Ireland have further reinforced the notion that during the wars of the Three Kingdoms, this aspect of siegecraft was well developed, possibly more so than on the continent.87 Both Hexham and Ward included chapters on mining that touched on its effectiveness, while also proposing the best methods to counteract the undermining of bastions and curtain walls. Because it was believed that mining should be left to those who made it their trade, both writers kept their discussions on the subject relatively short. Of greatest concern was where to sink a mine and whether equipment, such as a compass and quadrant, were available to make sure that the mine was dug in the right direction. Obviously selecting an experienced master-miner was paramount to the success of any mining operation, and though the arduous task of digging the mine took time and effort, most commentators agreed that all would come to naught if the chamber holding the gunpowder was incorrectly built or improperly placed below the walls. Hexham and Ward warned against making the chamber too large, since this would reduce the force of the explosion. Ward included a woodcut of the chamber, and explained that the trench leading to the chamber must be made narrow, with the “Barrels of Powder being plac’t as you

Ibid., 20. See P. Harrington, English Civil War Archeology, 94–96 and K. Wiggins, Anatomy of a Siege, King John’s Castle, Limerick 1642 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2001). 86 87

“necessary

bulwarks”

347

see with vents to take fire from the other, with sufficient Rafters and Plankes on the toppe to carry up all before it.”88 Hexham also provided more specific instructions, along with calculations for measuring the force of the blast, claiming that it was commonly believed that one barrel of gunpowder could blow up a rod (12ft.) of earth. Preventing a mine from being set off required defenders either sink a counter mine, or construct defences that made it difficult for their opponents to cut through the earth below a fortress. The former was evidently easier than the latter, as it took a great deal more planning to create defences that were mine proof. It was suggested that hidden caves might be built when construction on fortifications began, which would then be used as listening posts to discover if the enemy was mining close by. Hexham argued that such a strategy could prove deleterious to the defender, whose own walls might be weakened owing to the weight of the bastion or ramparts overhead if a series of caves were dug below.89 Because so few of the Civil War defences were constructed well in advance of the fighting, these countermeasures were rarely, if ever, used by either army. Instead, the use of countermines proved a more commonplace practice in the Civil War, as evidenced by archaeological research that unearthed three well constructed countermines at Pontefract Castle.90 Knowing where to sink a countermine was not always an easy task, but writers offered soldiers age-old ways of discovering where their enemies were digging. Hexham suggested that trees or shrubs be planted along the ramparts and watched to detect rustling (however wind, he noted, could make this a problem). He also recommended placing a drum on the ground, with a pair of dice on the drum head. When the ground below it began to shake, the dice would make a sound and the mine would be discovered. Another suggestion called for iron bores to be drilled into the ground to allow men to listen for the sound of digging. Once discovered, a countermine was sunk and dug in the direction of the enemy mine, a chamber was constructed near to the wall of the mine, filled with gunpowder and planks, and exploded. If this failed and the mining continued, soldiers were advised to “quit that part of the Rampart or Bulwarke under which they suspect there is a

88 89 90

Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 148. Hexham, The Second Part of the Principles of the Art Militarie, 29. Harrington, English Civil War Archeology, 52–53.

348

chapter six

mine, and to cut it off inwardly,” then sink a countermine that would be used if the bastion was overrun.91 The sieges and trench battles waged in the English Civil War, like those carried out in the Low Countries, were not only fought with cannon and musket, but also with hand grenades, fire arrows, and petards. The English, like their European neighbours, had a fascination with fireworks and for this reason by 1642 there was a surprisingly rich literature dedicated to fire weapons. As with mining, incendiaries have a long history and by the early seventeenth century many writers, from Vegetius to Munster, had chronicled the use and effectiveness of these weapons.92 Alongside the analytical treatises already mentioned, soldiers could consult two specialized treatises on fireworks, Thomas Malthus’s A Treatise of Artificial Fire-vworks (1629) and John Babington’s Pyrotechnia, or Artificall Fire Works (1635), as well as Norton’s The Gunner, which included a section on fireworks.93 Babington was concerned primarily with the theatrical use of fireworks, though his gunpowder recipes also had military applications. Rather it was Thomas Malthus who provided the best advice on the utility of fire weapons in warfare. Malthus prided his Treatise of Artificial Fire-works on being the best source of information for soldiers (rather than entertainers), describing the book as “suted to Martiall vse,” and condemning Norton in the same breath (as others would do) for his decision to take both the good and the bad from Ufano.94 In addition to his study of fireworks, Malthus added a section to his treatise on the rules and maxims of fortifications that included an arithmetical primer. The first book of the Treatise of Artificial Fire-vvorks, which was dedicated to the use of fireworks in war, set out how to make grenades, fiery arrows, fiery wheels, and petards. With the right ingredients and materials, besiegers and the besieged could easily make these weapons that “being cast out of men’s hands . . . worked equally well, (wonderous operations) amongst either horse-men or footemen, tearing both man and beast in pieces [and] sparing nothing.”95

Hexham, The Second Part of the Principles of the Art Militarie, 30. For a history of incendiaries, see J.R. Partington, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). 93 See Norton’s chapter “Of Artificial Fireworkes for Triumph and Service” in The Gunner, 149–155. 94 Malthus, A Treatise on Fire-vvorks, The Preface. 95 Ibid., 14–15. 91 92

“necessary

bulwarks”

349

Malthus considered hand grenades to be versatile weapons, with “wonderous effects.” Made of any kind of “brickle mettle,” the grenade was filled with a gunpowder charcoal and saltpetre mixture.96 Once explosives were placed in the container, it was dipped in pitch to waterproof the vessel. The covering of tar (or tallow) also made it possible to store and preserve grenades for many years or to transport the weapons at sea. Malthus recommended the use of heavy glass, but other materials like brass or clay, were also believed to be suitable for the vessels. In his chapter on “Engines and Warlike Instruments,” Ward explained that gunpowder could be poured either into a round container made of three parts brass and one part tin or into “earthen bottles made of a round fashion being not halfe burnt.”97 These incendiary clay pots appear to have been a favourite weapon in the arsenals of both Civil War armies. Stephen Porter notes that the Royalist garrison at Oxford had at least eight hundred such grenades on hand at the end of the first year of fighting.98 Hand grenades were much more effective as anti-personnel weapons than as incendiaries. When Sydenham Poyntz marched into the trenches at Breda in 1624, he carried a hand grenade that could be thrown into the Spanish trenches or hurled over a wall or into a breach to clear out the defenders. Soldiers were cautioned that when the time came to employ the grenade, they could be “somewhat dangerous,” since it was difficult to determine how fast the fuse would burn. If used correctly, commentators agreed that their effects could produce casualties or scare workers or soldiers from their digging. Besiegers were also advised to use canvas grenades as incendiaries, but it appears that this kind of weapon was ineffective. Since buildings in English and European towns were no longer constructed with roofs made of straw or other highly combustible materials, townspeople could usually extinguish individual fires before they burned out of control. Analytical and specialized works also noted an array of fiery weapons that could be hastily built by defenders and dropped on the heads of troops storming a breach. Among them were the fiery wheels, made by wrapping combustible cord or flax around a hoop which was set alight and thrown down on attackers. The wheel was covered in resin so Ibid., 10. Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 364–365. 98 S. Porter, Destruction in the English Civil War (Phoenix Mill, U.K: Sutton Publishing, 1994), 51. 96 97

350

chapter six

that “falling upon the souldiers they may stay and sticke, and to make them more trouble some and intangling, two may be tied a crosse on another, and falling upon anie man, he cannot choose but be much astonished . . . and put his company in great disorder.99 Similarly, fiery canes or fiery pikes were also suggested as terror weapons. Garret Barry gave instructions on how to make a fiery cane that shot flames from its end and was “most excellent to breake any order or array.”100 Similar to a large Roman candle, the recipe for the naptha-like substance required “rare and deep judgement in ordering and measuringe” the gunpowder, camphire, saltpetre, and oils that were among the flammable ingredients of the fiery cane.101 So volatile was the mixture that Barry discouraged his readers from simply following the recipe as it was presented in military books and proposed that someone with prior experience in handling the weapon should build and use it. A much less dangerous weapon for the user was the fire arrow, made by attaching an olive-shaped linen bag to the shaft of a longbow arrow. The bag was filled with a mixture of saltpetre, gunpowder dust, and brimstone with oil of petrol added to bind the mixture.102 Fire arrows were considered best suited for use against buildings or store houses where gunpowder might be kept. Malthus, Ward, and Barry all addressed the use of fire arrows in battle, but Hexham fell silent when it came to the application of these weapons. Hexham added a list of materials that the general or master of the ordnance and his clerk might carry with the siege train, and there was no reference to bows or arrows, indicating that by the late 1630s, the Dutch had no place for them in their arsenal. Though bows were widely available to both sides in the Civil War, they do not appear to have been commonly used in sieges. As with the canvas hand grenade, fiery arrows inflicted so little damage that they were probably considered impractical.103 Fire weapons, mines, and trenching could be effective tools in siege warfare, but most early modern soldiers recognized that opening a breach in a bastion was best performed by “the powerful regent of warre,” the cannon.104 The construction of trenches, galleries, and Malthus, A Treatise on Fire-vvorks, 43. Barry, A Discourse Of Military Discipline, 180. 101 Ibid., 179. 102 Malthus., A Treatise on Fire-vvorks, 20–24. 103 Porter, Destruction in the English Civil War, 50. Porter notes two instances, one at Chester and the other at the siege of Lyme Regis. 104 Norton, The Gunner, sig. A3 v. 99

100

“necessary

bulwarks”

351

batteries were primarily undertaken with the intention of bringing the artillery within range of the walls. Once in place, cannon were supposed to batter the walls “within a fathome of the foundation, piercing it in divers places; then batter it acrosse to make the wall totter.”105 Bringing guns to bear on a wall was traditionally the concern of the master of the ordnance and his gunners, with infantry officers having little exposure to the art of gunnery and probably little say in their use. Despite the prominent role that artillery played in siege warfare, gunners and their craft remained outside the mainstream of the military profession. A gunner’s training, which was an admixture of art and science, required a great deal of practical knowledge and a good grounding in arithmetic and geometry. As Steven A. Walton has suggested in his study of Tudor gunnery, these quirks of the trade came to mean that artillery was considered as “some sort of ‘other’” by those outside the profession, prompting many Elizabethan military writers to leave the mysteries of gunnery to the experts.106 However, there was a shift in thinking in the 1630s, as military writers began to explore questions related to the art of gunnery and the “science” of ballistics. Soldiers were expected to be knowledgeable of certain matters related to gunnery, such as the types of weapons, their placement during a siege, and the methods of spiking an enemy’s guns. Thomas Smith, the author of The Art of Gvnnery (1600) and a soldier who served in the garrison at Berwick at the turn of the seventeenth century, believed that along with the ability to march, embattle, and encamp, “all Gentlemen, Souldiers, Gunners and all Favouers of Militarie Discipline” should also know how “to plant and mannage great Ordinance, to batter or beat down the wals of any Towne or Castle.”107 Such knowledge, Smith claimed, made one an “experte souldier.” The knowledge Smith referred to had, by the 1620s and 1630s, become widely available to soldiers and gunners alike. The period saw the publication of a number of influential treatises on gunnery that were to become the basis for much of the writing on artillery that entered English military literature. Ward noted at the beginning of his

Du Praissac, The Art of Warre, 64. S. Walton, “The Art of Gunnery in Renaissance England,” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1999, 69. 107 Smith claimed that he had been raised by a Captain in the military and it was from him that he had learned “some secrets touching the orders of the field, and training of Soldiers: as also the Art of Managing and shooting in great Artillerie”. 105 106

352

chapter six

chapter on “The Use of Artillery in Forts” in Anima’dversions of Warre that he had surveyed the history of gunnery and collected “from the best Writers, such observations as shall be pertinent for our discourse; and adde such things to this Worke, which others have been defective in, and so we will indeavour to make it perfecte.”108 He went on to indicate that despite “great variation” among these authors, he would reconcile their opinions so as to produce a work that reduced “all things materiall to a perfect method.”109 Ward presented readers with an overview of gunnery, the essentials of practice, which he believed would be “well taken by any Souldier that understands himselfe.” Those who overlooked such advice were “Imbellicke fooles,” who should be left to “Travell for more wit, Valour, and experience.”110 When Ward began writing his manual in the late 1630s, he could draw on a genealogy of English works on siegecraft and gunnery that dated back to 1560, beginning with Whitehorne’s Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers. Whitehorne’s contributions to the formulation of English military theory have already been noted, but his early contributions to the study of gunnery, within the broader context of the art of war, are often overlooked. Certain waies for the orderying of souldiers was not only a manual for the infantry soldier, it was also a crude gunnery manual and touched upon fortifications, fireworks, and included gunpowder recipes that were to become common to the works of Ward, Hexham, and others some fifty years later. Whitehorne was the first Englishman to write on the subject of gunnery, though William Bourne was to proclaim in the preface to his treatise, The Art of Shooting in Great Ordnaunce (1578), that he was in fact the first Englishmen to explore the subject of artillery. In certain respects, Bourne was correct in his boast, as Whitehorne’s comments on artillery were brief, while Bourne’s treatise was more exhaustive and far reaching in scope. Bourne’s The Art of Shooting in Great Ordnaunce also proved more popular than Whitehorne’s book and appeared in three editions, the first printing in 1578, the second in 1587, and the last edition in 1643. Bourne’s treatise also laid the foundations for the study of artillery in England. The Art of Shooting in Great Ordnaunce was followed ten years later by Cyprian Lucar’s Three

108 109 110

Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 107. Ibid. Ibid., 116.

“necessary

bulwarks”

353

Bookes of the Collogvies concerning the arte of Shooting and, at the turn of the century, by Thomas Smith’s The Art of Gvnnery (1600). Lucar’s Three bookes of Colloquies opened with a dedication to the earl of Leicester, written by the printer John Harrison. Harrison wrote that he offered the work to Leicester, seeing that it was “most profitable for these times,” as it was the height of the struggle with Spain.111 Harrison went on to state that he considered the translation to be a martial book for martial times, and that soldiers would be encouraged and strengthened in their struggle against the enemies of England, if they were “skilfull shooting in great and small peeces [and] making of saltpetre, gunpowder, mynes, and many sorts of fireworks” as well as the “right use and practise of al those and many other serviceable devices.”112 Smith’s The Art of Gvnnery appeared in three separate incarnations between its first printing in 1600 and its last in 1643 [fig. 22]. Although it was to prove popular among early Stuart readers, Smith’s work also had its critics.113 Though he may have hoped his book would train soldiers to carry out the tasks Harrison had described, Smith filled his first treatise with arithmetic and geometric word problems that would hardly have helped men of war and seemed more suited to a classroom full of schoolboys than a garrison of soldiers and gunners. Despite these shortcomings, Smith followed up The Art of Gunnery with Certaine Additions to The Booke of Gvnnery in 1601, which proved a more practical guide for military men. In this book, Smith sought to pass along his years of experience at Berwick, counselling readers on how to destroy the enemy’s guns, and their own if the need should so arise, and how to use fire and fireworks against a town. In the case of destroying cannon, he advised soldiers who found themselves forced into the service of their enemies to make them suffer for their injustices by poisoning their guns. This was done by pouring a little hote oyle through a small tunnel into the touch hole of the peece, the peece mouth a little imbased, or raising her mouth a little, power in a little water or liquor thereat, the which will soake through the wad into

111 C. Lucar, Three Bookes of the Colloqvies Concerning the Arte of Shooting in Great and Small Pieces of Artillerie . . . (London: John Harrison, 1588), sig. . . . 3. 112 Ibid. 113 In The Gunner, Robert Norton singled out “the arch false proportionality” in Smith’s Art of Gunnery as especially noteworthy for its imperfections. See Norton, The Gunner, sig. B2.

354

chapter six the powder, so as the same will not fire, or else cloying vp the touch hole with nailes driven into the head, you may for a season hinder the same from shooting, to the great annoyance of the enemie and furtherance of your friends.114

Annoying one’s enemy might also include spiking his guns or using fire “to burne bridges, wooden gates, &c. or to do diuers other militarie services.” To start fires, Smith called for the use of a liquid compound that could be poured into small, round containers and affixed to various delivery devices, including arrows, pikes, or halberds and used to “offend or defend a breach” or launched against a town or garrison.115 Darts and javelins were also recommended and included among the woodcuts in Certaine Additions, as was another method for raining fire down upon one’s enemy, a musketeer firing a flaming arrow from his weapon. Some of the methods were quite ingenious and may have produced the desired results in battle, while others were dangerous and foolhardy, likely leading the user to be figuratively (if not literally) hoisted with his own petard. The impact of Smith’s The Art of Gvnnery on the study of artillery and the art of war was felt long after its first printing in 1600. In 1627, The Art of Gvnnery and the Certaine Additions to The Booke of Gvnnery were published under the title The Complete Souldier and the two books were later reprinted again in 1643, just after the outbreak of the Civil War, but now under the title The Art of Gunnery (included with the edition was a copy of Bourne’s The Art of Shooting in Great Ordnaunce).116 The other great contributor to the expanding library of English works on artillery was Robert Norton. Norton was considered the country’s leading gunnery expert after the publication of two treatises on subject,

Smith, The Art of Gunnery, 29. According to Smith, the compound was made of “Peter in roch, one part; Peter in meale, one part; Sulphur in meale, two parts; rozin roch, three parts; Turpentine one part; Linseede oyle, one part; Verdegreefe, ½ part; bole armoniacke, 1⁄3 part; Bay salt, 1⁄3 part Colophonia, 1⁄6 part; and if you thinke good you may put thereto of Arsnike 1⁄8 part: then coate the same ouer with this liquide mixture molten in a pan or coating pot (to wit) Pitch, foure parts; Linseede oyle, one part; Turpentine, 1⁄5 part; sulphur, one part; Tarre, 1⁄3 part; Tallo, one part”. This was cooled and mixed with eight parts gunpowder. Smith, Certaine Additions to the Booke of Gvnnery (London: William Ponsonby, 1601), 29. 116 Smith added to the title that “it had been set forth for the benefite of this Kingdom in these troublesome times of Warre”. The Complete Souldier: containing the whole Art of Gunnery with certaine new and rare Additions concerning Fire-works . . . (London: R. Dawlman, 1628). 114 115

“necessary

bulwarks”

355

Figure 22. The title page of Thomas Smith’s The Art of Gunnery (1643). Smith’s treatise, originally printed in 1600, was reprinted after the outbreak of hostilities between the Royalist and Parliamentary armies. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

356

chapter six

Of The Art of Great Artillery (1624) and The Gunner (1628) [fig. 23]. The books were controversial, first because of the attacks Norton levied against his respected names in the field, Thomas Digges and Thomas Smith, and because of questions raised by his critics about his prodigious borrowing from the Spaniard, Diego Ufano’s Tratado de Artilleria (1613) to help fill the text of the The Gunner. Norton may have been guilty of plagiarism, but he was no novice when it came to artillery, serving as a gunner and an engineer at the Tower of London during the 1620s and 1630s and authoring four book on mathematics.117 But it was to be The Gunner that established Norton’s reputation and it proved as popular, if not more popular, than Smith’s The Art of Gvnnery, becoming the handbook of English gunnery through the Civil War. The first half of The Gunner was primarily concerned with the “science” of gunnery: the mathematical definitions and theorems common to books and manuals on gunnery and engineering, with illustrations and descriptions of the various types of cannon, and tables of random with ranges for each of the artillery pieces. The second half of the treatise was devoted to cleaning, loading, and transporting weapons, as well as to the use of cannon in siege warfare, gunpowder recipes, and the methods for constructing siege blinds, palisades, and chevaux de freis (with engravings taken from Ufano). Norton hoped to “supply the wants” of gunners, but his influence extended well beyond this group [fig. 24]. In The Gunner, he gave English military theorists a rich source of information on artillery and siegecraft, which they were happy to draw on. Just as Norton had borrowed from Ufano, a cast of other English military writers including Ward and Hexham took what they could from Norton’s treatise, extracting text, tables, and engravings to embellish their own works. Ward and Hexham realized the significant role that ordnance played in modern warfare and they took it upon themselves to reduce all of the available work on artillery to a manageable form that could benefit the gentleman soldier who was give the task of managing an army. Bourne, Smith, and Norton had sought to establish the known rules 117 See Norton’s A mathematicall apendix, containing many propositions and conclusions mathematicall, with necessary observations both for mariners at sea, and for cherographers and surveyors of land (London: Printed by R. B[radock?] for Roger Iackson, 1604); Disme, the Art of Tenths, or, Decimall Arithmetike (London: S. Stafford for Hugh Astley, 1608); A table of boorde and timber measure, more perfect than ever hath beene made shewing also the root between 4 and 31 from quarter to quarter, (London: s.n., 1615?); and his edition of Robert Record’s, Ground of Arts (London: Printed by Iohn Beale for Roger Iackson, 1623).

“necessary

bulwarks”

357

and principles of gunnery, and the authors of analytical treatises took to condensing those theories and practices into reference guides for military men. As with the other aspects of siegecraft already discussed, analytical treatises followed the well-established pattern of defining the nomenclature of gunnery, “the name and nature of each member,” as Norton described it, and the means and methods of manufacturing, transporting, and firing ordnance. Experienced soldiers like Hexham and Ward had witnessed the use of artillery in the field and were obviously better schooled in these matters than they were in the “science” of gunnery, the calculation of the range of cannon, the distance to the target, and the ratio of the weight of the shot to the amount of powder required. When their understanding of these subjects faltered, they turned to the writings of the gunnery experts. Ward’s chapter on gunnery began with a discussion of the duties of the master of the ordnance and his officers and was followed by an exploration of the types of cannon, the ways of tertiating (measuring the thickness of a piece) and charging artillery, and the instruments used by gunners to carry out their profession. Ward sought to find common ground with Smith and Norton, synthesizing the work of the two men, identifying the flaws in one argument and the strengths in another. His ultimate goal was to let the reader be the final arbiter. As he stated in the introduction to the chapter on gunnery, readers were “to make various constructions in his contemplating on them” and to seek out the best answers to questions pertaining to the use of cannon in sieges.118 Ward uses several of Smith’s tables from The Art of Gvnnery, including those on the height and weight of each piece and the weight of shot as well as the author’s range and square root tables.119 Norton’s influence also is duly noted with his table of proportions for point blanks and dead ranges cited along with his discussion of mounting and levelling a cannon and imbasing (shooting at a target less than point blank). Hexham owed a much greater debt to Norton than he did to Smith, extracting sections from The Gunner for use in the Third Part of the Principles of the Art Militarie and blending this with the Dutch practices of which he was better acquainted. It is in the area of gunnery instruments

Ward, Anima’dversions of Warre, 107. In the case of range tables, Ward believed that he was at the mercy of the experts who had “beaten their brains and laboured to arrive at some exactnesse; by their experiments and industrious endeavours they have attained to some seeming perfection, for better then uncertaine guessing . . .” Ibid., 127. 118

119

358

chapter six

Figure 23. The frontispiece of Robert Norton’s popular treatise on artillery, The Gunner, printed in 1628. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

“necessary

bulwarks”

359

Figure 24. An engraving from Robert Norton’s The Gunner offering instruction on opening a breach in a bastion. Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

360

chapter six

that Hexham is at his weakest, reproducing Norton’s text and calculations verbatim.120 Hexham also extracted a lengthy series of dialogues from Ufano and inserted it into his Principles. The dialogue, between a general and a captain, weighed the opinions of each (with asides added from the author’s experience) on the question of positioning cannon in a siege. In first dialogue, the protagonists argued about how to use cannon against a curtain wall or bulwark and about where best to open a breech. Ufano’s historical examples, taken from Italian sieges, were augmented by Hexham’s encounters with the Spanish at Ostend and s’Hertogenbosch, which played up the exploits of Maurice and the English troops under his command. The second dialogue addressed the placing of cannon in the field, a topic that was overlooked by Ward, and one that was generally underemphasized by English military theorists. The reason for this was that the use cannon on the field was still, very much in its infancy, and military theorists had yet to develop a set of principles to guide soldiers on where to plant these cumbersome weapons and how to keep them from being overrun. Even Ufano’s general was wary of tackling the question, stating that he “dare not boast of any great experience, having had enough to doe to look upon my owne affaires, neither have I had much leisure to informe my self well about Artillerie.”121 His captain could do no better, declaring that there were so few battles in the region (Italy) that he was “not able to satisfie you touching this point.”122 The scant attention paid to the use of artillery in the field reflects the accepted notion in the early seventeenth century that cannon were best employed in sieges, a fact echoed in the gunnery treatises printed before the Civil War. The influence of these texts on the broader study of the art of war is quite evident in the works of Ward and Hexham, yet it remains very difficult to determine whether that influence was translated into an improved understanding of the use of artillery by military commanders once the war began. Military books proved particularly useful in setting out the ordnance requirements for armies, especially the types of materials and manpower needs for a siege train,

120 121 122

Hexham, The Third Part of the Principles of the Art Militarie, 16. Ibid., 47. Ibid.

“necessary

bulwarks”

361

but in other areas, such as training of crews or the use of artillery in sieges, the intersection of theory and practice appears murkier.123 At the beginning of the English Civil War, the cannon available to the Parliamentary and Royalist armies hardly matched the numbers that were found in the arsenals of states like Spain or France, and neither side were able to bring large numbers of guns to bear on towns or fortifications in the manner that Norton and other writers depicted in their treatises. In early 1643, the Royalists hoped to establish an artillery train of forty cannon, but those expectations had to be tempered when it was realized that the King’s founders could not meet such a tall order.124 Throughout the war, the Roundhead and Cavalier armies also suffered from shortages of munitions, including gunpowder and cannon balls, that reduced the effectiveness of artillery in siege operations.125 That said, both sides were able to put modest artillery trains of four to five pieces into the field, and as Ian Roy has claimed, those cannon were to play “a minor but not unimportant role” in the Civil War, particularly by the war’s end when the siege train of the New Model Army subdued the last of the Royalist strongholds in western England.126 Necessary Bulwarks: The Theory and Practice of Siegecraft in the Civil War As Englishmen went to their storehouses and churches to dust off their pikes, muskets, and corslets when the Civil War broke out in 1642, they also grabbed shovels, picks, and axes for use in building siegeworks. In the early days of the war, and for much of the next four years, citizens and soldiers in towns across the country set to work digging bulwarks and trenches. Old town walls and medieval castles were given modern 123 See “What Ordnance, Munition, materials and other necessaries are useful to be carried into the field” at the end of Hexham’s Third Part of Principles of the Art Militarie and the epistle dedicated to the Master of the Ordnance in Francis Markham’s Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, 185–189. 124 I. Roy, Royalist Ordnance Papers, 1642–1646. Part 1, (Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society, 1963), 27–28. 125 See P. Edwards, “Logistics and Supply” in P. Kenyon and J. Ohlmeyer (eds), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 244. 126 See I. Roy, Royalist Ordnance Papers, 1642–1646, 7, and I. Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 32.

362

chapter six

bastions made of earth, wood, and stone, while pioneers followed the two armies and constructed sconces and batteries at strategic points across England. The most extensive earthworks were constructed in the first year of the war around London. In October 1642, work began on eighteen kilometres of ditches and twenty-eight sconces that were built along the trench line.127 In A True Declaration and Just Commendation of the Great and Incomparable Care of the Right Honourable Issac Pennington (1643), Pennington, London’s mayor, was lauded for his efforts in “advancing and promoting the Bulwarkes and Fortifications about the City and Suburbs.” According to the pamphlet’s author, who we know only as W.S., Pennington had soothed the Londoners’ fears by quickly “fortifying the City on every side,” saving the capital from the “malignant party.”128 The construction work, which also included inner and outworks, began under the direction of Philip Skippon, who was now in command of the London trained bands. Known for his talents as an infantry commander, Skippon knew a thing or two about siege warfare, having gained his experience in the art of building defences after serving at the sieges of s’Hertogenbosch and Maastricht in 1629 and Breda in 1637.129 Veterans could chose from an array of titles, both domestic and foreign for guidance in laying out defensive perimeters and devising earthen bastions at key crossroads and towns. In the first years of the war, treatises by Ward and Hexham as well as Norwood’s Fortification or Architecture would all have been available for officers to peruse. Another, Ball’s Propositions of Fortifications was printed in 1642, and though no extant copy exists, it most likely laid out the methods for constructing continental-style bastions.130 Add to these titles the large number of

127 See V.T.C. Smith, “The defences of London during the English Civil War,” Fort 25 (1997): 61 and N.G. Brett-James, “The Fortification of London in 1642/3,” London Topographical Record, XIV, 1928, 3. 128 W.S., A True Declaration and Just Commendation of the Great and Incomparable Care of the Right Honourable Issac Pennington, London: R. Harper, 1643, 9. 129 P. Smith and P. Kelsey, “The Lines of Communication: The Civil War Defences of London,” in S. Porter, London and the Civil War, Houndmill, UK: MacMillan, 1996, 140. 130 For a reference to Ball’s treatise see Anon., Englands safety in navie and fortifications; the common interest both of King and people. Conteining necessary observations concerning Dover, and other sea-towns of England. Published for the necessary view of the right honourable, the high court of Parliament: and also for the publique safetie of the kingdome, and all other His Majesties dominions (London: Printed for Io. Ch. and Iohn Bull, 1642), 8. I wish to thank Peter Harrington for providing me with this reference.

“necessary

bulwarks”

363

foreign treatises on siegecraft that could be purchased from booksellers and it becomes evident that if Englishmen required instructions in the art of siege warfare, they need not necessarily wait for the arrival of a foreign expert. In the first two years of fighting, there was a rush to build bastion defences and sconces across England and the work was often carried out by local engineers. In 1643, Charles I employed 5000 civilians to ring Reading with bulwarks and outworks.131 Exeter, Gloucester, Bristol, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Plymouth all shored up their existing medieval walls with ditches and bastions in the first months of the war, while sconces also were built at Worcester and outside York.132 Smaller towns like Newark and Newport Pagnell, soon become strategically important to the struggle, resulting in the building of elaborate defences of interlocking sconces and batteries close to each. At a number of castles and manors work also was carried out to add ditches and bastions to create strongholds capable of withstanding artillery. Earthen bastions and palisades fortified Wardour Castle in Wiltshire and bastions were added to the corners of Cambridge Castle in Cambridgeshire to improve its defences. Basing House, Lathom House, and Highnam House were all encircled with ditches and earthworks that proved highly effective in withstanding assaults during the war.133 The reports from sieges during the war describe practices that would not have been out of place at Ostend or Breda, though on a much smaller scale. At Gloucester, the Parliamentary governor, Edward Massey, improved the town’s defences by building sconces and using fire to destroy a number of houses outside the walls so as to provide clear fields of fire for the defenders. A published letter written by John Dorney, a clerk from Gloucester, reported the activities of the Royalist army as they began to lay siege to the town in August 1643. Following the establishment of a camp about a half mile from the town, the Royalist pioneers began trenching and “making of a redoubt in a field neer Lanthony towards Severn; making a breest-work from it to Lanthony wall crosse the causey. And we perceiving by their Canon Baskets they placed in their Square redoubt in Gawdy Green that they intended

Harrington, English Civil War Archeology, 22. Duffy, Siege Warfare, 157. 133 For descriptions of various defences constructed across England, see Peter Harrington’s, English Civil War Fortifications 1642–51, 58–61 and his English Civil War Archeology, 60–79. 131 132

364

chapter six

a battery there.”134 Later the Royalists mounted three artillery pieces on the newly constructed battery and opened fire on the town with demi-cannon and culverins in an effort to batter the walls and open a breach for infantry and cavalry to exploit. Their efforts were eventually thwarted by the arrival in September of a Parliamentary relief army under the earl of Essex who advanced on the Royalist lines and forced the King’s forces to give up the siege.135 At York in 1644, Royalist cannon duelled with four Parliamentary guns in a battery on a hill overlooking the town. An anonymous spectator described skirmishes between sallies by men in the Royalist garrison against Parliamentary troops entrenched about the town, and against the pioneers outside the walls who were constructing galleries and a bridge of boats across the Ouse.136 At the siege of Basing House that same year, the hardy Royalist defenders of the marquis of Winchester’s stately manor house held out against Parliamentary cannon shot and fire weapons, including the “sending of [a] Crosse barre, shot Loggs bound with Iron hoops, Stones, and Grenades.”137 Though once again it is difficult to fully measure the influence that printed books may have had on the construction of bastion defences or in the production of fire weapons, there is evidence that home grown English engineers turned to treatises for assistance. As I have noted, there were a number of works printed just prior to the Civil War, and new editions of older works, as well as new titles, appeared in press between 1643 and 1645. In 1643, new editions of Smith’s Art of Gunnery, Bourne’s The Art of Shooting in Great Ordnance, and Norton’s Art of Great Artillery were printed. Just as the war was reaching its conclusion in 1645, two new treatises dedicated to fortification design and siegecraft, Nicholas Stone’s Enchiridion of Fortification [fig. 24] and David Papillon’s A Practical Abstract of the Arts of Fortification, were printed in London.138

J. Dorney, A Briefe and Exact Relation of the Most Materiall and Remarkable Passages that happened in the late well-informed (and so valiantly defended) Siege laid before the City of Gloucester (London: Thomas Underhill, 1643), 5. 135 Anon., A True Relation of the late Expedition of His Excellency, Robert Earle of Essex, for the Relief of Gloucester (London: Printed for Ralph Rounthwaith, 1643), 8. 136 Anon., An Exact Relation of the Siege before Yorke . . . (London: For R. White, 1644), 3–4. 137 Anon., A great victory obtained by Colonel Norton and his horse, and Colonell Jones and his foote, against Colonel Rayden, from Basing house . . . (London: Andrew Coe, 1644), 11. 138 N. Stone, Enchiridion of Fortification or a Handfull of knowledge in Martiall affairs (London: M.F. for Richard Royston, 1645) and D. Papillon, A Practical Abstract Of the Arts of Fortification and Assailing (London: R. Austin, 1645). 134

“necessary

bulwarks”

365

Both of these works suggest that at the war’s end, military architecture had undergone a significant transformation in Britain as a result of the fighting, though continental engineers still believed that the English had much to learn about the subject. In 1642, Nicholas Stone was a well-respected English architect and sculptor who had had a long and prosperous career. He had established his name working on royal architectural projects at Windsor and in London in the 1620s and through his sculptures that graced the estates of nobles. He continued his loyalty to the monarchy when the Civil War erupted, a decision that was to cost him his estate and his career. He never had the opportunity to put his services to use in the field for the Royalists, owing to his imprisonment by Parliament at the beginning of the war.139 Stone appears to have spent some of the time during his imprisonment writing his Enchiridion of Fortification. In the dedicatory poem that opens the treatise, he found the opportunity to chastise his captors, offering the book only to . . . assist the Good. If the Bad doe chance to draw Thee to help them, gainst the law: (As they may doe, tis no doubt; For what’s a Handfull, ‘gainst a rout?)140

Stone’s work as a master mason and architect did not necessarily mean that he had any experience with the construction of trace italienne defences and for this reason his treatise might best be described as following in the manner of Edward Cooke or Gervase Markham, with much of the it based on the work of others, in this case Hexham’s translation of Marolois’s Fortification ou Architectvre militaire (1631). Stone claimed that he took the “choice flowers . . . gathered out of the great nursery of Martiall discipline, by Samuel Maralois & others of great skill there in, and profound Mathematicians.”141 Like Cooke and Markham, Stone also attempted to simplify the process of constructing bastion defences, writing for gentlemen who are “not very skill’d in the Mathematicks, nor of great knowledge in Geometry.”142 Stone’s plates and diagrams were taken from Marolois and his study of the various types 139 A. White, ‘Stone, Nicholas (1585 × 8–1647)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 140 Stone, Enchiridion of Fortification, sig. A3. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid., 9.

366

chapter six

of polygonal fortresses was complemented by brief instructions on the construction of siegeworks, including the building of approaches and turnpikes and equally brief descriptions of artillery and siege weapons, such as petards and grenades. Stone’s instructions, however, could not have been too helpful to gentlemen soldiers, especially those who lacked education in mathematics and geometry. Enchiridion of Fortification was short on details and analysis, undoubtedly the result of Stone’s limited access to other sources and possibly to his own lack of experience. David Papillon’s A Practical Abstract of the Arts of Fortification was a better manual for soldiers. Papillon was a supporter of Parliament who was also an accomplished mason and architect. He was highly critical of Stone’s work, as well as a number of other books on siegecraft written in the 1630s. Papillon, a French Huguenot who came to England as a boy in the 1580s, was able to put his talents to use for the Parliamentary army, assisting in the construction of the bastion defences at Leicester, Gloucester, and Northampton.143 The defences at Leicester were composed of a series of hornworks, fortifying the eastern and southern approaches to the town, while Papillon’s work at Gloucester involved the building of a number of bastions along the existing medieval walls of the town.144 Papillon advised rather than helped the Parliamentarian engineers to build Northampton’s fortifications, a town that already had well-constructed defences when the war began.145 When Papillon wrote A Practical Abstract in 1645, the war was coming to an end, and he believed that after the war, garrisons would still be required to protect towns and that these should be given strong, bastioned defences. In his dedication to Thomas Fairfax, (dated January 1, 1645/46) Papillon offered the general of the New Model Army directions “for the future of the Works of our garrisons; and for the double intrenched Camps, that we are necessary to make use of, if we intend to give (by the gracious favour of God) a speedy and ablest period to the miseries of this poor and desolated Kingdome.”146 By the end of 1645, the country had witnessed at least 200 sieges, and commentators like Papillon had no doubts that siegecraft was now an essential part of the military arts in England. But Papillon still felt that

143 M. Airs, ‘Papillon, David (1581–1659)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). 144 Harrington, English Archaeology, 14, 20–21. 145 Ibid., 14. 146 D. Papillon, A Practical Abstract of the Arts of Fortification, To the Reader.

“necessary

bulwarks”

367

Englishmen needed more study, and he decried the English defences constructed in the war, which were, in his opinion, “insufficient.” He hoped that Fairfax would see to it that the stronger bastions were built along the lines of continental fortifications. This would mean eventually replacing the earthen defences that sprang up so rapidly during the war with stone fortifications. The earthen defences were apparently the “object of derision to Forrainers that see them,” and Papillon suggests that this might be perceived as a sign of national weakness, beckoning invaders from Europe.147 He went on to heap much of the responsibility for the state of those defences on the heads of local engineers and townspeople who helped to construct the fortifications that now dotted the land. Yet, his attacks suggest that while the defences that were built could hardly be compared with the massive stone fortifications in the Low Countries or France, English “mechanicall Artificers and Shop-keepers” had done their fair share to assist local authorities and Royalist and Parliamentary forces in constructing these bastions. Papillon did not lay all the blame on those who had done the building; he also took a jab at his fellow military writers, notably Ward, Cruso (for his Castramentation or the Measuring Out of the Quarters For the Encamping of an Army, 1642), and Stone.148 Papillon described these works as having “encreased the ignorance of [the] meane capacities” of their readers, rather than improving “their knowledge in the practice of these Arts.”149 He also reports that in discussions with some of these men, he found them poorly versed in the field of military architecture. Despite his attacks, Papillon reveals an intersection between the theory found in the works on siegecraft and the practice of constructing bastions and bulwarks during the Civil War. Though English defences were not up to the standards of continental trace fortifications, the speed at which they were constructed across the country in the first years of the war, their close resemblance to Dutch models, and the sheer number of siege works built indicate that the English were either quick studies or they were already keenly aware of the art of constructing siege defences before the war broke out. Archaeological research undertaken over the course of the last two decades has uncovered earthworks throughout England, Wales, and Scotland revealing a much more

147 148 149

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

368

chapter six

Figure 25. Engravings of siegeworks from Stone’s Enchiridion of Fortification (1645). The chevaux de freis is noted as E on Plate 9. The Courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto.

“necessary

bulwarks”

369

developed art of siegecraft in the English Civil War than historians have described. Though foreign engineers and veteran soldiers played their part in advising local citizens and soldiers in the construction of bastion defences, the influence of English and European military books cannot be overlooked as another means by which the English obtained knowledge of the art of siegecraft. The gentleman soldier in early Stuart England could hardly call himself a “complete soldier” if he knew nothing of the art of siege warfare. The treatises and manuals on siegecraft and military architecture inherited from the Tudors, as well as pamphlets, siege histories, and analytical treatises devoted to the subject that were printed in the Jacobean and Caroline periods, gave English soldiers a window into a world that was once the preserve of the engineer and the gunner. In fact, the first half of the seventeenth century witnessed an important stage in the development of siegecraft in Britain. While the Parliamentary army would destroy or dismantle most of the fortifications constructed during the Civil War, and the English would once again come to rely upon their natural defences for protection, the sieges undertaken during the conflict had helped to complete the education of soldiers. This education had begun in the trenches of the Low Countries with Vere, Maurice, and Spinola and ended at Basing House, Pontefract, and Colchester. Along the way, complete soldiers turned to books and treatises to augment their studies of siegecraft, providing them with direction in the construction, defence, and storming of these “necessary bulwarkes.”

CONCLUSION “Matters of war,” wrote Cervantes in Don Quixote, “are more subject than most to continual change.”1 As this study has suggested, Englishmen in early Stuart England relied upon printed books to help them keep pace with military changes on the continent. As the old methods of fighting were replaced by “new fangled ways,” as Robert Barret had described them in 1598, gentlemen soldiers sought to adapt to these changes and to learn what they could from English and European books and manuals on the military arts. While military books espoused both the theory and practice of war, they were also advertisements for military service, enticing young Englishmen to join the ranks of foreign armies and to serve in the defence of King and religion. Military writers urged on their compatriots, asserting that the military experience gained in European wars could only profit the English, whose geographic separation protected, but at the same time isolated, them from fighting on the continent. As J.R. Hale has noted, “the fact that there were hostilities somewhere in Europe,” continuously during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, meant that the [ l ]essons were quickly learnt, conclusions could speedily be put to the test. Progress was aided, too, by the cosmopolitan nature of armies: generals learnt not only from the enemy but from their own mercenaries. And men were not only waging war, they were writing about it, and this knowledge came to be pooled even more quickly.2

The early Stuart soldier then was not unlike his European counterparts, in that he too had access to this wealth of information on the military arts. As I assert in this book, the English naturally benefited from the spread of these texts and the codification and regulation of military practice in the early seventeenth century owed much to the publication of these books and manuals. Though contemporary voices often proclaimed that Jacobean and Caroline English gentlemen had lost

M. de Cervantes Saavedra, The Adventures of Don Quixote, (London: Penguin Books, 1950), 69. 2 J.R. Hale, “Armies, Navies and the Art of War,” Cambridge New Modern History of Europe, Vol. III, 541. 1

372

conclusion

their martial prowess and were no longer eager to “addict themselves to war,”3 this study has painted a picture of Janus-faced England. The docile face, and the one most often portrayed by historians, was symbolized by the pacifist policies and ill-fated military adventures of James I and Charles I. The failure to fully enter the Thirty Years’ War and the apparent neglect of the militia has suggested that both monarchs were equally antithetical to improving England’s military capabilities. The other face, the bellicose face, is characterized by the thousands of volunteers who served in the wars across Europe and also those men who remained at home practising their martial skills at the London artillery gardens and muster grounds.4 It was these men who perpetuated and sustained England’s military culture in the early seventeenth century. The authors of military books were not bystanders, papersoldiers or armchair generals but active participants in the wars. They were members of the leading military circles and they played their own part in the “knowledge transactions” of their day. English military culture in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries evolved alongside a new aristocratic military ethos, which marked the remilitarization of the English aristocracy and gentry in the period leading up the English Civil War. This remilitarization occurred in both of the sites noted, in regiments serving on the continent and in the London military societies. Contrary to contemporary claims, many seventeenth-century English gentlemen embraced their military traditions and responsibilities. In his two new studies of English soldiering, Roger Manning, has stated that while the English aristocracy were unable to “validate their honour upon the field of battle” for their monarch, they made up for this by serving in Europe’s wars instead.5 It was in the Netherlands and the European “military courts” of Maurice

3 T. Wilson, “The State of England, anno Dom. 1600,” Camden Miscellany, Vol. 52, 3rd Series, (London: Camden Society, 1936), 18. Writing in 1642, Donald Lupton warned Englishmen that a land left unprotected might well leave farmers with little land to cultivate. “Tis injustice without the great cause to begin warre, so ‘tis little Policy to let the sword rust. I cannot see how long the plough could subsist in quietnesse, nor yet the Master reape his corne with joy, if he was not defended by the sword: ‘tis held wisdome to have the plough going within, and the Soldier marching without: a right Soldier is the joy of the Farmer, the defence of the City, the shield for Learning, the credit of his Nation, and the glory of his Prince.” Lupton, Treatise of the Pike, 17–18. 4 R.C. McCoy, “Old English honour in an evil time: aristocratic principle in the 1620s,” in The Stuart Court and Europe: Essays in Politics and Political Culture, edited by R. Malcolm Smuts, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996), 133. 5 R. Manning, Swordsmen, 19.

conclusion

373

and Frederick Henry of Nassau, Gustavus Adolphus, and Ambrosio Spinola that the principles and practices of “moderne” warfare were learned by English gentlemen soldiers.6 Rather than clinging to the past, the military elite, both in England and across western Europe, proved highly adaptable to the tactical and technological changes brought about by the improvements to gunpowder weaponry. Bert Hall, in his study of the development of gunpowder weapons in early modern Europe, states that the aristocracy could not be described as “conservative technophobes” and that the military elite weathered the introduction of new weapons and tactics without significant disruption to their leadership role on the battlefield.7 In fact, Christopher Storrs and H.M. Scott have pointed out that the nobility were actually the “principal agents of these changes and [they] benefited considerably from them.”8 In many respects, the survival of the aristocratic military ethos depended on the ability of the English elite to come to terms with the evolving “arte and discipline of warre.” This meant that while the English nobility continued in their traditional role as the warrior class, with an ethos that stressed the ideals of honour, duty, and fidelity, they also accepted that their role was in flux. In this new military environment, individual martial skills were still required, but they were not to take precedence over corporate skills now being stressed in military books and manuals. The “new discipline” required that officers be well versed in the handling of arms and the training of soldiers, the correct manner of organizing and positioning pike and musket for offence and defence, and how to march, as well as the finer points of the art of siegecraft. Officers were also expected to handle the more mundane, but equally important tasks of encamping 6 For a discussion of the influence of these military courts on the evolution of the aristocratic military ethos, see Ibid., 101–138. 7 B. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1997), 10. Malcolm Vale found that gunpowder weapons had little effect on the ideal of chivalry in fifteenth century in his article “New Techniques and Old Ideals: The Impact of the Artillery on War and Chivalry at the End of the Hundred Years War,” in War Literature and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, edited by C.T. Allmand, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1976, 72. Vale concludes that “in the realm of ideas, the gun was accepted without serious reservations, just as former innovations had been accepted. The existing gulf between chivalrous idealism and the reality of war was merely widened as a result of its appearance. The gun posed no threat to a society in which ‘chivalrous’ behaviour’ in warfare was, perhaps, the exception rather than the rule.” 8 C. Storrs and H.M. Scott, “The Military Revolution and the European Nobility, c. 1600–1800,” War in History 3(1) (1996): 3.

374

conclusion

armies, dispensing military law, and supplying and paying their troops. Those in command relied heavily on junior officers and noncommissioned officers to train the ranks with firearm and pike, a process that could only be mastered through drill and exercise. “No man is borne a Souldier,” explained William Barriffe, “neither can any attain, to be skilled in the Art Military without Practice. But by practice is gained knowledge, [and] knowledge begets courage and confidence.”9 Analytical treatises, written not by armchair generals but by seasoned veterans, gave officers another means of obtaining the knowledge that Barriffe spoke of, while drill manuals helped to standardize practice and give English soldiers a common set of instructions that were sanctioned by their government. Consequently, the Renaissance notion of sprezzatura—that gentlemen should be careful not to indulge in too much book learning—was being eroded, giving way to the idea that serious study could help to produce “complete soldiers,” improve their chances of survival, and help them lead armies to victory. As I have explained in this book, the links between military culture and print culture were strengthened and solidified in the early seventeenth century. Practice had been “put into press,” thereby helping to frame the foundations of the modern military profession in England.

9

Barriffe, Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man, 1.

APPENDIX

MILITARY BOOKS PRINTED IN ENGLISH, 1603–1645 Abbreviations for Table AW = Art of War CAV = Cavalry DM = Drill Manual FE = Fortification/Encamping HIS = Military History LW = Laws of War MC = Military Commentary MM = Military Memoirs PC = Personal Combat

Thomas Smith

Sir William Segar

Certaine Additions AR to the Booke of Gvnnery

CH

AR

Honor Military and Civill

Foure Paradoxes

Thomas Digges and D. Digges

Thomas Smith

AR

The Art of Gunnery

Author

Clement Edmondes

Type

Observations vpon DM the Five Bookes of Caesars Commentaries/ The Maner of Our Moderne Training

Title

1604

1602

1601

1643

1600

Humphrey Lownes

Robert Barker

Richard Field for William Ponsonby

William Ponsonby s.n.

William Ponsonby Mathew Lownes Mathew Lownes

1604

1609

Peter Short

Publisher

1600

Date

London

London

London

London

London

London

Theophilus Howard, Lord Howard of Walden, son of the earl of Suffolk

Queen Elizabeth

Peregrine Berty, Lord Willoughby

Peregrine Berty, Lord Willoughby

Prince Henry (1604/1609)

Francis Vere (1600)

Place of Dedication Publication

6872

22164

22855

22855.5 (pt. 1) Wing S4231 (1643)

7491

7490.3

7490

7488

STC

376 appendix

PC

The Duello Or Single Combat

A Table of the DM Art Military by Captayne Panton

Edward Panton

Translated by William Shute

Triumphs of Nassav

HIS

Robert Dallington

Aphorismes Civill MC and Militarie

John Seldon

Edward Grimston

HIS

Generall Historie of the Netherlands

1614

1613 1620

1613

1610

1608 1609 1627

Jacob de Gheyn 1608

DM

1604

Exercise of Armes

Barnaby Rich

AW

The Frvites of Long Experience

London

The Hague

Adam Islip

Adam Islip

London

London

Edward Blount London

George Eld for London John Helme

Adam Islip

Robert de Baudous

Thomas London Creede for Jeffrey Charlton

William, earl of Pembroke and Philip, earl of Montgomery

Prince Charles

Robert, earl of Salisbury, Lord Treasurer and Thomas, earl of Suffolke, Lord Chamberlain

Prince Henry

Prince Henry

Bod. Library, Oxford Ashmole H 24 135

17676 17677

6197

22171

12374 12375 12376

11810

21001

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 377

John Weymouth 1617

Thomas Snodham

Ralph Mabbe

1631

DM

Laurence Lisle

1616

Low-Countrie trayning

Richard Higginbotham

1616 Adam Islip

John Trundle

William Stansby for John Helme

John Helme

Publisher

1615

John Bingham

Gervase Markham

1616

AW

DM

A Schoole for young souldiers

I.T.

1614

Tactiks of AelianOr art of embattailing and army

DM

The A.B.C. of Armes An Introduction Directorie

George Hale

Date

Societie of 1616 Armes, Citizens, and Inhabitants of the Citie of London.

PC

Priuate Schoole of Defence

Author

Orders established, condiscended, and agreed vnto by the Societie of armes, citizens, and inhabitants of the Citie of London

Type

Title

Table (cont.)

London

London

London

London

London

London

London

16786

17387

17386.5

23623

12627

STC

William Welby and 25142 Edward Brewster

Prince Charles 161.5 (1616) (1616) 161 (1616) Hugh Hamersly (1631)163 (1631) Henry Waller (1631)

Single sheet

Prince Charles

Place of Dedication Publication

378 appendix

Roger Williams

The Actions of the Lowe Countries

Lt. Clarke

Table Doth Demonstrate LI Postvres to the Mvskettier and XXXIII To the Pikemen

DM

Edward Davies

The Art of War, AW and Englands Traynings

1636

1619

1619 1620

Thomas Trussell 1619 1626

1618

The Sovldier DM Pleading his own Cause

MM

Edward Davies

AW Military directions, or The art of trayning

1618

Joseph Swetnam 1617

The Schoole of PC thye Noble and Worthy Science of Defence

London

London

London

Thomas Purfoot William Ridiard

London

London

Edward Griffin London

Nicholas Okes

Humphrey Lownes

Edward Griffin

Nicholas Oakes London

Prince Charles

Edward, Lord Conway (1626)

Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor

William Lord Compton

Prince Charles

Harley 5944 BM Print Library Y, 5.215

6327

24298 24299

25731

6326.5

23543

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 379

Privy Council

Henry Hexham

DM

MC

AR

MC

Instructions for Musters and Armes

A tongue-combat lately happening betweene two English soldiers

Of the Art of Great Artillery

A True Soldiers Councel

Henry Hexham

Robert Norton

[Francis Markham?]

The military art DM of trayning With the discipline of drilling all in lively portraytures

Author

Francis Markham

Type

Five Decades of AW Epistles of Warre

Title

Table (cont.)

1624

1624

1623

1623 1631

1622

1622

Date

Nicholas Okes

A[ugustine] M[atthewes] for Humphrey Robinson

s.n

Bonham Norton and John Bill

E. Allde

Augustine Matthewes

Publisher

London

London

London

London

London

London

John Reynolds, master gunner

Prince Charles

Place of Dedication Publication

22078

18673

13264.8

7683 7684

794

17332

STC

380 appendix

Paolo Sarpi, W.B. translated

AW

MC

AW

AW

The free schoole of vvarre

Vox Militis

The Souldier’s Accidence

Double-armed Man

William Neade

Gervase Markham

George Marcelline

G.W.

Count Mansfields DM Directions of Warre

1625

1625 1635 1639

1625

1625

1624

London

John Grismand London

John Bellamie

Charles I

Viscount Grandison, Lord Carew, Faulke, Lord Brooke, Edward Conway, Edward Cecil, Robert Mansell, Horace Vere, John Ogle, Thomas Buston

18416

17388 17389 17390

20980

Count Mansfeld

17260

London B[ernard] A[lsop] for Thomas Archer

Prince Charles

21758

London

London

John Bill

Edward Allde for Richard Whittaker

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 381

Gervase Markham

John Roberts

John Dansie

Thomas Smith

AW

AW

Souldier’s Grammar

Compendium Belli: Or The Touchstone of Martial Discipline

A Mathematicall AW Manual (strategemes for embattling armies)

Certaine Additions AR to the Booke of Gvnnery

Edward Cooke

MC

Character of Warre, Or The Image of Martiall Discipline

Author

Type

Title

Table (cont.)

1601 1627

1627

1626

1626 1639

1625 1626

Date

William Ponsonby

William Jones

John Norton and Augustine Matthewes

William Shefford

Thomas Purfoot

Publisher

London

London

London

London

London

Paul Pinder, John Walstonhome and Abraham Jacob

William, earl of Pembroke

NA

Edward, Lord Sackville, earl of Dorset

Place of Dedication Publication

22855.5 (pt. 2)

6267

21091

17391

5668

STC

382 appendix

Ralph Knevet

Robert Norton

AR

The Complete Souldier

Stratiotikon. Or MC A discourse of militarie discipline

The gunners dialogue with the Art of great artillery

A New Invention AW of Shooting FireShafts in Long Bowes

AR

Thomas Smith

AW

Pallas Armata

Anon.

Thomas Kellie

Hugo Herman

HIS

The Siege of Breda

Gervase Markham

AW

Souldier’s Grammar (Second Part)

1628

1628

1628

1628 1643

1627

1627

1627

London

H.L. for John Bartlett (Humphrey Lownes)

Eliot’s Court Press for John Tapp

Miles Flesher

R. Dawlman

London

London

London

London

Heirs of Andro Edinburgh Hart

Ghent Printed with licence [typis Iudoci Dooms]

Hugh Perry

14906

13926

George Villiers, duke of Buckingham

14127

18674

Captain Henry 15037 Shelton and lieutenants and all the members of the Military Yard of Norwich

John, earle of Rothes

Ambrosio Spinola

17393

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 383

AW

AR

AR

AW

The Prospective Glasse of Warre

The Gunner

Treatise of Artificial Fireworks

The military garden

Objections against MIS the vse of the bow with the pike, and the answers thereunto

Type

Title

Table (cont.)

1628

1628 1639

Date

William Neade

1630

James Achesone 1629

Francis Malthus 1629 translated out of the French

Robert Norton

Edward Cooke

Author

London

London

W. Jones

London

Iohn Wreittoun Edinburgh

William Jones for Richard Hawkins

Augustine Matthewes for Humphrey Robinson

STC

David Aikenhead, John Sinclair, Archibald Tod and David Mackall

Charles I

18416.3

88

17217

18673

John Cooke, knight, 5669 principal secretary 5670.5 of state

Place of Dedication Publication

Michael Sparke London

Publisher

384 appendix

John Cruso

Dr. William Watts and T. Roe

Militarie AW instructions of the cavallrie

The Swedish Discipline

HIS

Privy Council

Instructions for DM musters and armes, and the vse thereof

1632

1644

1632

1631

Samuel Marolois 1631

AR

1591 1631

1631

The Art of Fortification

I.D.

Bertrand de Loque

AW

PC Discourses of vvarre, and single combat.

Lawes and Ordinances touching military discipline

Iohn Dawson [et al.]

Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel Roger Daniel

Robert Barker

M. John Johnson

John Wolfe s.n

Hillebrand Jacobs vean Wouw

London

Cambridge

London

Amsterdam

London

The Hague

Thomas, earl of Arundel (1644)

Henry Vane

23520

Wing / C7433

6099

7684

17451

16810 16811

18463

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 385

AR

AW

Pyrotechnica or a Discourse of Artifciall Fireworks

Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man

William Barriffe

John Babington

Gerrat Barry

AW

Discourse Of Military Discipline

Dr. William Watts and T. Roe

Thomas Fisher

HIS

The Swedish Intelligencer

Author

DM Warlike Directions of the Souldiers Practise

Type

Title

Table (cont.)

1639

1635

1635

1634

1642

1634

1632 1633

Date

London

London

London

Thomas London Harper For Ralph Mabbe Robert Oulton for Ralph Mabbe

Thomas Harper

Wing / F1061 Wing / F1060

23521 23524 23523.5

STC

Algernon, earl of Northumberland

1507

1506

1099

David Barry, earl of 1528 Barrymore

Place of Dedication Publication

Widowe of Brussels John Mommart

Thomas Harper

Nathaniel Butter and Nicholas Bourne

Publisher

386 appendix

Anon.

DM

AR

The Rudiments of Militarie Discipline

Compleate Cannoniere

John Roberts

John Roberts

Great Yarmouth’s AW Exercise

Henry Hexham

Robert Monro

AW

Principles of the Art Militarie

G.F.

Monro His MM Expedition With The Worthy Scots Regiment

PC

Duell-Ease

1639 1638

1632

1638

1637

1637 1642

1635

1668

1643 1647 1657 1661

John Okes

James Byron

Thomas Harper

William Jones

M.P. for Matthew Symmons

Ann Griffin

John Dawson John Dawson Andrew Kembe Gartrude Dawson John Walker

London

Edinburgh

London

London

London

London

Charles I

Henry Davie and John Robins

Frederick, Elector Palatinate of the Rhine

Lord Rich, earl of Holland

/ / / /

B918A B918 B919B B920

21092

21441

21093

18022

13264

10637

Wing /B919A

Wing Wing Wing Wing

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 387

William Barriffe

Earl of 1639 Northumberland

AW

LW

AW

FE

AW

AW

Laws and Ordnances of War

Art of Warre, Or Militarie discourses

Fortification or Architectvre Military

Anima’dversions Of Warre

Second Part of the Principles of the Art Military

Henry Hexham

Robert Ward

Richard Norwood

Sieur Du Praissac, translated by John Cruso

1639 1642

1638

1639

1639

1639

1639

1638

Mars, His Triumph

Anon.

DM

Date

Directions for Musters

Author

Type

Title

Table (cont.)

London

London

London

London

London

Cambridge

Charles I

Marquis of Hamilton

Henry, Lord Matravers

Thomas Soame

Place of Dedication Publication

Jan Pieters Delft Walpote Robert Younge London Antony of Delft Heusden

John Dawson

Thomas Cotes for Andrew Crooke

Roger Daniel

Robert Barker

I.L. for Ralph Mabbe

Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel

Publisher

13264.1 Wing / H1654

13264.2

25025

18690

7366

9336

1505

6903

STC

388 appendix

MC

Warrefare epitomized

The Exercise of DM the English, in the Militia of the Kingdome in its posture of warre

Henri Rohan, Duc de translated by John Cruso

AW

Compleat Captain

Anon.

Capt. Lewes Roberts

Henry Hexham

Third Part of the FE Principles of the Art Military

1642

1640

1640

1643

1641

1640

Cambridge

Rotterdam

London

The Hague

s.n

London

Richard Oulton London for Ralph Mabbe

Roger Daniel

Francis vander Spruyt Humphrey Mosley John Moxom

Captains of the trained bands

John Hobart, Kt., Thomas Woodhouse, Kt., John Holland, Kt., Edward Walgrave, Kt., Charles Le Gros, Kt., Robert Kemp, Kt., Clement Corbet

Wing / E3862 Thomason Tract

21095

4338

Wing / H1655

Wing / H1656

13264.7

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 389

John Cruso

Donald Lupton

FE

AW

Castramenation

A Warre-like Treatise Of the Pike

Anon.

LW

DM

Lawes and Ordinances of Warre

A True Description of the Discipline of War Both for Horse and Foot

Anon

R.M.

A Compleat DM Schoole of Warre

Anon.

DM

The Exercise for Yong Artillery Men

Author

Type

Title

Table (cont.)

1642

1642

1642

1642

1642

1642

Date London

s.n.

John Wright

Richard Harper

Richard Hodgkinsome

London

London

London

London

Wing / E3860

STC

Robert, earl of Essex

Wing / T2677

Wing L695

Wing / M71 Thomason E.116[13]

Wing / L3496

William Denny, sgt. Wing / C7432 major of Foot

Place of Dedication Publication

R.C. for London Andrew Crook

Michael Sparke Sr.

Publisher

390 appendix

Ball

Clement Edmondes

FE

DM

DM

LW

Propositions of Fortification

A Few Words to the Trained Bands and Souldiers of London Citie in these Perilous Times

The Grounds of Military Discipline

An appendix of the lavves, articles, & ordinances

Henry Hexham

Anon.

David Leslie

Generall Lessley’s DM Direction and Order for the Exercising of Horse and Foot

1643

1642

1642

1642

1642

Issac Burchoorn

s.n

s.n.

s.n.

Richard Badger, for L. Blaikelock

The Hague

London

London?

London?

London

John Hayden and John Harvey

Wing A3572

Wing G2140 Thomason 669.f.6[45]

Wing / N837 Thomason E.151[14]

military books printed in english, 1603–1645 391

George Innes

Nicholas Stone

A Militarie AW Rudiment or Observations of the form of Militarie exercise

FE

FE

Enchiridion of Fortification

A Practical Abstract of the Arts of Fortification and Assailing

David Papillon

John Vernon

CAV

The YoungHorseman or the Honest plaindealing Cavalier

Author

Nathaniel Burt

Type

Military CAV Instructions or the Souldier tried for the use, of the Dragon

Title

Table (cont.)

1645

1645

1644

1644

1644

Date

London

London

R. Austin

M.F. for Richard Royston

London

London

Sir Thomas Fairfax

Lord George Gordon, second marquess of Huntly

Place of Dedication Publication

Edward Raban Aberdeen

Andrew Coe

s.n.

Publisher

Wing P303

Wing 550:11

Wing I192

24675 Wing V253

B6144 Thomason 669.f.10[9]

STC

392 appendix

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscript Sources Bodleian Library, Oxford University Ashmole H 24 135, Edward Panton, A Table Expressing the words in the science military, London: Adam Islip, 1614. Bodleian Benefactors Register. British Library, London Additional MS. 32496, Military Discipline: Instructions in military drill and tactics by Joseph Ward of Bishop Middlehaven, co. Durham. Additional MS. 11050, Scudamore Papers, vol. X, Herefordshire Lieutenancy Papers related to musters. Additional MS. 21922, Hampshire Lieutenancy Book of Sir Richard Norton. Additional MS. 41615, Tracts on Military Discipline and Tactics. Egerton MS. 1943, “My Lords Discourse of the preparation against the Spanish” by Lord Willoughby. Harley 3638, “The dutie of a private soldier by General Cecil.” Harley 7007, Letters of Prince Henry. Harley MS. 5944, Engravings of Infantry Postures. Royal MS. 17 B xxxii, A Journall Relation of the seruice at the takeing in of the towne and castle of Gulicke this present yeare, 1610. . . . Royal MS. 18 C. xxiii, A Demonstration of divers parts of Warre, especially of the Discipline of Cavalleria by Sir Edward Cecil. National Archives, London SP 20/7 London Sequestration Committee Book. Printed Primary Sources A dialogue and complaint made vpon the siedge of Oastend, made by the King of Spaine, the Archduke, the Infanta, the Pope, the Prince Morrice, and the eldest sonne of Sauoye. Translated out of French. Also a true discourse of that which is hapned in the same towne of Oastend, from the fourth day of the moneth of February 1602. VVith certaine newes written towards London, from Italy, Fraunce, Hungary, and other places. London: R. Read for Matthew Law, 1602. Achesone, J. The military garden, or instructions for all young souldiers and such who are disposed to learne, and have knowledge of the militarie discipline. Edinburgh: John Wreittoun, 1629. Adams, T. The Sovldiers Honovr. London: Adam Islip, 1617. An Answer made by Command of Prince Henry to Certain Propositions of Warre and Peace, Delivered to his Highnesse by some of his Military Servants. London: Roger Daniel, 1655. Ascham, R. Toxophilus, The Schole of shootinge conteyned in two bookes. London: Edward Whitechurch, 1545. Astley, J. The Art of Riding. London: Henry Denham, 1584. Babington, J. Pyrotechnica or a Discourse of Artifciall Fireworks. London: Thomas Harper, 1635. Barret, R. The Theorike and Practike of Moderne Warres. London: William Ponsonby, 1598. Barriffe, W. Mars, His Triumph. London: I.L. for Ralph Mabbe, 1639.

394

selected bibliography

——. Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man. London: Thomas Harper for Ralph Mabbe, 1635. ——. Military Discipline: Or, The Yong Artillery Man. London: Robert Oulton for Ralph Mabbe, 1639. ——. Militarie Discipline, or, The yovng artillery-man. London: John Dawson, 1643. Barry, G. A Discourse Of Military Discipline. Brussels: Widowe of John Mommart, 1634. ——. The Siege of Breda by the Armes of Philip the Fovrt Vnder the Government of Isabella Atchived by the Condvct of Ambr. Spinola. Louvain: Ex officina Hastenii, 1627. Baret, M. An Hipponomie or The Vineyard of Horsemanship. London: George Eld, 1618. Barwick, H. A brief discourse, concerning the force and effect of . . . manuall weapons of fire. London: W.J. Johnson, 1594. Basta, G. Le Govvernement De La Cavallerie Legiere. Hanaw: Jean Theordore De Bry, 1614. Bedingfield, T. The Art of Riding, conteining diverse necessarie instructions, demonstrations, helps, and corrections appertaining to horsemanship, not heretofore expressed by anie other Author. London: H. Denham, 1584. Belli, P. De re militari et bello tractatus, diuisus in partes XI. In quo, praeterea quae de re militari tractantur, obiter multa, quae ad ciuilem administrationem attinent, attinguntur; omnibus iudicibus apprimè necessarius. Venice: F. de Portonarijs, 1563. Bingham, J. The Tactiks of Aelian Or art of embattailing and army after ye Grecian manner. London: Laurence Lisle, 1616. ——. The art of embattailing an army. Or, The second part of Aelians tacticks Containing the practice of the best generals of all antiquitie, concerning the formes of battailes. . . . Englished and illustrated with figures and obseruations vpon euery chapter. London: John Beale and Thomas Brudenell for Ralph Mabbe, 1631. Blandy, W. The Castle, or picture of policy shewing forth most lively, the face, body and partes of a commonwealth. . . . London: John Daye, 1581. Blundeville, T. A newe booke containing the arte of ryding, and breakinge greate horses together with the shapes and figures, of many and diuers kyndes of byttes, mete to serue diuers mouthes. Very necessary for all gentlemen, souldyours, seruingmen, and for any man that delighteth in a horse. London: William Seres, 1561. ——. The foure chiefest offices belonging to horsemanship. . . . London: Henry Denham, 1580. Bourne, W. The Arte of Shooting in great Ordnaunce. London: Thomas Woodcocke, 1578. A breefe declaration of that which is happened aswell within as without Oastend sithence the vij. of Ianuarie 1602. London: Matthew Law, 1602. Breen, A. Neuwe Nassauwische Waffen-Handlung von Schilt, Spies, Rappier und Targa. . . . The Hague: [s.n.], 1618. Bristol, George Digby, earl of. Bibliotheca Digbeiana, sive, Catalogus librorum in variis linguis editorum quos post Kenelmum Digbeium eruditiss. virum possedit illustrissimus Georgius Comes Bristol nuper defunctus: accedit & alia bibliotheca non minus copiosa & elegans: horum auctio habebitur Londini . . . Aprilis 19, 1680. London: H. Brome and B. Tooke, 1680. Browne, W. The Art of Riding the Great Horse. London: S.I. for R. Thrale, 1628. Bry, J. L’Art Militarie pour Infanterie. Frankfurt: Uldrick Bolck, 1615. Buc[k], G. The Third University of England, London: Thomas Dawson, 1615. Burt, N. Military Instructions or the Souldier tried for the use, of the Dragon Being a Part of the Cavalrie. . . . London: [s.n.], 1644. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series 1547–1625. London: Longman, 1856–72. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs . . . in the Archives and Collections of Venice, Vols. 14–20. London: Stationary Office, 1864–1947. Castiglione, B. The Book of the Courtier. Translated by George Bull. New York: Penguin Books, 1976. Catalogus librorum bibliothecae publicae quam vir ornatissimus Thomas Bodleius eques auratus in Academia Oxoniensi nuper instituit continet autem libros alphabeticè dispositos secundum quatuor

selected bibliography

395

facultates: cum quadruplici elencho expositorum S. Scripturae, Aristotelis, iuris vtriusq[ue] & principum medicinae, ad vsum almae Academiae Oxoniensis, authore Thomas James ibidem bibliothecario. Oxford: Joseph Barnes, 1605. Catalogus librorum quos de nundinis Francofurtensibus autumnalibus anni 1645. ac alibi comparavit Richardus Whitakerus bibliopola Londinensis: apud quem jam prostant venales. London: Richard Whitaker, 1645. Catalogus universalis pro nundinis Francofurtensibus autumnalibus. . . . London: John Bill, 1617–1628. Cataneo, G. Most briefe tables to knowe redily howe manye ranckes of footemen armed with Corslettes, as vnarmed, go to the making of a iust battyle, from an hundred vnto twentye thousande. Translated by Henry Grantham. London: W. Williamson, 1574. Churchyard, T. A generall rehearsall of warres, called Churchyardes choise wherein is fiue hundred seuerall seruices of land and sea as seiges, battailes, skirmiches, and encounters. London: John Kingston for Edward White, 1579. ——. A Lamentable, and pitifull Description of the wofull warres in Flanders. London: Henry Bynneman for Ralph Newberry, 1578. Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of. History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, 6 vols. Edited by W.D. Macray. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888. Clarke, Lt. This Table Doth Demonstrate LI Postvres to the Mvskettier and XXXIII To the Pikemen with Three Wordes of Command Plainly Expressed in the Instructions Following. London: Thomas Purfoot, 1619. Clayton, G. Approved order of martiall discipline. London: J. Charlewood for Abraham Kitsonne, 1591. Cleland, J. Hero-paideia, or The institution of a young noble man by James Cleland. Oxford: Ioseph Barnes, 1607. Clifford, C. The Schoole of Horsemanship. London: Thomas Cadman, 1585. A Compleat Schoole of Warre or the Direct way of the ordering and Exercising of a Foot Company. London: Richard Harper, 1642. Cooke, E. The Character of Warre, Or The Image of Martiall Discipline: contayning many usefull directions for Musters & Armes, and the very first principles in Discipline. London: Thomas Purfoot, 1625. ——. The Prospective Glasse of Warre. . . . London: Michael Sparke, 1628. Cornwallis, C. A Discourse of the most Illustrious Prince Henry, Late Prince of Wales. London: John Benson, 1641. Corte, C. The Art of Riding, conteining diuerse necessarie instructions, demonstrations, helps and corrections apperteining to horssemenaship, not heretofore expressed by anie Author. London: H. Denham, 1584. Crompton, R. The Mansion of Magnanimitie. London: William Ponsonby, 1599. Cruso, J. Castramenation, Or The Measvring Out of the Quarters For the Encamping of an Army. London: R.C. for Andrew Crook, 1642. ——. Militarie instructions of the cavallrie: or Rules and directions for the service of horse collected out of divers forrain authors ancient and modern, and rectified and supplied, according to the present practise of the Low-Countrey warres. Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel, 1632. D., I. Lawes and Ordinances touching military discipline. Set downe and established the 13 August 1590. The Hague: Hillebrand Jacobs vean Wouw, 1631. Dallington, R. Aphorismes Civill and Militarie: Amplified with Authorities, and exemplified with Historie, out of the first Quarterne of Fr. Guiccardine. London: Edward Blount, 1613. Dansie, J. A Mathematicall Manual (strategemes for embattling armies. London: William Jones, 1627. Dasent, J.R., ed. Acts of the Privy Council of England, New Series . . . 1542, [etc.]. London: Stationery Office, 1890. Davies, E. Military directions, or The art of trayning plainely demonstrating how euery good souldier ought to behaue himselfe in the warres. London: Edward Griffin, 1618.

396

selected bibliography

——. The Art of War, And Englands Traynings. London: Edward Griffin, 1619, 1620. De Gray, T. The Compleat Horseman and Expert Ferrier. London: Thomas Harper, 1639. De Loque, B. Discourses of vvarre, and single combat. London: John Wolfe, 1591. Di Grassi, G. Giacomo di Grassi his true Arte of Defense. . . . London: I.I., 1594. Digges, L. and T. Digges. A Geometrical Practise, named Pantometria. . . . London: Henry Bynneman, 1571. Digges, T. A briefe and true report of the proceedings of the Earle of Leycester for the reliefe of the towne of Sluce from his arriuall at Vlisshing, about the end of Iune 1587. vntill the surrendrie thereof 26. Iulij next ensuing. VVhereby it shall plainelie appeare his Excellencie was not in anie fault for the losse of that towne. London: T. Orwin, 1590. ——. An arithmetical vvarlike treatise named Stratioticos. . . . London: Henry Bynneman, 1579. ——. “Treatise Concerning Invasion or A brief Discourse of what Orders were best for repulsing of Foreign Forces, is at any time they should invade by Sea in Kent, or elsewhere.” In England’s Defence by T. Adamson. London: F. Haley, 1680. Digges, T. and D. Digges. Foure Paradoxes, or politique Discourses. London: H. Lownes, 1604. Dilich, W. Kriegsbuch, darin die alte and newe Militia eigentlich bescrieben unnd allen Krioegsneulingen, Bauund Buchsenmeistern und gutter Anlietung in Druck geben unnd verfertiget. Kassell: Wilhelm Wessell, 1607. Directions For Musters: Wherein is shewed the order of drilling for the Musket and Pike. Set forth in Postures, with the words of command, and brief instructions for the right use of the same. Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel, 1638. Dorney, J. A Briefe and Exact Relation of the Most Materiall and Remarkable Passages that happened in the late well-informed (and so valiantly defended) Siege laid before the City of Gloucester. London: Thomas Underhill, 1643. Du Praissac, S. The Art of Warre, Or Militarie discourses Of leavying, marching, encamping; and embattailing an armie. Translated by John Cruso. London: Roger Daniel, 1639. Dudley, R. Lawes and Ordinances set downe by Robert Earle of Leicester, the Queenes Maiesties Lieutenant and Captaine General of the her armie and forces in the Lowe Countries. . . . London: Christopher Barker, 1586. Dürer, A. Etliche underricht, zu befestigung der Stett, Schloss, und flecken. Nürenberg: [s.n.], 1527. Edmondes, C. Observations vpon the five bookes of Caesars Commentaries. London: Peter Short, 1600. ——. Obseruations vpon Caesars Commentaries setting forth the practise of ye art militarie in the time of the Romaine Empire for the better direction of our moderne warrs. London: For William Ponsonby, 1604. ——. A Few Words to the Trained Bands and Souldiers of London Citie in these Perilous Times. London: s.n., 1642. Edward, Lord Herbert. The Life of Edward Lord Herbert, of Cherbury; Written by Himself. London: Saunders and Otley, 1826. Elegies Celebrating the Happy Memory of Horatio Veere, Baron of Tilbury. . . . London: T. Badger for Christopher Meredith, 1642. Elton, R. The compleat body of the art military: exactly compiled and gradually composed for the foot, in the best refined manner, according to the practice of the modern times. Divided into three books. . . . London: R. Leybourn, 1650. Elyot, T. The Booke Named the Governour. London: Thomas Barthelet, 1531. England and Wales. Privy Council. Instructions for Musters and Armes, and the use thereof: By order from the Lords of His Majestie’s most Honourable Privy Counsayle. London: Bonham Norton and John Bill, 1623. ——. Instructions for musters and armes, and the vse thereof by order from the Lords of His Maiesties most Honourable Priuie Counsaile. Whitehall the 27. of Iuly 1631. London: Robert Barker, 1631.

selected bibliography

397

Englands safety in navie and fortifications; the common interest both of King and people. Conteining necessary observations concerning Dover, and other sea-towns of England. Published for the necessary view of the right honourable, the high court of Parliament: and also for the publique safetie of the kingdome, and all other His Majesties dominions. London: Printed for Jo. Ch. and John Bull, 1642. An Exact Relation of the Siege before Yorke. . . . London: R. White, 1644. The Exercise of the English, in the Militia of the Kingdome in its posture of warre. London: [s.n.], 1642. The Exercise For Yong Artillery Men: or the Militia of the Kingdome in its Posture of Warre. Whereupon are added the Orders meete to bee observed upon any Forraigne Invasion, for the Shires that lye on the Sea Coast. London: Michael Sparke Sr., 1642. Extremities vrging the Lord General Sir Fra. Veare to offer the late anti-parle with the Arch-duke Albertus. London: William White and Thomas Purfoot for Thomas Pauier, 1602. F., G. Duell-Ease. London: Ann Griffin, 1635. Featherstone, H. Catalogus librorum in diuersis locis Italiae emptorum, Anno 1628 Qui Londini in officina Fetherstoniana, prostant venales. London: John Legatt, 1628. Fischlin, D. and M. Fortier, eds. James I True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1996. Fisher, T. Warlike Directions, Or the Souldiers Practise. London: Thomas Harper, 1634. Fourquevaux, R. Instructions for the Warres. Amply, learnedly and politiquely, discoursing the method of Militarie Discipline. London: Thomas Man and Tobie Cooke, 1589. Frontinus, S. The Strategemes, Sleyghtes and policies of warre gathered together by S. Julius Frontinus and translated into Englyshe by Rycharde Morysine. London: Thomas Bertheleti, 1539. Gage, C.H. The Siege of Breda. Ghent: Iudoci Dooms, 1627. Gallants to Bohemia, or, L[e]t vs t[o] the warres againe shewing the forwardnesse of our English souldiers, both in times past, and at this present: to a pleasing new warlike tune. London: G.E., 1620. Garrard, W. The Arte of Warre. London: Roger Ward, 1591. Gascoigne, G. The Spoyle of Antwerpe. London: Richard Jones, 1576. Gates, G. The defence of militarie profession. Wherein is eloquently shewed the due commendation of martiall prowesse, and plainly prooued how necessary the exercise of armes is for this our age. London: H. Middleton for John Harrison, 1579. General Lessley’s Direction and Order For the Exercising of Horse and Foot. London: Richard Badger for L. Blaikelock, 1642. Gerbiers, B. The First Lecture being an Introduction to the Military Architecture, or Fortifications. London: Robert Ibbitson, 1650. Gheyn, Jacob de. Maniement d’armes, d’arqvebvses, movsqvetz, et piqves. The Hague: Robert de Baudous, 1607. ——. The Exercise of Armes for Caliver, Muskettes and Pikes. Amsterdam and The Hague: Robert de Baudous, 1608. ——. Maniement D’Armes d’Arquebuses. . . . Zutphen: André Janssen, 1619. Gilbert, H. Queene Elizabethes achademy: a booke of precedence, etc. Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint Co., 1973. Goodrick, A.T.S., ed. “The Relation of Sydnam Poyntz 1624–1636.” Camden Society 3rd series, vol. 14 (1908). Goring, J. and Joan Wake, eds. Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers and Other Documents 1580 –1614. Gateshead: Northamptonshire Record Society, 1975. A great victory obtained by Colonel Norton and his horse, and Colonell Jones and his foote, against Colonel Rayden, from Basing house. . . . London: Andrew Coe, 1644. Grimston, E. A Generall Historie of the Netherlands. London: Adam Islip, 1608. Grisone, F. A new booke containing the arte of ryding, and breaking greate Horses. . . . London: William Seres, 1560. Grose, F. Military Antiquities respecting a history of the English Army from the Conquest to the Present Time. 2 vols. London: L. Stockdale, 1812.

398

selected bibliography

The Grounds of Military Discipline: Or Certain brief Rules for the Exercising of a Company or Squadron, London: [s.n.], 1642. Gutierrez de la Vega, L. A Compendius Treatise, entitled De re militari, containing principall orders to be observed in Martiall affaires. . . . London: Thomas East, 1582. G.W. Covnt Mansfields Directions of Warre. Given To All His Officers and Souldiers in Generall. London: Edward Allde for Richard Whittaker, 1624. Hale, G. The Priuate Schoole of Defence. Or the defects of Publique Teachers, exactly discouered, by way of Obiection and Resolution. London: John Helme, 1614. H., W. [ Haydon, William] The True Picture and Relation of Prince Henry. Leiden: William Christian, 1634. Herman, H. The siege of Breda written in Latin by the R.F. Herman Hvgo of the S. of I. Translated into English by C.H.G. Ghent: Iudoci Dooms, 1627. Hexham, H. A Journal Of the Taking of Venlo, Roermount, Strale, the memorable Siege of Mastricht, the Town and Castle of Limburch vnder thye able, and wise Conduct of his Excie the Prince of Orange, Anno 1632. The Hague: John Pietersz Walpote for Nathaniel Butter, 1633. ——. A tongue-combat lately happening betweene two English soldiers in the tilt boat of Gravesend, the one going to serve the king of Spain, the other to serve the States General of the Vnited Provinces. Wherein the cause, course, and continance of these warres is debated, and declared. London: [s.n.], 1623. ——. An appendix of the lavves, articles, & ordinances, established for marshall discipline, in the service of the Lords the States Generall of the united provinces, under the commaund of his highnesse the Prince of Orange Together, vvith the articles of quarter for the ransoming of officiers and souldiers, agreed and concluded on, betvveene the king of Spayne on the one side, and the States Generall of the united provinces on the other side. The Hague: Issac Burchoorn, 1643. ——. A True and Briefe Relation of the Famous Siege of Breda. Delft: James Moxon, 1637. ——. A True Soldiers Councel. London: N[icholas] O[kes]?, 1624. ——. The Principles Of the Art Militarie; Practised in the Warres of the Vnited Netherlands. London: M.P. for Matthew Symmons, 1637. ——. The Second Part of the Principles of the Art Military, Practised In the Warres of the United Provinces. London: Robert Younge, 1638. ——. The Third Part Of the Principles of the Art Military Practised in the Warres of the United Provinces. The Hague: Francis vander Spruyt, 1640. Innes, G. A Militarie Rudiment or Observations of the form of Militarie exercise, according to his Excellens Guard in Holland. Aberdeen: Edward Raban, 1644. Ive, P. The Practise of Fortification: wherein is shewed the manner of fortifying in all sortes of scituations, with the considerations to be used in delining and making of royal frontiers. London: Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man and Toby Cooke, 1589. Kellie, T. Pallas Armata, or, Militarie Instruictions for the Learned. . . . Edinburgh: Heirs of Andro Hart, 1627. Knevet, R. Stratiotikon. Or A discourse of militarie discipline Shewing the necessitie therof according to these perillous times. London: Miles Flesher, 1628. La Noue, F. The Politike and Militarie Discovrses of the lord De La Nowe. London: For T.C. and E.A. by Thomas Orwin, 1587. Laws and Ordinances of Warre, For better Government of His Majesties Army Royall in the present expedition for the Northern parts, and safety of the Kingdome. London: Robert Barker, 1639. Leighton, A. Speculum Belli Sacri: Or The Looking Glass of the Holy War. Amsterdam: The successors of Giles Thorp, 1624. Lingham, J. A True Relation of all English Captains and Lieutenants as have been slain in the Low Countries, together with those now living: as also of such as are fled to the Enemie. London: Roger Ward, 1584. London, W. A Catalogue of the most vendible books in England, Orderly and Alphabetically Digested. London: [s.n.], 1658. Lucar, C. Three Bookes of Colloquies Concerning the Arte of Shooting in Great and Small Peeces of Artillerie. . . . London: John Harrison, 1588.

selected bibliography

399

Lupton, D. A Warre-like Treatise Of The Pike. London: Richard Hodgkinsome, 1642. Machiavelli, N. Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. London: Thomas Paines for William Hills and Daniel Pakeman, 1636. ——. The arte of warre. Translated by P. Whitehorne. London: John Kingston for Nicolas England, 1562. Malthus, F. A Treatise of Artificial Fireworks. London: William Jones for Richard Hawkins, 1629. Maunsell, A. The Second parte of the Catalogue of English printed Bookes, London: James Roberts for Andrew Maunsell, 1595. Marcelline, G. Vox Militis. . . . London: B.A. for Thomas Archer, 1625. Markham, F. Five Decades of Epistles of Warre. London: Augustine Matthewes, 1622. Markham, G. “The Muster Master by Gervase Markham.” In Camden Miscellany 4th series, 26, edited by C.L. Hamilton. London: Royal Historical Society, 1975, 49–76. ——. A Schoole for young souldiers containing in briefe the whole discipline of warre. London: John Trundle, 1615. ——. Honour in his perfection or, A treatise in commendations of the vertues and renowned vertuous vndertakings of the illustrious and heroycall princes Henry Earle of Oxenford. Henry Earle of Southampton, Robert Earle of Essex, and the euer praise-worthy and much honoured Lord, Robert Bartue, Lord Willoughby, of Eresby, London: B. Alsop for Beniamin Fisher, 1624. ——. The Second Part of the Soldiers Grammar. London: Hugh Perry, 1627. ——. The Souldier’s Accidence Or An Introduction Into the Military Discipline. . . . London: I.D for John Bellamie, 1625. ——. The Souldier’s Exercise. London: John Dawson, 1643. ——. The Souldier’s Grammar. London: William Shefford, 1626. Marolois, S. The Art of Fortification. Amsterdam: M. John Johnson, 1631. Martin, R. Catalogus librorum quos (in ornamentum reipublicae literariae) non sine magnis sumptibus & labore, ex Italia selegit Robertus Martine, Bibliopola Londinensis: apud quem in coemiterio Divi Pauli prostant venales. London: Augustine Matthewes, 1633. ——. Catalogus librorum, ex praecipius Italiae Emporiis selectorum. Per Robertum Martinum. Apud quem venales habentur. London: Thomas Harper, 1639. ——. Catalogus librorum, plurimis linguis scriptorum de omni ferè facultate tractantium; ac è diversis Europae regionibus congestorum: prostant venales apud Robertum Martinum. London: Thomas Harper, 1640. Mendoza, D. Theoriqve and Practise of Warre. Middelburg: Richard Schilders, 1597. Mercator, G. Atlas or A geographicke description of the regions, countries and kingdomes of the world, through Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, represented by new & exact maps. Translated by Henry Hexham, quarter-maister to the regiment of Colonell Goring. Amsterdam: Henry Hondius and John Johnson, 1636. Newark, David Leslie, Baron. Generall Lessley’s Direction and Order For the exercising of Horse and Foot. . . . London: Richard Badger for L. Blaikelock, 1642. The Military Art of Trayning. London: Edward Allde, 1622. The Military Discipline wherein is Martially shone the order of drilling for ye Musket and Pike. 1623. Set Forth in Postures with words of Command and Briefe Instructions for the Right use of the same. . . . London: Roger Daniel, 1623. The Military Discipline Wherin is Martially Showne the order for Drilling the Musket and Pike. Set Forth in postures with ye command, and brief instructions for the right use of the same. London: Thomas Jenner, 1642. Monck, G. Observations upon military & political affairs. London: A.C. for H. Mortlocke, 1671. Monro, R. Monro His Expedition With The Worthy Scots Regiment called Mac-Keyes Regiment levied in August 1626. London: William Jones, 1637. Montaigne, M. The Complete Essays. London: Penguin Books, 1991. Morgan, N. The Perfection of Horsemanship, drawne from Nature; Arte, and Practiced. London, Edward White, 1609.

400

selected bibliography

Murphy, W.P.D., ed. The Earl of Hertford’s Lieutenancy Papers 1603–1612. Gloucester: Glevum Press, 1969. A Myrrour for English Souldiers. London: Nicholas Ling, 1595. Naunton, R. Fragmenta regalia, or, Observations on the late Queen Elizabeth, her times and favorits written by Sir Robert Naunton. London: [s.n.], 1641. Neade, W. The Double-armed Man, By the New Inuention: Briefly shewing some famous Exploits atchieued by out British Bowmen: With seuerall Portraitures proper for Pike and Bow. London: J. Grismand, 1625. ——. Objections against the vse of the bow with the pike, and the answers thereunto. London: W. Jones, 1630. Newes from Ostend. London: V. S[immes] for Thomas Pauier, 1601. A New Invention of Shooting Fire-Shafts in Long Bowes. London: H.L. for John Bartlett, 1628. Northumberland, Earl of. Laws and Ordnances of War. London: Robert Barker, 1639. Norton, R. A mathematicall apendix, containing many propositions and conclusions mathematicall, with necessary observations both for mariners at sea, and for cherographers and surveyors of land. London: R. B[raddock?] for Roger Jackson, 1604. ——. A table of boorde and timber measure, more perfect than ever hath beene made shewing also the root between 4 and 31 from quarter to quarter. London: [s.n.], 1615? ——. The Gunner, Showing the Whole Practise of Artillerie: With all the Appurtenances thereunto belonging. Together with the making of Extraordinary Artificall Fireworkes, as well for Pleasures and Truimphes, as for Warre and Service. London: Printed by A.M. for Humphrey Robinson, 1628. ——. The gunners dialogue with the Art of great artillery. By Robert Norton, enginier. and gunner. London: Eliot’s Court Press for John Tap, 1628. ——. Disme, the Art of Tenths, or, Decimall Arithmetike. London: S. S[tafford] for Hugh Astley, 1608. ——. Of the Art of Great Artillery. London: A[ugustine] M[atthewes] for Humphrey Robinson, 1624. Norwood, R. Fortification or Architectvre Military. London: Thomas Cotes for Andrew Cooke, 1639. Ordonances and instructions for musters, to be obserued by the gouernors, chiefe officers, captaines and souldiers, in her Maiesties pay in the Lowe Countries and to be put in execution by the officers and commissaries of the musters resident in the garrisons, and attendant on the companies employed in the field: established by her Maiestie, and the Lordes of her Highnesse priuie Counsaile for reformation of such disorders as are growen by lacke of discipline among her martiall men. London: Christopher Barker, 1590. The Oppugnation, and fierce siege of Ostend. London: Printed by V.S. for Thomas Pauier, 1601. Papillon, D. A Practical Abstract of the Arts of Fortification and Assailing. London: R. Austin, 1645. Panton, E. A Table of the Art Military by Captayne Panton. London: Adam Islip, 1614. Peacham, H. The Compleat Gentleman. London: Francis Constable, 1634. ——. A most true relation of the affaires of Cleve and Gulick as also of all what hath passed this last summer, since the most excellent and victorious prince, Maurice of Nassau, tooke the field with his armie, encamping before Rees in Cleueland: and the losse of Wesel, taken in by the Marques Spinola: vnto the breaking vp of our armie in the beginning of December last past. 1614. With the articles of the peace, propounded at Santen By Henrie Peacham London: W. Stansby for John Helme, 1615. The politique takinge of Zutphen skonce, the vvinning of the towne, and beleagering of Deuenter With the honourable enterprise of Sir Roger VVilliams Knight, performed vpon a thousande and two hundred of the enemies souldiours or Leagors, lying at Cinque Saunce, nine leagues from Deepe. Who were all put to the sworde, vpon Thursday before Whitsonday last, beeing the twentie day of May. 1591. Seene and allowed. London: John Charlewood, 1591.

selected bibliography

401

Proctor, T. Of the knowledge and conducte of warres. London: Richardi Tottelli, 1578. Raynsford, J. The Yong Souldier. London: J.R. for Joseph Hunscott, 1642. Record, R. Ground of Arts. London: John Beale for Roger Jackson, 1623. Rich, B. A Path-Way to Military Practise. London: John Charlewood for Robert Walley, 1587. ——. Allarme to England. . . . London: Henry Middleton, 1578. ——. The Frvites of Long Experience. London: Thomas Creede, 1604. R.M. A Compleat Schoole of Warre. . . . London: Richard Harper, 1642. Roberts, J. Compendium Belli: Or The Touchstone of Martial Discipline. London: J. Norton and A. Matthewes, 1626. ——. Great Yarmouth’s Exercise. London: Thomas Harper, 1638. ——. The Compleat Cannoniere: Or the Gunners Guide. London: J. Okes, 1638. Roberts, L. Warrefare epitomized in a century, of military observations: confirming by antient principles the moderne practise of armes. London: Richard Oulton for Ralph Mabbe, 1640. Rohan, H. The Compleat Captain, Or An Abbridgement of Caesars warres . . . Translated by John Cruso. Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1640. The Rudiments of Militarie Discipline. Edinburgh: James Byron, 1632. Ruscelli, G. Precetti della militia moderna, tanto per mare quanto per terra . . . ne’ quail si contiene tutta l’arte del Bombardiero, & si mostra l’ordine che ha da tenere il maestro di campo quando vuole accampare il suo essercito etc. Venetia: Marchiò Sessa, 1568. Rye, W. State Papers Relating to Musters, Beacons, Shipmoney, &c. in Norfolk. Norwich: Goose and Son, 1907. Sadler, J. The foure bookes of Flauius Vegetius Renatus briefelye contayninge a plaine forme, and perfect knowledge of martiall policye, feates of chiualrie, and vvhatsoeuer pertayneth to warre. Translated out af lattine, into Englishe, by Iohn Sadler. Anno. 1572. Seene and allovved, accordinge to the order appointed. London: Thomas Marshe, 1572. Sarpi, P. Free Schoole of Warre. London: John Bill, 1625. Savile, H. The ende of Nero and beginning of Galba Fower bookes of the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus. The life of Agricola. London: For Richard Wright, 1591. Saviolo, V. Vincentio Saviolo his Practise. In two Bookes. The first intreating of the vse of the Rapier and Dagger. The second, of Honor and honorable Quarrels. London: John Wolfe, 1595. Segar, W. Honor military, and ciuill contained in foure bookes. London: Robert Barker, 1602. Seldon, J. The Duello Or Single Combat: From Antiquitie deriued into this kingdome of England, with suerall kindes, and ceremonious formes thereof from good authority described. London: G.E., 1610. Shute, W. The Triumphs of Nassav . . . London: Adam Islip, 1613. Silver, G. Paradoxes of Defence . . . London: Edward Blount, 1599. Smith, T. Certaine Additions to the Booke of Gvnnery. London: William Ponsonby, 1601. ——. The Art of Gunnery. London: William Ponsonby, 1600. ——. The Complete Souldier: containing the whole Art of Gunnery with certaine new and rare Additions concerning Fire-works. . . . London: R. Dawlman, 1628. Smythe, J. Certain Discourses. London: Richard Johns, 1590. ——. [Certen] instruct[ions, obseruati]ons and orders militarie, requisit for all chieftaines, captaines [and?] higher and lower men of charge, [and officers] to vnderstand, [knowe and obserue] London: Richard Johns, 1594. ——. Instructions, Observations, and Orders Mylitarie. London: Richard Johns, 1595. Societie of Armes, Citizens, and Inhabitants of the Citie of London. Orders established, condiscended, and agreed vnto by the Societie of armes, citizens, and inhabitants of the Citie of London. London: A. Islip, 1616. Statutes and ordynances for the warre. London: Thomas Barthelet, 1544. Stevin, S. Nieuwe maniere van strectebov, door Spilstuysen. Leyden: Matthieu & Bonaventure Elzevier, 1618. Stone, N. Enchiridion of Fortification or a Handfull of knowledge in Martiall affairs. London: M.F. for Richard Royston, 1645.

402

selected bibliography

Stow, J. A Survey of London Written in the Year 1598. Phoneix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2005. Styward, T. The Pathwaie to Martiall Discipline, deuidied into two Bookes, verie necessarie for young Souldiers, or for all such as loueth the profession of Armes. London: T.E. for Myles Jenyngs, 1581. Sutcliffe, M. The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes. . . . London: Deputies of Christopher Barker, 1593. Swetnam, J. The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence. London: Nicholas Okes, 1617. T., I. The A.B.C. of Armes, Or, An Introduction Directorie; whereby the order of Militarie exercises may easily be understood. London: W. Stanby for John Helme, 1616. Tartaglia, N. Three bookes of Colloquies concerning the Arte of Shooting in great and small peeces of artillerie. . . . London: John Harrison, 1588. Thomason, G. Catalogus librorum in diversis Italiae locis emptorum, anno 1636 Quorum facultatum indicem sequens pagina monstrabit. Qui Londini in Caemeterio Sancti Pauli ad insigne Rosae prostant venales. London: John Legatt, 1637. A True Declaration of that which hapned Since the enemies first comming to Bromwell. London: John Wolfe, 1599. A True Declaration of the Streight Siedge laide to the Cytty of Steenwich. . . . London: John Wolfe, 1592. A True Description of the Discipline of War Both for Horse and Foot, used is His Majesties Army, under their Excellencies William Earle of New-Castle, and Prince Robert. With the order and manner of their marching and exercising in the field as Followeth. London: [s.n.], 1642. A true relation and description of the present siege of S’Hertogenbosh, vnder the conduct of the Illustrious Frederick Henrick, Prince of Orange, Count of Nassau in the year 1629. London: Nicholas Bourne, 1629. A True Relation of the famous & renowned Victorie latelie atchieued by the Counte Maurice of Nassau, neere to Newport in Flanders. . . . London: Ralph Blower, 1600. A True Relation of the late Expedition of His Excellency, Robert Earle of Essex, for the Relief of Gloucester. London: Ralph Rounthwaith, 1643. Trussell, T. The Sovldier Pleading his own Cause. London: Nicholas Okes, 1619. Valdes, F. The Serieant Maior. A Dialogue of the Office of Sergeant Maior . . . Translated into Englishe, by Iohn Thorins. London: John Wolfe, 1590. Vegetius, F. The Four Bookes of Flavius Vegetius Ranatus, brieflye contayninge a plaine forme, and perfect knowledge of Martiall policye, feates of Chiualrie, and whatever pertayneth to warre. Translated out of lattine, into English, by John Sadler. London: Thomas Marshe, 1572. Venn, T. Military and Marine Discipline in Three Books. London: E. Tyler and R. Holt for Robert Pawles, 1672. Vere, F. The Commentaries Of Sir Francis Vere, Being Diverse pieces of service, wherein he had command written by himself in way of Commentary. Cambridge: John Field, 1657. Vernon, J. The Young-Horseman or the Honest plain-dealing Cavalier. London: Andrew Coe, 1644. Wake, J., ed. The Montagu Musters Book 1602–1623. Peterborough: Peterborough Press, 1935. Wallhausen, J.J. von. Alphabetum pro tyrone pedestri. Oder der Soldaten zu Feuss ihr A.B.C. Frankfurt-am-Main, Paul Jacobi, 1615. ——. Archilen Kriegskunst: darinnen gelehret und fürgetragen werden die initia und fundamenta dieser edlen Kriegskunst. Hanaw: [s.n.], 1617. ——. Camera militaris Oder Kriegskunst Schatzkammer. Frankfurt-am-Main: Daniel and David Aubrien und Clement Schleichen, 1621. ——. Corpus Militare, darinnen das heütige Kriegswesen. Hanaw: [s.n.], 1617. ——. Defensio Patriae, oder, Landtrettung: darinnen gezeigt wirdt I. Wie alle vnd jede in der werthen Christenheit Potentaten, Regenten, Stätte vnnd Communen ihre vnd der ihrigen Vnderthanen Rettung vnd Schutzung anstellen sollen: II. Der Modus bene belligerandi, viel hundert Jahr bissher

selected bibliography

403

gefählet . . . .Frankfurt-am-Main: Daniel and Dauid Aubrien and Clement Schleichen, 1621. ——. Kriegskunst zu Fuss. Oppenheim: H. Galler, 1615. ——. Kriegskunst zu Pferdt. Frankfurt-am-Main: Paul Jacobi, 1616. ——. Künstliche Picquen-Handlung. Darinnen schrifftlich und mit Figuren dieses Adeliches Exercitium angewiesen und gelehrt wirdt ets. Hanaw: [s.n.], 1617. ——. Manuale Militarie, Oder Kriegs Manual. Frankfurt-am-Main: Paul Jacobi, 1616. ——. Ritterkunst. Frankfurt-am-Main: Paul Jacobi, 1616. ——. Romanishe Kriegskunst. Frankfurt-am-Main, Paul Jacobi, 1616. Walsingham, E. Alter Britanniae Heros: Or the Life of the Most Honourable Knight, Sir Henry Gage, Late Governour of Oxford, Epitomiz’d. Oxford: Leonard Lichfield, 1645. Ward, R. Anima’dversions of Warre. London: John Dawson, 1639. Watts, W. and T. Roe. The Swedish Discipline. London: John Dawson, 1632. ——. The Swedish Intelligencer. Vols 1–2, 3–4. London: Nathaniel Butter and Nicholas Bourne, 1632. Weymouth, J. Low-Countrie trayning. London: Thomas Snodham for William Welby and Edward Brewster, 1617. Whitaker, R. Catalogus librorum quos de nundinis Francofurtensibus autumnalibus anni 1645. ac alibi comparavit Richardus Whitakerus bibliopola Londinensis: apud quem jam prostant venales. London: Richard Whitaker, 1645. Whitehorne, P. Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers in battelray, & settyng of battailes, after diuers fashions, with their maner of marchyng: and also Fygures of certaine new plattes for fortificacion of Townes: and more ouer, howe to make Saltpeter, Gunpoulder, and diuers sortes of Fireworkes or wilde Fyre, with other thynges apertaining to the warres. London: John Kingston, for Nicolas Englande, 1562. Williams, R. A Briefe discourse of Warre. London: Thomas Orwin, 1590. ——. The Actions of the Lowe Countries. London: Humphrey Lownes, 1618. Wilson, T. “The State of England, Anno Dom. 1600.” Camden Miscellany 3rd series, vol. 16, London: Camden Society, 1936, 1–47. W.S. A True Declaration and Just Commendation of the Great and Incomparable Care of the Right Honourable Issac Pennington. London: R. Harper, 1643. Xenophon. Cavalry Commander in Hiero the Tyrant and Other Treatises. London: Penguin, 1997. Secondary Sources Adair, J. Roundhead General, The Campaigns of William Waller. Avon, UK: Sutton, l996. Adams, S. “The English Military Clientele, 1542–1618.” In Patronages Et Clientélismes, 1550–1750 (France, Angleterre, Espagne, Italie), edited by C. Giry-Deloison and R. Mettam. Lille: Centre D’Historie De La Region Du Nord, 1995, 217–27. ——. “A Puritan Crusade? The Composition of the Earl of Leicester’s expedition to the Netherlands, 1585–86.” In Leicester and the Court: Essays on Elizabethan Politics, edited by S. Adams. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, 176–95. Adams, T. “The Beginnings of Maritime Publishing in England, 1528–1640.” The Library 14 (1992): 207–20. Adamson, J.S.A. “Chivalry and Political Culture in Caroline England.” In Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, edited by K. Sharpe and P. Lake. Houndmills, UK: MacMillan, 1994, 161–97. ——. “The Baronial Context of the English Civil War.” In The English Civil War, edited by R. Cust and A. Hughes. London: Arnold, 1997, 83–110. Akrigg, G.P.V. Shakespeare and the earl of Southampton. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1968.

404

selected bibliography

Alder, K. Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763–1815. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Amussen, S.D. An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Anderson, M.S. War and Society in Europe of the Old Regime, 1618–1789. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988. Anglin, J.P. “The Schools of Defense in Elizabethan England.” Renaissance Quarterly 37 (Winter 1984): 393–410. Anglo, S. The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. ——. Spectacle Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Arber, E., ed. A transcript of the registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, A.D. 5 vols. London: Stationers’ Company, 1875–94. Arnold, T. The Renaissance at War. London: Cassell & Co., 2001. Ash, E. “ ‘A perfect and an absolute work’: Expertise, Authority, and the Rebuilding of Dover Harbor, 1579–1583.” Technology and Culture 41 (2000): 239–68. Ashley, M. The English Civil War: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974. Ashton, R. The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution 1603–1649. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, 1989. Atherton, I. Ambition and Failure in Stuart England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Atkin, M. Worcestershire Under Arms: An English County During the Civil Wars (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2004. Ayton, A. Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy under Edward III. Woodridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1994. Barker, R.V. The Tournament in England. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1986. Barnes, T.G. “Deputies not Principals, Lieutenants not Captains: The Institutional Failure of the Lieutenancy in the 1620s.” In War and Government in Britain, edited by M. Fissel. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991, 58–86. Barnard, J. and D.F. McKenzie, eds. The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Vol. IV, 1557–1695. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Barratt, J. Cavaliers: The Royalist Army at War 1642–1646. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing Co., 2000. Batho, G. “The Education of a Stuart Nobleman.” British Journal of Educational Studies 5, no. 2 (May 1957): 131–43. ——. “The Library of the ‘Wizard’ Earl: Henry Percy Ninth Earl of Northumberland (1564–1632).” The Library, 5th series, 15 (1960): 246–61. Beckett, I. The Amateur Military Tradition 1558–1945. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991. Beller, E.A. “The Military Expedition of Sir Charles Morgan to Germany, 1627–9.” English Historical Review 43, no. 172 (October 1928): 528–39. Bennett, H.S. English Books and Readers 1603–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Birell, T.A. English monarchs and their books: from Henry VII to Charles II. The Panzzi Lectures, London: The British Library, 1986. Black, J. European Warfare, 1494–1660. London: Routledge, 2002. ——. Rethinking Military History. London: Routledge, 2004. ——. War and the World: Military Power and the Fate of Continents, 1450 –2000. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Blackmore, D. Arms and Armour in the English Civil War. London: Royal Armouries, 1990. Blackwood, B.G. The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion 1640 –1660. Manchester: Chatham Society, 3rd series, 25, 1978.

selected bibliography

405

Boehrer, B. “Shakespeare and the Social Devaluation of the Horse.” In The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline and Identity in the Early Modern World, edited by K. Raber and T. Tucker. London: Palgrave, 2005, 91–111. Boynton, L. The Elizabethan Militia 1558–1638. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967. Braddick, M.J. “The Rise of the Fiscal Military State.” In A Companion to Stuart Britain, edited by B. Coward. London: Blackwell Publishing, 2003, 69–87. ——. State Formation in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Brereton, J.M. The Horse in War. Newton Abbot, UK: David & Charles, 1976. Brett-James, N.G. The Growth of Stuart London. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1935. ——. “The Fortification of London in 1642/3.” London Topographical Record 14 (1928): 1–35. Broxap, E. The Great Civil War in Lancashire, 1642–1651. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1910. ——. “The Sieges of Hull during the Great Civil War.” English Historical Review 70 ( July 1905): 457–73. Burne, A. and P. Young. The Great Civil War. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1959. Bush, M.L. The English Aristocracy: A Comparative Synthesis. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984. Caldecott-Baird, D., ed. The Expedition in Holland, 1572–1574, London: Seeley Service & Co., 1976. Carlton, C. Going to the Wars: The Experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638–1651. London: Routledge, 1992. Carlyle, E.I. “Committees of Council under the Earlier Stuarts.” English Historical Review 21, no. 84 (Oct. 1906): 673–85. Carpenter, S. Military Leadership in the British Civil Wars, 1642–1651. London: Frank Cass, 2005. Carter, D.P. “The ‘Exact Militia’ in Lancashire, 1625–1640.” Northern History 11 (l975): 87–106. Caspari, F. Humanism and the Social Order in Tudor England. Chicago: Teachers College Press, 1968. Chandler, D. and I. Beckett, eds. The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Charlton, K. Education in Renaissance England. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1965. Clark, P. English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent 1500 –1640. Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press, 1977. Cliffe, J.T. The Yorkshire Gentry From Reformation to the Civil War. London: Athlone Press, 1969. Cockle, M.J.D. A Bibliography of English Military Books Up to 1642 and of Contemporary Foreign Works. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., 1900. Cogswell, T. Home Divisions: Aristocracy, the state and provincial conflict. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. ——. The Blessed Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Collins, A. and E. Brydges. Collins’s Peerage of England; Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical, London: F.C. and J. Rivington, Otridge and Son, 1812. Colvin, H.M. “Castles and Government in Tudor Government.” English Historical Review 83 (April 1986): 225–34. Compton, W.B. History of the Comptons of Compton Wynyates. London: John Lane, 1929. Connell, R.L. Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons and Aggression. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Cressy, D. Literacy and Social Order, Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Cruickshank, C.G. Elizabeth’s Army. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966.

406

selected bibliography

Cunliffe, E. “Booke Concerning the Deputy Lieutenantshipp.” Sussex Archaeological Collections 40, (1896): 1–37. Dalton, C. Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil. Vols. 1–2. London: S. Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1885. Davies, D. The World of the Elsevirs 1580–1712, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1954. De La Croix, H. “The Literature on Fortification in Renaissance Italy.” Technology and Culture 4 (Winter 1963): 30–50. Delbruck, H. The History of the Art of War. Vol. 4, The Dawn of Modern Warfare. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1985. Dent, A. Horses in Shakespeare’s England. London: J.A. Allen, 1987. Devereux, W.B. Lives and Letters of the Devereux, Earls of Essex, 1540–1646. London: John Murray, 1853. Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004 (online edn.) Dix, E.R.M. Catalogue of Early Dublin-Printed Books 1601 to 1700. New York: Lenox Hill, 1912. Dodge, T.H. Gustavus Adolphus. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998. Donagan, B. “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War: England’s Military Education Before 1642.” Past and Present 147 (May 1995): 65–100. Dop, J.A. Eliza’s Knights: Soldiers, Poets, and Puritans in the Netherlands, 1572–1586. Alblasserdam: Remak, 1981. Downing, B. The Military Revolution and Political Change. Origins of Democracy and Autocracy in Early Modern Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Duffy, C. Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern Period, 1494–1660. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979. Dunthorne, H. “Resisting Monarchy: The Netherlands as Britain’s School of Revolution in the Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Royal Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe, edited by R. Oresko, G.C. Gibbs, and H.M. Scott. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 125–48. Eamon, W. “Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Science,” Sudhoffs Archiv. 69 (1) (1985): 26–49. —— .“From the Secrets of Nature to Public Knowledge.” In Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution, edited by D.C. Lindberg and R.S. Westman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 333–66. ——. “Arcana Disclosed: The Advent of Printing, the Books of Secrets Tradition, and the Development of Experimental Science in the Sixteenth Century.” History of Science 22 (1984): 111–50. Eddershaw, D. The Civil War in Oxfordshire. Phoenix Mill, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995. Edwards, P. “Logistics and Supply.” In The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland, edited by P. Kenyon and J. Ohlmeyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 234–271. ——. Dealing in Death: The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars, 1638–52. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2000. ——. The Horse Trade of Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Eltis, D. The Military Revolution in the Sixteenth Century. London: Tauris Academic Studies, 1995. Evans, J.X., ed. The Works of Sir Roger Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Everitt, A. The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion 1640 –60. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1966. ——. Elizabeth’s Irish War. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997. Falls, C. Mountjoy: Elizabethan General. London: Odhams Press, 1955. Feld, M.D. “Middle-Class Society and the Rise of Military Professionalism, The Dutch Army 1589–1609.” Armed Forces and Society 1 (August 1975): 419–42.

selected bibliography

407

Firth, C.H. Cromwell’s Army. A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and The Protectorate. London: Greenhill Press, 1992. Fissel, M. English Warfare 1511–1642. London: Routledge, 2001. ——. “Tradition and Invention in the Early Stuart Art of War.” Journal of Army Historical Research 65 (Autumn 1987): 133–47. ——. The Bishops’ Wars: Charles I’s Campaigns Against Scotland 1638–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Fletcher, A. County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600 –1660. London: Longman, 1975. ——. Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England. New Haven: Yale University, 1986. Fletcher, A. and J. Stevenson, eds. Order and Disorder in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Flood, J.L. “ ‘Omnium totius orbis emporiorium compendium’: the Frankfurt fair in the early modern period.” In Fairs, Markets and the Itinerant Book Trade, edited by R. Myers, M. Harris, and G. Mandelbrote. London: Oak Knoll Press, 2007, 1–42. Fortescue, J.W. A History of the British Army. Vol. 1. London: MacMillian and Co., 1899. Gardiner, S.R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War 1603–1642. London: Longmans, 1904–1909. ——. History of the Great Civil War. 4 vols. Adlestrop, UK: Windrush Press, 1987. Gentles, I. The New Model Army. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. ——. “Why Men Fought in the British Civil Wars, 1639–1652.” The History Teacher 26 (August 1993): 407–18. Gilbert, F. “Machiavelli: The Renaissance of the Art of War.” In The Makers of Modern Strategy, edited by E.M. Earle. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943, 3–25. Given-Wilson, C. The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages. London: Routledge & Kegan, 1987. Gleason, J.H. The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558–1640: A later Eirenarcha. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Glete, J. War and the State in Early Modern Europe. London: Routledge, 2002. Godfrey, R. Printmaking in Britain: A General History from its Beginnings to the Present Day. Oxford: Phaidon, 1978. Godwin, G.N. The Civil War in Hampshire 1642–45. London: John and Edward Bumpus, 1904. González de Leon, F. “‘Doctors of the Military Discipline’: Technical Expertise and the Paradigm of the Spanish Soldier in the Early Modern Period.” Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (Spring 1996): 61–85. Gooding, S. James. “The Manual of Arms for the Matchlock Musket 1600–1650.” Arms Collecting 28 (May 1990): 39–51. Goring, J.J. “Social Change and Military Decline in Mid-Tudor England.” History 60 ( June 1975): 185–97. ——. “The General Proscription of 1522.” English Historical Review 86 (October 1971): 681–705. Gregg, P. King Charles I. London: J.M. Dent, 1981. Griffiths, A. The Print in Stuart Britain 1603–1689. London: Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Press, 1998. Gunn, S., D. Grummitt, and H. Cools. War, State and Society in England and the Netherlands, 1477–1559. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hahlweg, W. Die Heeresreform der Oranier und die Antike. Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, 1987. Hale, J.R. “Armies, Navies and the Art of War.” Cambridge New Modern History of Europe, Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. ——. The Civilization of the Europe in the Renaissance. New York: Atheneum, 1994.

408

selected bibliography

——. Renaissance War Studies. London: Hambeldon Press, 1983. ——. The Art of War and Renaissance England. Washington, DC: Folger Library Press, 1961. ——. War and Society in Renaissance Europe 1450 –1620. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1985. Hall, B.S. Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins Press, 1997. Hammer, P. The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics, The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Hammer P. and D. Womersley. “Sir Henry Savile’s Translation of Tacitus and the Political Interpretation of Elizabethan Texts,” Review of English Studies, n.s., 42 (1991): 313–42. Harrington, P. “English Civil War Fortifications.” Fort 15 (1987): 39–60. ——. English Civil War Archeology. London: B T Batsford, 2004. ——. English Civil War Fortifications 1642–51. London: Osprey, 2003. Harrison, G.B. The Life and Death of Robert Devereux Earl of Essex. New York: Henry Holt and Co. 1937. Hassell-Smith, A. “Militia Rates and Militia Statutes, 1558–1663.” In The English Commonwealth, 1547–1640, Essays in Politics and Society, edited by P. Clark, A. Smith, and N. Tyacke. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1979, 93–110. Hay, M.V. The Life of Robert Sidney. Washington, DC: Folger Books, 1984 Haynes, Alan. The White Bear: Robert Dudley, The Elizabethan Earl of Leicester. London: Peter Owen, 1987. Hexter, J.H. “The Education of the Aristocracy in the Renaissance,” in Reappraisals in History. London: Longmans, 1961, 45–7. Hill, K. “Mathematics As A Tool For Social Change: Educational Reform in the Seventeenth-Century England.” Seventeenth Century 12 (1997): 23–36. Hind, A.M. Engraving in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; A Descriptive Catalogue with Introductions. Vols. 1–3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952–1964. Holmes, C. The Eastern Association and the English Civil War. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Houlding, J.A. Fit for Service: The Training of the British Army 1715–1795. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Howarth, D. The Voyage of the Armada. New York: Viking Press, 1981. Hughes, Q. Military Architecture. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975. Hunt, W. “Civic Chivalry and the English Civil War.” In The Transmission of Culture in Early Modern Europe, eds. A. Grafton and A. Blair. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990, 204–237. Hutton, R. The Royalist War Effort 1642–6. London: Routledge, 1999. Hutton, R. and W. Reeves. “Sieges and Fortifications.” In The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638–1660, edited by J. Kenyon and J. Ohlmeyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 195–233. Hyland, A. The Warhorse 1250 –1600. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton, 1998. Israel, J.I. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Jardine, L. and A. Grafton. “How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy.” Past and Present 129 (Nov. 1990): 30–78. Jardine, L. and W. Sherman. “Pragmatic Readers: Knowledge Transactions and Scholarly Services in Late Elizabethan England.” In Religion, Culture and Society in Early Modern England: A Festschrift for Patrick Collinson, edited by P. Roberts and A. Fletcher. Cambridge University Press, 1994, 102–24. Jespersen, K.J.V. “Social Change and the Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe: Some Danish Evidence.” The Historical Journal 26 (March 1983): 1–13.

selected bibliography

409

Johns, A. The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Jones, M. “Engraved Works Recorded in the Stationers’ Registers, 1562–1656: A Listing and Commentary.” The Walpole Society 64 (2002): 1–48. Kelso, R. The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth Century: With a Bibliographical List of Treaties on the Gentleman and Related Subjects Published in Europe to 1625. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1929. Kenyon, J.P. and J. Ohlmeyer, eds. The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638–1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kenyon, J.P. The Civil Wars of England. London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988. Ketton-Cremer, R.W. Norfolk in the Civil War. London: Faber and Faber, 1969. Kingra, M.S. “The Trace Italienne and the Military Revolution During the Eighty Years’ War, 1567–1648.” Journal of Military History 57 (1993): 431–46. Kingston, A. East Anglia and the Great Civil War. London: Elliot Stock, 1897. Kishlansky, M. Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714. London: Penguin Books: 1996. Kist, B., ed. The Exercise of Arms. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1999. Kleinschmidt, H. “Using the Gun: Manual Drill and the Proliferation of Portable Firearms.” Journal of Military History 63 ( July 1999): 601–29. ——. Tyrocinium militare: militärische Körperhaltungen und -bewegungen im Wandel zwischen dem 14. und dem 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Autorenverlag H. Kleinschmidt, 1983. Knightly, C. Strongholds of the Realm: Defences in Britain from Prehistory to the Twentieth Century. London: Thames and Hudson, 1979. Kok, J.P.F. “Jacques de Gheyn II Engraver, Designer and Publisher–I.” Print Quarterly 8, no. 3 (1990): 248–81. Kunzle, D. From Criminal to Courtier: The Soldier in Netherlandish Art 1550 –1672. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Lacy, R. Earl of Essex: An Elizabethan Icarus. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Langelüddecke, H. “ ‘The chiefest strength and glory of this kingdom’: Arming and Training the ‘Perfect Militia’ in the 1630s.” English Historical Review 479 (Nov. 2003): 1264–1303. Langins, J. Conserving the Enlightenment: French Military Engineering from Vauban to the Revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. Langsam, G.G. Martial Books and Tudor Verse. New York: King’s Crown Press, 1951. Latham, A. and J. Youings, eds. The Letters of Sir Walter Raleigh. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1999. Lee, M. James I and Henri IV: An Essay in English Foreign Policy 1603–1610. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970. Lee, P. “Some English Academies: An Experiment in the Education of Renaissance Gentlemen.” History of Education Quarterly 10 (Autumn 1970): 273–86. Leslie, J.H. “The Defenses of London in 1643.” Journal of the Society of Army Historical Research 10 (1930): 109–20. Levy, F.J. “How Information Spread Among the Gentry, 1550–1640.” Journal of British Studies 21 (Spring 1982): 11–34. Livesay, J. The Elizabethan Image of Italy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1964. ——. The Englishman’s Italian Books 1550 –1700. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1969. Logan, R. “Violence, Terrorism, and War in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine Plays” in War and Words: Horror and Heroism in the Literature of War, edited by S.M. Deats, L.T. Lenker and M.G. Perry. Lanham, MD: Lexington Book, 2004, 65–82. Lombaerde, P. “The Fortifications of Ostend During the Great Siege of 1601–1604.” Fort 27 (1999): 93–111. Longmate, N. Island Fortress: The Defence of Great Britain 1603–1945. London: Hutchinson, 1991.

410

selected bibliography

Lucas Phillips, C.E. Crowmell’s Captains. London: William Heineman, Ltd., 1938. Lynch, J. For King & Parliament Bristol and the Civil War. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Lynn, J.A. “The Evolution of Army Style in the Modern West 800–2000,” International History Review 18, no. 3 (Aug. 1996): 505–45. MacCaffrey, W. Elizabeth I: War and Politics, 1588–1603. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Mallet, M.E. Mercenaries and their Masters: Warfare in Renaissance Italy. London: The Bodley Head, 1974. Manning, R. An Apprenticeship in Arms: The Origins of the British Army 1585–1702. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ——. Swordsmen: The Martial Ethos in the Three Kingdoms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ——. “Poaching as a Symbolic Substitute for War in Tudor and Early Stuart England. Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 22 (1992): 185–210. Markham, C.R. The Fighting Veres. Lives of Sir Francis Vere . . . and of Sir Horace Vere. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1888. Marshall, A. Oliver Cromwell Soldier: The Military Life of a Revolutionary at War. London: Brassey’s, 2004. McCoy, R.C. “Old English Honour in an Evil Time: Aristocratic Principle in the 1620s.” In The Stuart Court and Europe, edited by R. M. Smuts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 133–55. McGurk, J. “Terrain and Conquest 1600–1603.” In Conquest and Resistance: War in Seventeenth Century Ireland, edited by P. Lenihan. Leiden: Brill, 2001, 87–114. McKerrow, R.B. “Edward Allde as a Typical Trade Printer.” The Library 4th series, 10 (Sept. 1929): 121–61. McKetterick, D. A History of Cambridge University Press. Vol. 1. Printing and the Book Trade in Cambridge 1534–1698. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. McNeill, W.H. Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, l995. Millar, G. Tudor Mercenaries and Auxiliaries 1485–1547. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1980. Miller, A. “Sir Roger Williams—A Welsh Professional Soldier.” The Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion (1972 for 1971): 86–118. Morrish, P. “A Collection of Seventeenth Century Book Sale Catalogues” Quaerendo 1, no. 1 (1971): 35–45. Mulryne, J.R. “ ‘Here’s Unfortunate Revels’ War and Chivalry in Plays and Shows at the Time of Prince Henry Stuart” in War, Literature and the Arts in Sixteenth Century Europe, eds. J.R. Mulryne and M. Shewring. MacMillan Press, 1989, 165–89. Murdoch, S. Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart, 1603–1660. East Linton, UK: Tuckwell Press, 2000. Murdoch, S. ed., Scotland and the Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Murray, J.J. “The Cultural Impact of the Flemish Low Countries on Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England.” American Historical Review 62 ( July 1957):837–54. Newman, P. Old Service. Royalist Regimental Colonels and the Civil War, 1642–46. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. Nimwegen, O. “Maurits Van Nassau and Siege Warfare (1590–1597).” In Exercise of Arms: Warfare in the Netherlands, 1568–1648, edited by M. Ven Der Hoeven. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 113–131. Nolan, J.S. “The Militarization of the Elizabethan State.” The Journal of Military History 58 ( July 1994): 391–420. ——. Sir John Norreys and the Elizabethan Military World. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1997.

selected bibliography

411

O’Connell, S. The Popular Print in England 1550 –1850. London: British Museum Press, 1999. Oestreich, G. Neostoicism and the Early Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Orme, N. Education and Society in Medieval and Renaissance England. London: Hambledon Press, 1988. Osborn, J.M. Young Philip Sidney 1572–1577. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Parker, G. Europe in Crisis, 1598–1648. London: Blackwell, 2001. ——. The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567–1659. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. ——. The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500 –1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ——. “Military Revolution, A Myth.” Journal of Modern History 48, no. 2 ( June 1976): 195–214. ——. The Thirty Years’ War. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1987. Parry, C.H., ed. A Memoir of Peregrine Pertie, 11th Lord Willoughby De Eresby. London: John Murray, 1839. Partington, J.R. A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Peachey, S. The Edgehill Campaign and the Letters of Nehemiah Wharton. Leigh-on-Sea, UK: Partizan Press, 1989. Pears, S.A. The Correspondence of Sir Philip Sidney and Hubert Lanquet. London: William Pickering, 1845. Pepper, S. and N. Adams. Firearms and Fortifications: Military Architecture and Siege Warfare in Sixteenth Century Siena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Petrie, C. The Letters, Speeches and Proclamations of King Charles I. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1935. Phillips, G. “Longbow and Hackbutt: Weapons Technology and Technology Transfer in Early Modern England.” Technology and Culture 40 ( July 1999): 576–93. ——. The Anglo-Scots Wars 1513–1550. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1999. Porter, S. Destruction in the English Civil Wars. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1994. ——. “The Fire-raid in the English Civil War.” War & Society 2 (1984): 27–40. Poynter, F.N.L. A Bibliography of Gervase Markham 1568?–1637. Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1962. Quintrell, B.W. “Towards a ‘Perfect Militia’: Warwick, Buckingham, and the Essex Alarum of 1625.” Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society 15 (1984): 96–105. Raber, K. and T. Tucker, eds. The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline and Identity in the Early Modern World. London: Palgrave, 2005. Raber, K. “ ‘Reasonable Creatures’ William Cavendish and the Art of Dressage.” In Renaissance Culture and the Everyday, edited by P. Fumerton and S. Hunt. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999, 42–66. Raikes, G.A. The Ancient Vellum Book of the Honourable Artillery Company, Being The Roll of Members from 1611 to 1682. London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1890. Reid, S. All the King’s Armies: A Military History of the English Civil War 1642–1651. Stapelhurst, UK: Spellmount, 1998. Roberts, J. and A.G. Watson. John Dee’s Library Catalogue. London: The Bibliographical Society, 1990. Roberts, K. “Citizen Soldiers: The Military Power of the City of London.” In London and the Civil War, edited by S. Porter. Houndmills, UK: MacMillan Press, 1996, 89–115. ——. “Lessons in Revolution: The Impact of the London Military Companies.” Cromwelliana (1992): 35–47.

412

selected bibliography

——. Cromwell’s War Machine: The New Model Army, 1645–1660. Barnsley, UK: Pen & Sword Books, 2005. Roberts, M. “Gustav Adolphus and the Art of War” In Essays in Swedish History, edited by M. Roberts. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967, 56–81. ——. Gustavus Adolphus, London: Longmans, 1992. ——. Gustavus Adolphus: A History of Sweden 1626–1632. Vols. 1–2. London: Longmans, 1957. ——. “The Military Revolution, 1560–1660.” In The Military Revolution Debate, edited by C. Rogers. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995, 13–35. Roots, I. The Great Rebellion: 1642–1660. London: B.T. Batsford, 1966. Rothenberg, G. “Maurice of Nassau, Gustavus Adolphus, Raimondo Montecuccoli, and the ‘Military Revolution’ of the Seventeenth Century.” In Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, edited P. Paret. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, 32–63. Rowse, A.L. The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Cultural Achievement. London: MacMillan, 1972. ——. The Expansion of Elizabethan England. London: Sphere Books, 1973. Roy, I. Royalist Officers In England and Wales, 1642–1660. New York: Garland Publishing, 1981. ——. Royalist Ordnance Papers, 1642–1646. Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society, 1963. ——. “The Profession of Arms.” In The Professions in Early Modern England, edited by W. Priest. London: Croom Helm, 1987, 181–219. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. Newark on Trent: The Civil War Siegeworks. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1964. Saunders, A. Fortress Britain: Artillery Fortification in the British Isles and Ireland. Liphook, UK: Beaufort, 1989. Scott, H.M. The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. London: Longman, 1995. Sharpe, K. Reading Revolutions: The Politics of Reading in the Early Modern Period. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. ——. Remapping Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ——. The Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Shelby, L.R. John Rogers: Tudor Military Engineer. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Sheppard, E.W. A Short History of the British Army. London: Constable and Company, 1950. Sherman, W. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995. Showalter, D.E. “Caste, Skill and Training: The Evolution of Cohesion in European Armies from the Middle Ages to the Sixteenth Century.” The Journal of Military History 57 ( July 1993): 407–30. Simon, J. Education and Society in Tudor England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Simoni, A. “A Present for a Prince.” In Ten Studies in Anglo-Dutch Relations, edited by J. van Dorsten. London: Oxford University Press, 1974, 51–71. ——. “Dutch Printing in London.” In Foreign Language Printing in London 1500 –1900, edited by B. Taylor. Boston Spa, UK: British Library, 2002, 151–70. ——. The Ostend Story: Early Tales of the Great Siege and the Mediating Role of Henrick van Haestens. ’t Goy-Houten: Hes & de Graaf, 2003. ——. “Soldiers’ Tales: Observations on Italian Military Books Published at Antwerp in the Early 17th Century.” In The Italian Book 1465–1800, edited by D. Rhodes and D. Reidy. London: British Library, 1993, 255–90. ——. “Walter Morgan Wolff: An Elizabethan Soldier and His Maps.” Quaerendo 26 (1996): 58–76.

selected bibliography

413

Smith, V. and P. Kelsey. “The Lines of Communication: The Civil War Defences of London.” In London and the Civil War, edited by S. Porter. Houndhills, UK: MacMillan Press, 1996, 117–148. Smith, V. “The Defences of London during the English Civil War.” Fort 25 (1997): 61–81. Snow, V. “An Inventory of the Lord General’s Library, 1646.” The Library 3rd series, 21 (1966): 115–23. Spaulding, T.M. “Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie.” Journal of the American Military History Foundation 2 (Summer 1938): 105–110. Spufford, M. Small Books and Pleasant Histories. London: Methuen & Co., 1981. Stearns, S.J. “Conscription and English Society in the 1620s.” Journal of British Studies 11 (May 1972): 1–23. Stern, V.F. Gabriel Harvey: His Life, Marginalia and Library. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Stewart, R.W. The English Ordnance Office 1585–1625: A Case Study in Bureaucracy. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1994. Strong, R. Henry, Prince of Wales and England’s Lost Renaissance. London: Thames and Hudson, 1986. Strong, R. and J.A. Van Dorsten, eds. Leicester’s Triumph. Leiden: Thomas Browne Institute, 1964. Stone, L. The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558–1641. London: Oxford University Press, 1967. Stoye, J. English Travellers Abroad 1600 –1667. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Teitler, G. The Genesis of the Professional Officers’ Corps. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1977. Tennenhouse, L. “Sir Walter Ralegh and the Literature of Clientage.” In Patronage in the Renaissance edited by G.F. Lytle and S. Orgel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981, 235–58. Thirsk, J. Horses in Early Modern England: for Service, for Pleasure, for Power. Reading: University of Reading, 1978. Thompson, J.W., ed. The Frankfort Book Fair = The Francofordiense Emporium of Henri Estienne. New York, Burt Franklin, 1968. Thomson, A. “John Holles,” Journal of Modern History 8, no. 2 ( Jun. 1936): 145–72. Thomson, G.S. Lords Lieutenants in the Sixteenth Century. London: Longmans, 1923. Thomson, G.S., ed. The Twysden Lieutenancy Papers, 1585–1668. Ashford: Kent Arch. Soc. Rec. Branch, 1926. Tomkinson, J. “The Henrician Bastions of Gunies Castle.” Fort 26 (1998): 121–41. Treadwell, V. Buckingham and Ireland, 1616–1628. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998. Trevelyan, R. Sir Walter Raleigh. London: Allen Lane, 2002. Trim, D.J.B. “Fin de siecle: The English Soldier’s Experience at the End of the Sixteenth Century.” Military and Naval History Journal 10 ( July 1999): 1–13. ——. “Horace Vere in Holland and the Rhineland, 1610–12.” Historical Research 72 (Oct. 1999): 334–51. ——. “Ideology, Greed and Social Discontent in Early Modern Europe: Mercenaries and Mutinies in the Rebellious Netherlands, 1568–1609.” In Rebellion, Repression, Reinvention: Mutiny in Comparative Perspective, edited by J. Hathaway. Westport, CN: Praeger, 2002, 47–61. ——. “Sir Thomas Bodley and the International Protestant Cause,” Bodleian Library Record 16, no. 4 (1998): 314–40. Trim, D.J.B., ed. The Chivalric Ethos and the Development of Military Professionalism. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Tsushima, J. “Members of the Stationers’ Company Who Served in the Artillery Company before the Civil War; Ralph Mabbe and his Network.” In The Stationers’ Company

414

selected bibliography

and the Book Trade 1550 –1990, edited by R. Myers and M. Harris. Winchester: St. Paul’s Bibliographies, 1997, 65–92. Tucker, T. “Early Modern French Noble Identity.” In The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline and Identity in the Early Modern World, edited by K. Raber and T. Tucker. London: Palgrave, 2005, 273–310. ——. “Eminence of Efficacy: Social Status and Cavalry Service in Sixteenth-Century France.” Sixteenth Century Journal 32 (2001): 1057–83. Ungerer, G. “The Earl of Southampton’s Donation to the Bodleian Library in 1605 and Its Spanish Books.” Bodleian Library Record 16 (1997): 17–41. Vale, M. War and Chivalry: Warfare and Aristocratic Culture in England, France and Burgundy at the End of the Middle Ages. London: Duckworth, 1981. ——. “New Techniques and Old Ideals: The Impact of the Artillery on War and Chivalry at the End of the Hundred Years War.” In War, Literature and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, edited by C.T. Allmand. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1976. 57–72. Van Regteren Altena, I.Q. Jacques De Gheyn Three Generations. Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijoff Publishers, 1983. Varley, V.J. The Siege of Oxford, an Account of Oxford during the Civil War, 1642–1646. Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1935. Walker, G.G. The Honourable Artillery Company 1537–1926. London: John Lane, 1926. Ward, S. Excavations At Chester: The Civil War Siegeworks 1642–6. Chester: Chester City Council/Grosvenor Museum, 1987. Watanabe-O’Kelly, H. “Tournaments and Their Relevance for Warfare in the Early Modern Period.” European History Quarterly 20 (Oct. 1990): 451–63. Watt, T. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550 –1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Webb, H.J. “Elizabethan Field Artillery.” Military Affairs 19 (Winter 1955): 197–202. ——. “Thomas Digges, An Elizabethan Combat Historian.” Military Affairs 14 (Summer 1950): 53–6. ——. Elizabethan Military Science: The Books and Practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965. Webb, J. “The Siege of Portsmouth in the Civil War.” In The English Civil War: Local Aspects, edited by R.C. Richardson. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1997, 63–90. Wedgewood, C.V. The King’s War, 1641–1647. London: Collins, 1958. West, J. The Brave Lord Willoughby. Edinburgh: Pentland Press, 1998. Wheeler, J.S. The Irish and British Wars 1637–1654: Triumph, Tragedy, and Failure. London: Routledge, 2002. ——. The Making of a World Power: War and the Military Revolution in Seventeenth Century England. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999. White, L. “Jacopo Aconcio as an Engineer.” American Historical Review 72 ( Jan. 1967): 425–44. Wiggins, K. Anatomy of a Siege, King John’s Castle, Limerick 1642. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2001. Williams, N.L. Sir Walter Raleigh. London: Penguin Books, 1962. Williamson, J.W. The Myth of the Conqueror Prince Henry Stuart: A Study of 17th Century Personation. New York: Ames Press, 1978. Wilson, D. Sweet Robin. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981. Wilson, P. “European Warfare 1450–1815.” In War in the Early Modern World 1450 –1815, edited by J. Black. London: UCL Press, 1999, 177–206. Wood, A.C. “The Holles Family” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 4th series, 19 (1936): 145–65. Woolley, B. The Queen’s Conjurer. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2001.

selected bibliography

415

Woolrych, A. Battles of the English Civil War: Marston Moor, Naseby and Preston. London: B.T. Batsford, 1961. Wrightson, K. English Society 1580 –1680. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1982. Young, A. Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments. London: Sheriden House, 1987. Young, A.R. Henry Peacham, Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1979. Young, P. Edgehill 1642: The Campaign and the Battle. Kineton, UK: Roundwood Press, 1967. ——. Marston Moor. Kineton, UK: Roundwood Press, 1970. ——. Naseby 1645. London: Century Publishing, 1985. Young, P. and W. Emberton. Sieges of the Great Civil War 1642–1646. London: Bell & Hyman, 1978. Dissertations Atherton, I. “John, 1st Viscount Scudamore 1601–71: A Career at Court and In the Country, 1602–43.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1993. Borman, T. “Sir Francis Vere in the Netherlands, 1589–1603: A Re-Evaluation of his career as Sergeant Major General of Elizabeth I’s troops.” PhD diss., University of Hull, 1997. Buchtel, J.A. “Book Dedications in Early Modern England: Francis Bacon, George Chapman, and the literary patronage of Henry, Prince of Wales.” PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2004. Hagen, T.K. “Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and the English Press: News, Foreign Policy and Popular Opinion in Early Stuart England,” PhD diss., University of California-Santa Barbara, 2002. Tighe, W.J. “The Gentlemen Pensioners in Elizabethan Politics and Government.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1983. Walton, S. “The Art of Gunnery in Renaissance England.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1999.

INDEX

Page references in italics indicate the presence of an illustration. A, B, C, of Armes, The (I.T.), 153, 176 Adams, S., 61 Adams, Thomas, 147n24 advancing (infantry), 146, 174, 187, 206, 207, 223 Aelian, 45 Tactics, 114, 154, 227, 249 Bingham’s Tactiks of Aelian, 3, 154–5, 218, 219, 281, 302 Aggas, Edward, 235 Albert, Archduke, 100, 122, 329 Alde, Edward: The Military Art of Trayning, 165–6 Alexander de Bologna, 273n39 Aleyn, Sir Francis, 61 algebra, 322, 323 Allde, Edward, 174 Allen, Captain Francis, 93 Alva, duke of, 25, 30, 64, 232, 326 analytical treatises, 195–259 by amateurs, 216–29 on battle tactics, 243–4 continental works, 230–43 didactic value of, 251 general precepts in, 244–5 on horsemanship and cavalry warfare, 59, 263–70, 275–8 on infantry warfare, 16, 243–8 vs practical manuals, 57 purposes of, 9, 195–8, 246 on siegecraft, 336–44 by veterans, 196–216 Anglin, Jay, 41–2 Anglo, Sydney: The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, 7–8 Anne, queen, 110 Antwerp, 12, 28, 30 approaches and counter-approaches (for siege), 345 architecture, military, 49, 50, 319, 326–9, 339, 365 aristocracy: apprenticeship in infantry, 236 aristocratic military ethos, 10, 20–1, 372–3 education, 39–40

equestrian culture of, 270–4, 287–8, 306 grand tour, 50, 58, 69, 121 links with cavalry, 287–8, 306, 311 military families, 71 as officers, 10, 244, 246, 306 participation in European wars, 372 arithmetic, 322, 323, 342 armour: for cavalry, 264, 266, 268, 296–7, 298 for horses, 308 for infantry, 152, 255, 256, 258 armour merchants, 46 arms. See weapons Arnold, Thomas, 21 artillery, 350–61 bombardments, 333, 359 destruction of cannon, 353–4 gun batteries, 320, 362 gunnery nomenclature, 356 master of, 338 ranges of, 359 technicians vs soldiers, 319, 351, 356 training for, 351. See also gunpowder weaponry; siegecraft Artillery Garden (London), 137, 147, 156, 161, 181, 221 artillery trains, 361 Arundel, Thomas, Lord, 199 Ascham, Roger, 51, 272 Toxophilus, 51 Ash, E., 324 Astley, John: The Art of Riding, 278 Aston, Arthur, 306 Atherton, Ian, 284 Atkins, Malcolm, 191 Aubrey, John, 110 Augsburg, 47 Azores expedition, 68, 69, 77n7, 94, 108n82, 233 Babington, John: Pyrotechnia, or Artificall Fire Works, 348 Badger, Richard, 187 baggage trains, 231–2, 264

418

index

Balikelock, L., 187 Ball: Propositions of Fortifications, 339n68, 362 Barbarigo, Piero, 158 Baret, Michael: An Hipponomie or The Vineyard of Horsemanship, 279 Barker, Robert, 178 Barratt, John, 128n134, 300, 306n116 Barret, Henry, 6 Barret, Robert, 264, 265, 371 The Theorike and Practike of Moderne Warres, 38, 57, 113, 160, 249, 263–4 Barriffe, William, 197, 198, 216, 218, 241 Mars His Triumph, 176 Military Discipline, 180–2, 221–9, 222, 300 on drill and training, 181–2, 187, 245, 248, 250, 374 on motions, 223–4, 249, 253–4 popularity and editions of, 179, 182, 196, 216 Swedish tactics in, 224–9 Barry, David, earl of Barrymore, 213 Barry, Garret, 197, 334, 350 A Discourse of Military Discipline, 175, 198, 213–16, 217, 258 trans. Herman’s Siege of Breda, 334, 335 Barwick, Humphrey: Concerning the Force and Effect of fire and the disability of the Long Bowe or Archery, 327 Basing House, 363, 364 Basta, Giorgio, 65–6, 292, 305 Il governo della cavalleria leggiera, 48, 65, 240, 282 Il maestro di campo generale, 65 bastard musket, 258 bastions, 318, 333n47 angled, 317, 321, 328 blunt, 321 for English Civil War, 362, 363, 365 opening a breach in, 359 Batho, G.R.: “The Library of the ‘Wizard Earl’ ”, 13 battalions, 146, 177, 238 battle axes, 287 battle(s): acclimating horses for, 277, 295, 300n103, 308 captains in, 248 communication breakdown in, 244 vs drills, 146–7, 160, 224 fog of war, 244

medieval, 239 order and discipline in, 159 orders of, 297, 323 rules adapted in, 245 vs sieges, 316 strategies and tactics in, 243–4 Beaumont, Francis: The Knight of the Burning Pestle, 140 Bedingfield, Thomas, 278, 292 The Arte of Ryding (trans. of Corte’s Il cavallarizzo), 276–7 Belici, Giovanni Battista: Nova inventione di fabricar Fortezza, 99 Belleforest, François de: Harrangues militaires recueillies de six livres des guerres des Romains contre les nations estrangéres, 97 Belli, Pietro: De re militari et bello, 114 Bennet, H.S., 2 Bennett, Martyn, 86 Benson, John, 120n108 Bergen-op-Zoom, 78, 94, 332, 334, 337 Bertie, Peregrine, 11th Lord Willoughby de Eresby. See Willoughby, 11th Lord de Eresby, Peregrine Bertie Bertie, Robert, Lord Willoughby, 80 Berwick, 351, 353 Pacification of, 303 Best, George, 201n21 Betham, Peter: trans. Jacopo di Porcia’s The preceptes of warre, 230 Bibliotheca Mortlacensis, 52 Bill, John, 46, 47–8, 99n62, 136 Catalogus universalis, 49 Bingham, John, 82–3, 130, 132, 147n24 The Exercise of the English, 154–6, 186 on cavalry, 281–2, 284, 288, 304, 305 relation to Instructions, 155–6, 170, 178, 282, 288, 304 Tactiks of Aelian, 3, 154–5, 218, 219, 281, 302 Bingham, Sir Richard, 61 Birch, Thomas, 74, 113, 120 Bishops’ Wars: cavalry in, 279, 303, 304 Charles I’s forces in, 104, 128, 213, 242n124, 303 and market for military books, 50, 178, 230, 240. See also Scotland bisones, 214, 215 Black, Jeremy: Rethinking Military History, 11 Blandy, William, 23, 39, 64, 127 The Castle, 24, 26, 73

index Blount, Charles. See Mountjoy, Lord, Charles Blount Blount, Edward, 240 Blundeville, Thomas, 278, 292 A newe booke containing the arte of ryding, and breakinge greate horses (trans. Grisone’s Degli ordini di calvacore), 275 Bodleian Library, 46, 65n22, 69, 97–9 Benefactors List or Register, 97, 98 Bodley, Josias, 98 Bodley, Susan (later Shute), 98 Bodley, Sir Thomas, 46, 61, 97, 98 Bodley, Thomas (son of Sir Thomas Bodley), 98 Bohemian crisis (1618–1620), 60, 80–4 books (on military arts): as alternative to military academies, 23 on art and science of modern war, 45 availability of, 19–20, 36–45, 43–5, 46–51 catalogues of, 43–4, 46–50 continental titles, 36–9, 42, 47–51, 230–43, 240–3, 282 dialogue format for, 26, 232, 360 of the Elizabethan period, 36–45, 57–8 German publishers, 47, 144 Italian publishers, 45, 48, 49–50, 52, 55, 230 Low Countries publishers, 11, 12, 48, 336 non-military use of, 55 vs practical experience, 59–60 public vs private reading, 57 recommended by Cleland, 116 recommended by Harvey, 56 recommended by Lanquet, 59 recommended by Peacham, 119 recommended by Skytte, 227–8 as recruitment advertisements, 24, 371 sold with arms and armour, 46 theoretical vs practical focus of, 57–8 value of, 3–14 vernacular manuals, 40–5 Borman, Tracy, 93 Borough, Admiral William, 27 Bosville, Sir Ralph, 222 Boudous, Robert de, 140 Bourne, William, 322, 356 An Almanacke and Prognostication, 41 The Arte of Shooting in great Ordnaunce, 41, 352, 354, 364

419

Inventions and Devices, 41 A Regiment for the Sea, 41 bows, 264, 267, 350 fire arrows, 348, 350 Boynton, Lindsay, 31, 36, 90, 169–70 Brancaccio, Lelio: Della nuova disciplina & vera aret militare, 49 Breda, 334–7, 340–1 fortifications of, 335, 337 sieges of: (1624–5), 84–5, 101, 103, 314n2, 334, 335–6, 337, 340–1, 349 (1637), 104, 208, 314n2, 362 Breefe Declaration of that which happened aswell within as without Oastend, A, 331 Breen, Adam: Neuwe Nassauwische Waffen-Handlung, 175, 176 brigades, Swedish, 224–5, 226, 227–9, 252 Brill, 78, 100, 121, 123 bringers up (of files), 158, 162, 172, 253 broadsheets, 147–53, 150, 163–4, 189 drill verses in, 189–90 Broehrer, Bruce, 262 Brooke, Henry, Baron, 83, 98, 99, 199 Brooke, William, 327 Browne, William, 93, 100 The Art of Riding the Great Horse, 279 Buchtel, John, 120 Buck, George: The Third University of England, 42, 157–8 Buckingham, duke of, Charles Villiers, 74, 76, 84, 85–8, 131, 201n25 bucklers, 175–6 Buck, Thomas, 182–3 buff coats, 296 bulwarks, 321 Burghley, Robert, 68 Burghley, William Cecil, first Lord, 29, 62, 65, 68, 121 Burt, Nathaniel: Militarie Instructions of the Souldier tried, 310 Busca, Gabriello: Della Architettura militare, 99 Della espugnatione, e difesa delle fortezze, 99 Button, Sir Thomas, 201–2 Bye Plot, 110 Cadiz expeditions: (1596), 77n7, 94, 100, 112n89, 201n25, 233 (1625), 85–7 Caesar, C. Julius, 44–5, 54, 153

420

index

Commentaries (Edmondes’s Observations on), 15, 45, 99–100, 114, 145, 147, 227 Gallic Wars, 45, 240, 241–2, 342 as a skilled horseman, 272, 275 calivers: distribution of, 35 placement of, 250 postures for, 15, 119, 138, 140, 171, 241, 297 replacement by muskets, 90, 257 training with, 141, 179, 253, 258 use by militia, 33, 90, 257 cannon, 350, 353–4, 356–7, 360, 361 Capobianco, Allessandro: Corona e palma militare d’arteglieria, 99 captains: of cavalry troops, 285, 287, 301, 306 of infantry companies, 207–8, 214, 223, 246, 247–8 carabins, 266, 267, 268 Caracciolo, Pasqual, 59 caracole, 297, 301, 309 carbines, 286, 289, 290, 297, 310 Carew, Sir George, earl of Totnes, 77, 83, 201, 233, 238 Carleton, Dudley, 129 Carlton, Charles, 221 Going to the Wars, 9, 191 Carpenter, Stanley: Millitary Leadership in the British Civil Wars, 1642–1651, 10–11 Castiglione, Baldassare, 272 Catalogus universalis, 47–8, 49 Cataneo, Girolamo, 340 Le Capitaine . . . mis en françois, 113 Dell are militare, 52 Most brief tables to know redily howe manye ranckes . . . (trans. H. Grantham), 37 Ragionamisto del fabricare le fortezzo, 52 Catholic League, 81, 82, 131, 218n71, 234 cavallerizzi, 273 cavalry, 261–311 aristocratic links of, 287–8, 306, 311 armour for, 264, 266, 268, 296–7, 298 auxiliary role of, 244, 281 in Bishops’ Wars, 279, 303, 304 books on, 48, 125, 261–2, 279–80 buff coats, 296 captains for, 285, 287, 301, 306 changing tactics of, 309–10 charges, 309

class issues with, 270–4, 306 in continental armies, 266, 282 cost of, 264, 270n25, 306 drill manuals for, 281, 289–90, 303–11 Dutch practices, 301–2, 309 English attitudes to, 16–17, 261–2 in English Civil War, 263, 265, 279, 281, 286–7, 296–7, 301, 302 and the haute école (new horsemanship), 270, 273–67 lances for, 264, 266, 268 in the militia, 90, 125, 183, 284 as mounted infantry, 282, 287, 289 muster masters for, 284–5, 286, 294 at musters, 275, 283, 289, 295, 301 officers for, 287, 289–90, 305, 306, 311 outdated descriptions of, 287 pikemen against, 206 pistols for, 264, 266–7, 282, 286–7, 294, 296, 307, 310 postures for, 280, 283, 290, 299, 308 proportion to infantry, 281 reform for, 285–6, 294–5, 303–4, 311 specific uses for, 297, 310, 346 Swedish practices, 296–7, 309 traditions of, 262, 263–5 training for, 269–70, 289–90, 300–1 treatises on horsemanship and cavalry, 59, 263–70, 275–8 troop size, 301, 305, 308 use in Ireland, 16, 262, 269 veterans in, 303, 306 weapons and accoutrements for, 264, 266, 290, 300, 307 – types: carabins, 266, 267, 268 demilance, 264–5, 266–7, 268, 286, 288 dragoons, 266, 268, 286–7, 288–9, 294–5, 297, 310 Gentlemen Pensioners, 265–6, 276, 278 hargulatiers, 266, 268 light vs heavy, 264–5, 266, 269, 286 men-at-arms (gentlemen-at-arms), 264–5, 266, 269, 287, 288 Cavendish, William: New Method and Extraordinary Invention of Dressing Horses, 279 Caxton, William, 114 trans. Christine de Pisan’s Boke of the Fayt of armes and of Chyualrye, 114, 230

index Cecil, Sir Edward, viscount Wimbledon, 121–6 in Cadiz, 85–6, 87 and Charles I, 74, 131 and the Cleves-Julich crisis, 79, 101, 123–6, 159 in the Council of War, 82, 92, 101, 135, 169 and Prince Henry, 15, 74, 108, 121 and Maurice, 125–6, 133 military books dedicated to, 159, 202 on sword and bucker, 175–6 and Francis Vere, 121–2 and Horace Vere, 81–2, 131 – works: “A Demonstrance of the Cavallrie,” 125–6, 261, 285–6 “The Duties of a private soldier,” 125, 133, 257 Cecil, Richard, 121 Cecil, Robert, 121–2 Cecil, Thomas, earl of Exeter, 89–90, 121, 123 Cervantes: Don Quixote, 371 Cervellino, Enea: Militar disciplina, 48 Chaloner, Thomas (the elder), 108 Chaloner, Sir Thomas (the younger), 108 Charles I: compared with Prince Henry, 107 in English Civil War, 128, 265 and “exact” or “perfect” militia, 76, 92, 128, 173, 178, 210 foreign and military policies, 84–5, 372 limited military interests, 74, 126, 127–8 military books dedicated to, 126, 130–1, 199 Personal Rule period (1629–1640), 177–85 veterans at court of, 74, 131–2 youth and education, 127 Charles VIII, king of France, 127, 230, 275, 317 Charlton, Kenneth, 40 Cheeke, Hatton, 79 chevaux de freis, 345, 356, 368 Chichester, Lord, 83, 201 chivalry, ideal of, 105–6, 373n7 Chorean countermarch, 253 Christian IV, of Denmark, 85 Christine de Pisan: Boke of the fayt of armes and of Chyualrye, 114, 230 Churchyard, Thomas, 23–4, 26, 27, 127

421

A general rehearsall of warres, 24, 25, 28 A Lamentable, and pitifull Description of the wofull warres in Flanders, 24 circumvallation, 336, 337 Clarendon, Edward Hyde, earl of, 193, 194, 242, 304–5 Clarke, Lieutenant: A Table of the postures, 163–4, 182 classical authors: influence on English military writers, 54, 148, 153, 226 military works by, 38, 44–5, 100, 154–5, 219. See also specific authors class issues: with cavalry, 270–4, 306 with recruitment, 183, 246 Clausewitz, Carl von, 244 Clayton, Giles, 162, 250 Approved order of martiall discipline, 38, 44, 66, 249 Cleland, James: Institution of a Young Nobleman, 116 Cleves-Julich crisis (1609), 78–80, 90, 121, 123–6, 127, 333 Clifford, Christopher: The Schoole of Horsemanship, 274, 278 Clifford, George, 3rd earl of Cumberland, 235 Cockson, Thomas, 163–4 Cogswell, Thomas, 132, 172 colonels, 27, 207n58, 287 commands: for cavalry, 290, 305 non-verbal, 146, 244 printed with postures, 166 standardization of, 173 verbal, 148 companies (cavalry), 282 companies (infantry): armour for, 152 captains of, 207–8, 214, 223, 246, 247–8 pike and shot coordination, 227–8 pike to shot ratios, 160, 204, 252, 256 size, 252, 302 Swedish, 227 training of, 160, 171–2, 184, 207–8, 224, 251 unit cohesion, 214, 233, 253, 301 weapons for, 254–9 Compleat Schoole of Warre or the Direct Way of ordering and Exercising of a Foot Company, A (R.M.), 187 complete soldier, the, 1–2, 211, 242, 374 accademies for, 22 complete horseman, 279 genre of military literature for, 16, 214, 223, 231, 239, 294, 339

422

index

Prince Henry as, 74 knowledge of mathematics, 344 knowledge of siegecraft and artillery, 320, 321, 369 Mountjoy as, 71 F. Vere as, 96 R. Williams on, 63. See also soldiers Compton, Spencer, 169n76 Compton, William. See Northampton, earl of, William Compton Coniano, Giovacchino da: Tratado del ordinanze, 69 contravallation, 336 Conway, Sir Edward, 15 and the 1623 Instructions, 170 “A Discourse concerning the Precedent and Present State of the Low Countries,” 132 and Buckingham, 87 and Charles I, 74 in the Council of War, 82, 92, 101, 132, 135, 169 and Prince Henry, 121 military books dedicated to, 161, 202 in the Netherlands, 74, 108 and Panton, 147n24 role in military reforms, 133 as secretary of State, 101, 132 Cooke, Edward, 206n35, 241, 246, 365 The Character of Warre, 9, 216, 218–21 compared to Barriffe, 197, 198, 216, 218 Prospective Glasse of Warre, 9, 198, 216, 220 Córdoba, Gonzalez de, 82 cornets, 283, 306 Cornwallis, Sir Charles, 116 Discourse of the most Illustrious Prince Henry, 120n108 corporals, 184, 188, 247 Correr, Mark Antonio, 121, 127–8 Corte, Claudio, 59, 274n39 Il cavallarizzo, 276 Cotton, Sir Robert, 112, 113n90 Council of War: and the Bohemian crisis, 82–3 Netherlands veterans on, 82–3, 92, 101, 110, 132, 156, 169 and production of Intructions for Musters and Armes, 15, 135–6 countermarching: for cavalry, 282, 284–5, 290, 301, 308

for infantry, 146, 252, 253–4 verse for, 189–90 counter-mines, 347–8 Count Mansfields Directions of Warre (G.W.), 83, 130–1, 174–5, 200 Cripplegate military company and society, 15, 181, 222–3 Cromwell, Oliver, 226, 263, 301, 306, 311 Cromwell, Thomas, Lord, 82 crossbows, 267, 350 Cruso, John, 280, 291–2 Castramentation or the Measuring Out of the Quarters For the Encamping of an Army, 367 Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, 9, 16, 183, 240, 261, 263, 291–301, 309 influence of, 297, 300, 310–11 pages from, 293, 298–9 trans. de Rohan’s The Compleat Captain, 240, 241 trans. du Praissac’s The Art of Warre, 240 cuirassiers, 266, 281–2, 289, 297, 305, 307, 310 weapons and accoutrements for, 282, 286, 288, 295, 298 Cumberland, 3rd earl of, George Clifford, 235 curtain walls, 239, 316, 317, 321, 325, 346, 360 diagrams of, 328 Cust, Richard, 128n134 Dalbier, John, 314 Dallington, Sir Robert: Aphorismes ciuill and militarie amplified with authorities, and exemplified with historie, 126, 130 Dalton, Charles, 122 Dalton, Michael: Countrey Justice, 41 Daniel, Roger, 240 and The Directions for Musters, 182–3, 297 and Instructions for Musters, 304 Mars His Field, or the Exercise of Arms, 175 The Military Discipline, 136, 166, 172 Danvers, Sir Charles, 46, 61 in Ireland, 68, 70 library of, 69 and Southampton, 69 Danvers, Henry, 61 in Ireland, 68, 70 and Southampton, 69

index Danvers, Sir John, 106 Davies, Edward, 203–6 The Art of War and England’s Traynings, 3n6, 167, 203–6, 205, 207 on pikes, 254 on soldiers’ profession, 204, 246, 258 on training and preparation for war, 130, 169–70, 197 Dawson, Gartrude, 179n108 Dawson, John, 179n108 Day, John, 128n134 de Bry, Jean-Theodore, 164 Dee, John, 51–2, 66, 108, 322, 325 de Gheyn, Jacques: Alde’s Military Art attributed to, 166 engravings of postures, 140–1, 144, 153, 155–6, 158, 160, 162, 166, 178 The Exercise of Armes for Calivers, Muskettes, and Pikes, 15, 141–3, 142 cavalry postures in, 280, 283 commands in, 152 editions of, 11, 141, 143, 144 influence of, 119, 144, 163 pike and shot postures in, 163 Soldiers and Officers (prints), 166 Wapenhandlinghe van roers musquetten ende spiessen, 162, 166, 227 commission and publication of, 136, 140–1 editions of, 143, 165 influence of, 119, 136, 155–6, 178 de Gomme, Bernard, 314 de Gray, Thomas: The Compleat Horseman and Expert Ferrier, 279 de la Vega, Luis Gutierrez: A Compendius Treatise, entitled De re militari (trans. Lichfield), 231–2, 233 Della Croce, Flamino: Teatro militarie, 48 Della Valle, Battista: Vallo: libro cotinente appertenentie ad Capitanii, 69 demilance, 264–5, 266–7, 268, 286, 288 Denmark, 80, 85, 226 Denny, Edward, 59 Dent, Arthur, 274 de Refuge, Eustache, seigneur de Précy, 80 Dering, Sir Edward, 174 de Valdés, Francisco: The Serieant Maior (trans. Thorins), 231, 232–3 de Vargas, Don Alonso, 232 de Vere, Mary, 94 Devereux, Robert, second earl of Essex. See Essex, second earl of, Robert Devereux

423

Devereux, Robert, third earl of Essex, 12, 82, 86–7 Devereux, Walter (brother of Essex), 65 Devereux, Walter (father of Essex), 62 Dichfield, Edward, 181, 223 Digby, Kenhelm, 129 Digby, Sir John, 303n108 Digges, Leonard, 322, 323 Digges, Thomas, 52, 54, 55, 66, 322, 323–5, 356 An arithmetical warlike treatise named Stratioticos, 38, 48n78, 52, 114, 323, 324–5 Brief Report of the Militarie Services Done in the Low Countries, 28 A Geometrical Practise, named Pantometria, 323, 327, 344 A Treatise concerning Invasion, 326 Dilich, Wilhlem: Kriegsbuch, darin die alte und newe Militia eigentlich bescrieben, 144 Dillingham, William (publisher), 97 Directions for Musters, The (1638), 182–3, 191 divisional wheeling, 252 Dohna, Christoph, 81 Donogan, Barbara, 241 “Halcyon Days and the Literature of War,” 2, 9 Dorney, John, 363 d’Osma, Prospero, 274n39 doubling (of ranks), 152, 160, 184, 187, 188, 204, 223, 249, 252 for cavalry, 282, 290, 301–2, 308 dragon (firearm), 286, 290 dragoons, 266, 268, 287, 289, 294 in English Civil War, 287, 310 weapons and accoutrements for, 286–7, 288–9, 294–5, 297, 310 Drake, Sir Francis, 56, 86 drill broadsheets, 147–53, 163–4, 310 vs manuals, 164 posted at musters, 150, 152 verse in, 189–90. See also infantry drills and training drill manuals, 135–94 accessibility of, 221 for cavalry, 281, 289–90, 303–11 copied from earlier publications, 186 Dutch influence on, 15 for English Civil War, 185–94 as military secrets, 140 for military societies, 89 in the Netherlands, 119

424

index

small format for, 165 for small groups, 57 textual instruction in, 141, 143 text vs illustrations in, 164 for trained bands, 89, 92 value for lower ranks, 10. See also infantry drills and training drums, 146, 185, 244, 250, 252 Drury, Sir William, 94 du Bellay, Guillaume, 325 Dudley, Robert. See Leicester, earl of, Robert Dudley du Praissac, Seiur: The Art of Warre, 196, 240–1, 342 du Rohan, Henri, Duc: The Compleat Captain, 240, 241–2, 342 Dutch Revolt. See Low Countries wars Eamon, William, 43 Edgehill, battle of, 193, 229, 265, 305, 311 Edict of Nantes, 242 Edmondes, Clement, 98, 99–100, 144 A Few Words to the Trained Bands and Soldiers of London Citie, 147 The Maner of Our Moderne Training, 15, 114, 145–7, 156, 172, 186, 280 Observations upon the five bookes of Caesars Commentaries, 15, 45, 99–100, 114, 145, 147 educational revolution, 39–40, 45 Elizabeth I, queen, 61n108, 123, 273–4n39 and the Low Countries wars, 24, 27–9 Eltis, David, 39, 57–8, 92 Elyot, Thomas: The Boke Named the Governour, 272 Elzevier Book Catalogues, 48–9 encampment, 324–5 engineers, 314, 319, 344 England: isolation of, 5, 8–9, 314, 371 Janus-faced militarism, 372 as a nation of infantry, 262 preparation for invasion, 32, 33, 89, 178, 268, 328 Spain as threat to, 96n48, 209, 234, 326–7 England, Nicholas, 36 English Civil War, 10–11, 16, 50 cavalry, 263, 265, 279, 281, 286–7, 296–7, 301, 302 cavalry manuals for, 304–11 Charles I’s role in, 128, 265

drill manuals for, 3, 147, 180, 185–94, 303–11 fortification and siegecraft, 314, 334, 361–9 gunnery handbooks for, 356 mines and miners, 346–7 officers in, 94, 101n66, 129n134 scarcity of weapons during, 193–4, 257, 305, 361 Swedish vs Dutch military techniques in, 229 training in, 185–94 English Ordnance Board, 320 entrenchments, 209, 330, 331, 338, 345 Errard de Bar-le-duc, Jean, 340 La Fortification demonstree et redicteen art, 49 Essex militia, 197n7, 209–10 Essex, second earl of, Robert Devereux: Azores expedition, 68, 69, 77n7, 94, 108n82, 233 Cadiz expedition, 77n7, 94, 100, 112n89, 201n25, 233 execution, 73 in Ireland, 68, 69–71, 77n7, 197, 199 library, 63, 338 military books dedicated to, 19, 54, 65, 66–7, 68, 70, 255 military circle, 51, 61–71 military studies, 62–3 and Roger Williams, 64–5, 66 Evans, John, 64 Exercise For Yong Artillery Men, The, 186, 187, 305 Exeter, 363 Exeter, earl of, Cecil Thomas, 89–90, 121, 123 facing: for cavalry, 290, 301, 302, 308 for infantry, 146, 160, 204, 223, 252 verse for, 189 Fairfax, Fernando, 94 Fairfax, Thomas (grandson of Lord Fairfax), 94, 97n50, 306, 366 Fairfax, Thomas, 1st Lord Fairfax, 94 falling back, 146 false fires, 34–5, 171, 181, 285 Fanshawe, Sir Henry, 106 Featherstone, Henry, 48, 49 fencing and swordsmanship, 41–2 sword and target, 175–6, 215 Ferretti, Giulio: De re et disciplina Militari aureus tractatus, 97, 114

index Few Words to the Trained Bands and Soldiers of London Citie, 186 Fiennes, William, 187 fiery wheels, 348, 349–50 fifes, 185 files: for cavalry, 282, 290, 301, 302 file leaders, 290, 301 for infantry, 250–1 fire arrows, 348, 350 fireships, 56 fire weapons, 348–50, 354 Firth, C.H., 180, 192, 207n38, 250, 307n119, 334 Cromwell’s Army, 4 Fisher, Thomas: Warlike Directions: Or the Souldiers Practice, 179–80, 280 Fissel, Mark, 81, 174n96, 178, 303–4 Fitzherbert, Anthony: The boke of iustyces of peas, 40 L’office et authoryte de Justyces de Peas, 40 In this book is contayned the offices of sheryffesm bailliffes . . ., 40 Fitzstephen, William, 271 Fitzwilliam, William, 278 flag commands, 146, 244 Flamand, Claude: Le guide des fortifications et condvitte militarie, 114 Fletcher, Anthony, 169 Fletcher, John: The Knight of the Burning Pestle, 140 Flood, John, 48 Flood, Lodowick, 73 Flushing, 24, 28, 29, 60, 78 fog of war, 244 Forestani, Lorenzo di: Practica d’ Arithmatica et Geometria, 97 formations. See motions and formations Fortescue, J.W.: A History of the British Army, 3–4 fortifications: artillery bombardments against, 359 books on, 52 built by soldiers, 325, 345 continental books on, 321 failed strategies for, 340 Prince Henry’s knowledge of, 120–1 at Julich, 121, 124 maps of, 52 of medieval structures, 361–2 mining of, 346–7 role of practical experience in, 325–6 stone vs earthworks, 328 trace italienne, 50, 230, 237, 239, 317–21, 328, 364, 365

425

weaknesses of, 320–1. See also siegecraft Foscarini, Antonio, 107, 121 Fourquevaux, Raimond de Beccarie de Pavie, Sieur de, 234 Instructions for the Warres, 39, 235–7, 237–9 France: Brittany expedition, 64, 68, 270n25 horsemanship in, 273, 276, 278–80 military treatises, 234–9, 240–2 La Rochelle expedition, 85, 87–8 Wars of Religion, 64, 234, 241, 267 Francesco Maria II, Duke of Urbino: Discoursi militari, 69 Frankfurt Book Fair, 46–8, 58 Frederick Henry, Prince of Nassau, 101, 206, 229, 332, 335, 341, 373 Frederick V, of Bohemia, 80, 84 Freitag, Adam, 344 Architectura militaris nova et aucta, oder Newe vermehrte Fortification, 49 Frobisher, Sir Martin, 56 Frontinus, 54, 56, 292 Astututi militari di tutti le formosi capitani, 114 Strategemes, 42, 44, 48, 55–6, 227 Furtenbach, Joseph: Architectura Martialis, 50 Further News of Ostend (1601), 331 gabions, 320, 329, 345 Gage, Henry, 334 trans. Herman’s Siege of Breda, 334 Gallants, to Bohemia, 73 galleries (for sieges), 345 Gardie, Jakob de la, 228 Gardiner, S.R., 132 Garrard, Thomas, 19 Garrard, William, 238 The Arte of Warre, 38, 44, 263 dedication to Essex, 19, 66, 70 illustrations in, 57–8, 160, 249 on siegecraft, 333n49, 338 on training, 250 Gates, Geffrey, 23–4, 31, 39, 127, 212, 232 The defence of militarie profession, 24, 25, 26–7, 30 Geertrudenberg, 333, 337 Gell, Sir John, 196 General Lessley’s Direction and Order For the Exercising of Horse and Foot, 187 Gentlemen Pensioners, 265–6, 276, 278

426

index

gentlemen soldiers. See complete soldier, the geometry, 322, 328, 340, 342 Gerbier, Balthazar, 344 German states: book fairs, 46–7, 58 English foreign policy regarding, 80–3 landsknechts, 140 military academies, 22 military publishing, 47, 144 Morgan’s campaign in, 256 Swedish campaigns in, 48, 225, 229 Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 21–3, 24, 28–9, 56, 64, 77n7, 110 proposal for military academies, 21–2, 236, 272–3, 328n35 Gleason, J.H., 39n49 Glenham, Sir Henry, 242n124 Glenham, Thomas, 242 Gloucester, 193, 363–4, 366 Golding, Arthur: trans. Caesar’s Gallic Wars, 45 González de Leon, Fernando, 12 “Doctors of the Military Discipline,” 6–7 Goring, George, 108, 169n76, 208 Grafton, Anthony, 13, 55, 56, 57 Grandison, Viscount of Limerick, Oliver St. John, 83, 201 Grantham, Henry, 37 Grassi, Giacomo di: Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l’Arme/Giacomo di Grassi his True Arte of Defence, 42, 44 Gregg, Pauline, 128 grenades, 348, 349 Grenville, Fulke, first Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court, 201 Grimeston, Edward: A General Historie of the Netherlands, 53, 139 A True Historie of the Memorable Siege of Ostend, 330, 331, 335, 338 Grisone, Frederico, 59, 300 Degli ordini di calvacore, 275, 278 Grose, Francis: Military Antiquities respecting a history of the English Army, 3n6 Grounds of Military Discipline, The, 135 gunnery. See artillery Gunpowder Plot, 113 gunpowder weaponry: accidents and safety issues with, 190–1, 259 for cavalry, 264, 266, 290 cleaning and maintenance of, 257–8 drill manuals for, 119 false fires, 34, 171, 181, 285, 295 gunpowder, 307, 349, 350, 373

impact on siegecraft, 316 introduction and development of, 45, 257, 267, 316–17, 373–4 for militia, 32–3, 90 standardization of, 90, 257, 290 for trained bands, 35, 152 training and instruction in, 171–2, 257–9 volley firing, 153, 188–9, 227–8. See also artillery; specific weapons (harquebus, musket, etc.) Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, 48, 224–9, 296, 373 Hakluyt, Richard, 110 Hale, George: The Private Schoole of Defence, 42 Hale, J.R., 39, 45, 55, 315, 371 The Art of War and Renaissance England, 5–6 “The Military Education of the Officer Class in Early Modern Europe,” 6 “On a Tudor Parade Ground: The Captain’s Handbook of Henry Barrett, 1562,” 6 “Printing and the Military Culture of Renaissance Venice,” 6, 271n28 half-pike, 256 Hall, Bert, 373 Hammer, Paul, 62, 63n112, 66 Hampden, John, 221 hargulatiers, 266, 268 Hariot, Thomas, 110 Harper, Richard, 187 Harper, Thomas, 120n108, 179n108, 216 harquebus, 32–3, 34–5, 152, 267, 286 harquebusiers: in English Civil War, 287, 310 foot companies of, 232, 236, 238, 250 mounted, 250, 281–2, 289, 297, 305 weapons and accoutrements for, 282, 286–7, 288, 294, 297, 310 Harrington, Peter, 314n2, 339n68 Harrison, John, 322, 353 Harvey, Gabriel, 13, 44n67, 55–7, 56, 66 Haslerig, Arthur, 306 haute école (new horsemanship), 270, 273–6 Hawkins, Richard, 338 Hayward, James, 221 Henderson, Robert, 79

index Henri IV, of France, 64, 69, 74, 79, 106, 240, 242, 340 Henri VIII, of France, 25, 61, 157, 265 use of mercenaries, 270n25, 273, 317 Henri of Navarre, 235 Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, 109 death, 15, 74, 120, 126, 141 education and training, 106–7 library, 15, 74, 106, 114–15 military books dedicated to, 11, 114–15, 141, 147 military circle, 15, 73, 74, 105–26, 108 military training, 109, 114–15n95, 119–20 relationship with James I, 106–7 Henry VIII, 265–6 Herbert, Edward, Lord of Cherbury, 295n97 Herbert, Philip, earl of Montgomery, 332n45 Herbert, William, earl of Pembroke, 123, 332n45 Herefordshire: trained bands in, 89, 284, 285, 297 Herman, Hugo: Siege of Breda, 334–5 Hertogenbosch, s’ (Busse), 313, 314n2, 332, 336, 360, 362 Hexham, Henry, 97, 103–5, 206–9, 335–6 A Historical Relation of the Famous Siege of the Busse, 335 A Journall of the taking in of Venlo, Roermont, Strade, the memorable Siege of Mastricht, 335 The principles of the art militaire, 3, 104, 207–9 on artillery, 356, 357, 359–60 on the complete soldier, 1 on drill and training, 183–4, 208–9 on officers, 208, 247–8 on siegecraft, 336, 339, 345, 346–7, 357, 360 A tongue-combat lately happening betweene two English souldiers, 104 A True and Briefe Relation of The Famous Siege of Breda, 336 trans. Marolois’s Fortification ou Architecture militarie, 336, 343, 365 Hexter, J.H., 39n49 Heydon, Sir Christopher, 103 Heydon, Sir William, 87 Higgenbotham, Richard, 150 Hind, A.M., 120n108

427

Hoby, Sir Edward, 238 trans. Don Bernardino de Mendoza’s Theoriqve and Practise of Warre, 231, 233–4 Hoffmann, Wilhelm: Bericht von den soldaten in drei Theilen, 144 Hole, William, 109, 120 Holles, Sir George, 104 Holles, Sir John, 104, 108 Hondius, Henrik: Description & breve declaration des Regles Generales de la Fortification, 49 Honourable Artillery Company (Bishopsgate), 156–67 drill manuals for, 148–9, 156 leaders of trained bands from, 192–3 military books by members of, 158, 166–7, 179–82, 216 officers of, 147n24, 223 Orders Established, 157n47, 158, 162, 172 printers in, 12, 147, 154, 156, 160 role in military reform, 91, 137, 156, 166–7, 203 status of, 157 use of swords, 176 Vellum Book of, 161, 163n63, 203 horsemanship: English school of, 279 equestrian vs military culture, 276 haute école (new horsemanship), 270, 273–6 non-military skills, 269 training for soldiers, 274, 276–80, 295 treatises on, 59, 270, 275–8 horses: acclimating for battle, 277, 295, 300n103, 308 breeding, 265, 274n39 colour, 307 kept in reserve, 264 provided by gentry and clergy, 283 social devaluation of, 262 Hortinus, Julius Roscius: Elogia militaria, 97, 98 Houlding, J.A.: Fit for Service, 2 Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel, 106 Hugenots, 234, 242 Hugo, Herman: De militia equestri antiqua et nova ad regem Philippum IV, 50 humanism, 98, 138, 243, 292 Hundred Years’ War, 239 Hunton, Ronald, 192 illustrations (in military books): engraving techniques, 249–50

428

index

of entrenchments, 330, 331 of fortifications, 318, 320, 328, 335, 342, 368 of gun batteries, 320 for illiterate soldiers, 164 of mines, 346 of motions and formations, 177, 184, 208, 249–50, 252, 297, 308–9 of pike and shot postures, 167 by Cockson, 164 by Cruso, 299 by Daniel, 136, 166, 283 by de Gheyn, 140–1, 144, 153, 155–6, 158, 160, 162, 166, 178 by Dilich, 144 by Hoffmann, 144 of plats, 320, 321 woodcuts, 250 infantry: analytical treatises on, 16, 243–8 as apprenticeship for young aristocrats, 236–7 armour for, 152, 255, 256, 258 captains for, 207–8, 214, 223, 246, 247–8 cavalry as auxiliary to, 244, 281 cavalry as mounted infantry, 282, 287, 289 core of trained men in, 146, 158–9 Dutch formations and tactics, 4, 138, 229, 251 England as a nation of, 262 formations depicted in military books, 37, 160 pike-to-shot ratios, 160, 204, 252, 256 preparation and action, 243 proportion to cavalry, 281 Swedish practices, 224–9, 251 tactics for, 243–8. See also motions and formations; postures, pike and shot infantry drills and training: accidents during, 190–1, 259 in armour, 255 Barriffe’s instructions for, 221–9, 251 drills vs battle conditions, 146–7, 160, 224 for English Civil War, 185–94 English tradition of, 138, 140 for English troops in Ireland, 76 general precepts for, 245 Gilbert’s curriculum for, 22 Hexham’s instructions for, 207–8

impact of Prince Henry’s death on, 141 on local vs national levels, 172 of the militia, 32–3 modern, 92 with music, 185 in Netherlands army, 138 Panton’s four principles of, 148 for pressed or conscripted soldiers, 31, 83–5, 88, 174, 303 from simple to complex manoeuvres, 233, 234, 250 standardization of, 136, 138, 170, 173 for trained bands, 33–6 verses for, 189–90 veterans for, 91–2. See also drill broadsheets; drill manuals; postures, pike and shot Innes, George: A Militarie Rudiment, 135 Instructions for Musters and Armes: 1623 edition, 15–16, 92, 135–7, 155–6, 167–77, 168, 282, 286, 304 1625 edition, 137, 173 1631 edition, 137, 178–9, 283, 304 availability of, 174, 179, 221 and Bingham’s Exercise of the English, 155–6, 170, 178, 282, 304 on cavalry, 282–3, 286, 288, 294, 297 vs Directions for Musters (1638), 183 impact of, 15–16, 135–7, 167–77 role in standardization of training, 170–1 Ireland: cavalry used in, 16, 262, 269 English troops in, 14, 75–7, 165, 197 Essex’s campaign in, 68, 69–71, 77n7, 197, 199 Irish Rebellion, 213 military books in, 77 mines used in, 346 Nine Years’ War, 16, 75–6 Ireton, Henry, 306 Islip, Adam, 147, 156, 158 Israel, Jonathan, 329 Italian states: Charles VIII’s invasion of, 127, 230, 275, 317 horsemanship, 273, 278–80 military academies, 22 military publishing, 45, 48, 49–50, 52, 55, 230 Ive, Paul, 237, 238, 340 The Practise of Fortification, 113n92, 237, 317, 327–8

index James I: ascension of, 123 Basilikon Doron, 106–7 death of, 84, 132 and Prince Henry, 106–7 military policies of, 75, 77–8, 80, 81–2, 111, 131, 372 and the Palatinate, 60, 81–2, 203 and war with Spain, 71, 78, 203 Janissaries, 258 Janssen, André, 143, 165 Jardine, Lisa, and Anthony Grafton, 57 “How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy,” 13, 55, 56 Jardine, Lisa, and William Sherman: “Pragmatic Readers,” 13 Jenner, Thomas, 186 John II of Nassau-Dillemburg, 136, 137, 140, 144 Johnson, John, 336 Jolles, Sir John, 129 Jones, Inigo, 117 Jones, William, 225 Kalmar War, 80, 85 Kellie, Sir Thomas: Pallas Armata, 3, 200, 226 Kelsey, Sean, 209 Kingston, John, 36 Kleinschmidt, Harald, 138 knights, 271 Knollys, Francis, 28 Lacedamonian countermarch, 253 Lambarde, William: Eirenarcha, 40–1 lancers, 288, 296 lances, 264, 266, 268, 287, 296 Langelüddecke, Henrik, 178–9 Langsam, Geoffrey, 39 Martial Books and Tudor Verse, 4–5 La Noue, Francois de, 60 The Politike and Militarie Discovres, 39, 54, 65, 116, 228, 234, 235–7, 239 La Noue, Pierre de, 295 La Cavallerie françoise et Italienne, 292 Lanquet, Hubert, 58–60 Lanterius, Jacob: De Forticacione, 52 Lantieri, Giacomo: Dvo Libri . . . del modo di fare le fortificationi, 321 leadership (military): changes with military revolution, 21 sovereign vs military patrons, 60–1 Lechler, Martin, 47 Leicester, earl of, Robert Dudley, 53, 274n39

429

Lawes and ordinances militarie, 175 military circle of, 51–61, 322 Netherlands expedition, 27–9, 51, 61, 93, 262, 270n25, 326 Leipzig, 47, 48 Leo the Issurian, 45, 226 Levy, J.H., 40n49 Leysing, Henry, 344 Theatre of the Instruments, 344 libraries, private, 12–13, 15, 46 of Charles Danvers, 69 of John Dee (Bibliotheca Mortlacensis), 52, 325 of Essex, 63, 338 of Gabriel Harvey, 55–6 of Prince Henry, 15, 74, 106, 114–15 of Leicester, 51 of Samuel Molyneux, 77n8 of Henry Percy, 113 of Walter Ralegh, 13, 112 of Francis Vere, 97–8 Lichfield, Nicholas: trans. Luis Gutierrez de la Vega’s A Compendius Treatise, 231–2 lieutenants: of cavalry, 287 Lindsey, earl of, 229 Lingham, John, 30–1 Lipsius, Justus, 292 De Militia Romana, 227–8 History of Xenophon, 227 Lisle, Laurence, 154 Lispius, Justus, 138 Lithglow, William, 193 Livy, 54 Lodewijk, William, of Nassau, 136, 137, 253 Loeber, Rolf, 77 London: Artillery Garden, 137, 147, 156, 161, 181, 221 artillery gardens and military yards, 15, 373 Civil War earthworks, 362 Finsbury Fields, 193 military societies, 91 publishers, 12 trained bands in, 192–3, 256, 362 London Artillery Company, 83, 185, 197n7, 222–3 Londoño, Don Sancho de, 232–3 Discurso sobre la forma de reducir la disciplina militar a mejor y antiguo estado, 228 Long, Henry (of Wiltshire), 69

430

index

Lorini, Buonaiuto: Delle Fortificationi, 99, 113 Low Countries wars (Dutch Revolt): cavalry in, 262, 270n25 Elizabeth I’s policy in, 24, 27–9 English entry into, 14, 23–31, 38, 51 and English military culture, 27, 38 English soldiers in, 14, 24–7, 30, 52, 64, 198n13 fortifications and siegecraft in, 61, 208, 326, 328–38 Prince Henry’s contact with, 108, 110 infantry developments during, 136, 137–56 and market for military books, 12, 38–9 nationalities of soldiers in, 141 policy of James I in, 78 religious ideology of volunteers, 30 as a “school” or “academy” of war, 137, 330–1, 337 and trained bands, 32 Lownes, Matthew, 114, 147 Lucar, Cyprian: Three bookes of Colloquies concerning the Arte of Shooting (trans. of Tartaglia’s Quesiti, et inventioni diverse), 114, 230, 322, 352–3 Lumley, John, Lord, 114 Lupicini, Antonio: Architettura militare, 97 Lupton, Donald: A Warre-like Treatise of the Pike, 197n6, 255–6 Lutz, Tobias, 47 Maastricht, 208, 337, 362 Mabbe, Ralph, 154, 156, 179n108, 216 MacCaffrey, Wallace, 40 Macedonian countermarch, 253 maces, 287 Machievelli, Niccolò, 54, 59, 272 Art of warre, 50, 56, 153, 228 translations of, 36–7, 44, 230 Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, 120, 313 The Prince, 120 MacWilliam Henry, 278 Magdeburg, 313, 314n2 Maggi, Girolamo: Della fortificatione delle citta, 69, 321 Malthus, Francis: A Treatise of Artificial Fireworks, 339, 348–50 manège, 273, 276 Manning, Roger, 10, 60, 61, 81n16, 372 Mansell, Sir Robert, 201, 202n27 Mansfield, Count Ernst von, 83–4, 226

Count Mansfields Directions of Warre, 83, 174–5 maps: of Breda, 335 of Julich, 121, 123 of Ostend, 330, 331, 338 Marcelline, George: Vox Militis, 84 Markham, C.R., 93, 100, 103, 104n69 Markham, Francis, 131, 165, 197, 198–9 Five Decades of Epistles of Warre, 70, 197, 199–200, 300 on cavalry, 287–8 on gunpowder weapons, 258 on pikemen, 255 on siegecraft, 315 on soldiers’ profession, 246 “Military Discipline” (attrib.), 165–6 Markham, Gervase, 62, 70, 195, 200–3 Cavelarice or the English Horseman, 278, 279 A Discourse on Horsemanship, 278 A Faithful Farrier, 278 Honour in his perfection, 71, 94 Muster Master, 177 A Schoole for young souldiers, 150–3, 151, 164, 177, 200, 202 The Souldier’s Accidence, 3n6, 9, 101, 150, 176–7, 200–2, 288–91, 300 The Souldier’s Exercise, 9, 201 The Souldier’s Grammar, 9, 150, 177, 200–2, 290–1, 300 Markham, Robert, 199 Marlowe, Christopher: Tamburlaine, 238 Marolois, Samuel, 342 Fortification ou Architecture militarie, 49, 336, 343, 365 Marozzo, Achille: Opera nova dell’ Arte dell armi, 42, 52 Marshall, Alan, 226 Marshall, William, 120n108 martial skills: individual vs corporate, 373–4 literature on, 7–8 Martin, Captain William, 30 Martin, Robert, 50 masonry, 365, 366 Massey, Edward, 363 mathematics, 322–6 Italian books on, 45 link with military theory, 58, 116, 117 mathematical warrior, 315 renaissance in, 322 for siege warfare, 119, 322–6, 342, 344

index soldiers’ knowledge of, 159, 328n35, 342 Mathew de Mantua, 273n39 Matravers, Lord, 241 Maunsell, Andrew, 43–4 Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange, 139 and Edward Cecil, 125–6, 133 and Cleves-Julich crisis, 79–80, 101 and Prince Henry, 106, 119–20, 129 infantry methods, 88, 119, 175, 250, 253 in the Netherlands, 60, 74, 297 role in military reform, 103, 132–4, 136–56, 167, 373 siege and fortification tactics, 328–9, 332–4, 345 and Horace Vere, 101, 105 McKerrow, R.B., 165 McKetterick, David, 166n72 Melzo, Lodovico, 292, 305 Regole Militari sopra il governo e servitio particolare della cavalleria, 48, 49, 240, 282 men-at-arms (gentlemen-at-arms), 264–5, 266, 269, 287, 288 Mendoza, Don Bernardino de: Theoriqve and Practise of Warre (trans. Hoby), 231, 233–4, 235 Merchant Taylor’s Hall, 185 Middle Ages: battles, 239 chivalric ideals, 106, 373n7 equestrian traditions, 263–5, 271–2, 288 fortifications, 317, 361–2 swordsmanship traditions, 41–2 middle-men, 158, 171–2, 269, 289 Middlesex militia and company, 91, 216, 218–19 Mildmay, Walter, 28 military academy: Gilbert’s proposal for, 21–2, 236, 272–3, 328n35 Prince Henry’s court as, 116 military circles, 51–71, 73–134 of Essex, 51, 61–71 of Prince Henry, 73, 74, 105–26 kinship ties in, 94 of Leicester, 51–61, 322 military patronage, 11, 14–15, 19, 60–1, 94, 96 role of, 60–1 scholars in, 19, 51, 66, 322 of Francis Vere, 15, 51, 67, 73, 93–100 of Horace Vere, 15, 73, 101–5

431

military culture: development of, 23, 27, 38 and equestrian culture, 276 intellectualization of warfare, 21 militarization of English society, 211 trans-national military ideas, 8 Military Discipline, The, 186–7 military revolution (early modern), 5, 20–1, 43, 373 military societies, 88–9, 91–2 military theory and practice, 57–60 militia: analytical treatises for, 247 captains of, 247–8 cavalry in, 90, 125, 183, 284 chain of command in, 184 class-based choice of men for, 183 “exact” or “perfect,” 76, 92, 128, 173, 178, 210, 291 and the militarization of society, 211 musters and training of, 32–6, 89–90, 136, 170, 173–4 neglect of, 89, 372 reform of, 31–6, 90, 133 use to quell riots and unrest, 219 veterans in, 91–2, 173–4 weapons used by, 32–3, 90, 183n125, 257 militia law (1558), 89 Militia Ordinance (1642), 188 militia “vacation” (1604–1612), 89, 144, 150 Miller, Amos, 63 mines and miners, 346–8 model soldiers, 129 Molin, Nicolo, 115n96 Molyneux, Samuel, 77 Mommarty, John, 213 Monluc, Blaise, siegnieur de: Commentaries, 116 Monro, Robert, 258 “An Abridgement of Exercise for the Young Souldier,” 227 Monro His Expedition With The Worthy Scots Regiment, 225–9 Montaigne, M.: Essays, 272 Mora, Domenico: Il Soldato, 69 Morgan, Sir Charles, 85, 256 Morgan, Captain Thomas, 24, 28–9, 94, 197, 197n6 Morysine, Richard: trans. Frontinus’s Stratagemes, 42 Mosquera, Christoval de: Commentario de Disciplina Militar, 69 motions and formations:

432

index

– cavalry, 282, 284–5, 290–1, 307 caracole, 297 diagrams of, 297, 308–9 infantry texts used for, 294 outdated, 302 rombe, 281, 291, 302, 309 square, 302 wedge, 291, 302, 309 – infantry (See also infantry drills and training) ancient background of, 249 Barriffe’s instructions for, 223–4 in battle, 224 core of trained men for, 146, 158–9 Davies’s instructions for, 204–7 diagrams of, 177, 184, 207, 208, 249–50, 252 files, 250–1 five vowels, 249–54 outdated, 202, 223–4, 238, 281 ranks, 158–9, 228, 249–50, 251 simple to complex manoeuvres, 233, 234, 250 snail and circular formations, 250 Swedish formations, 224–9 verses for, 189–90 Mountjoy, Lord, Charles Blount, 61, 67–8, 70–1, 73, 165, 197 Murray, Thomas, 129 Murtagh, H., 214n58 musketeers: commands for, 152, 162 coordination with pikemen, 228 physical characteristics of, 152, 258 rank sizes, 228 training of, 206, 258–9 volley firing, 188–9, 227, 228, 253 muskets: bastard musket, 258 for cavalry, 294, 310 distribution of, 152, 258 instructions for, 189 for militia, 33, 90 vs pikes, 257 pike-to-shot ratios, 160, 204, 252, 256 prevalence of, 257 rests for, 258 used with half-pikes, 256. See also postures, pike and shot muster masters: for cavalry training, 284–5, 286, 294 drill manuals for, 92, 152, 171, 178, 294 for trained bands and militia, 33, 36, 179, 248

training practises of, 171, 179, 251 veterans as, 91, 159 Naunton, Robert, 93 Fragmenta regalia or, observations on the late Queen Elizabeth, 67 navigation manuals, 41 Neade, William: Double-armed Man, 48, 254 Neale, Captain Walter, 223 Neuberg, duke of, 79 Newark: fortification of, 314, 363 Newburn, Battle of, 303, 304n108 Newcastle, earl of, 188, 263 “new discipline,” 373 New Model Army, 361, 366 Newton, Sir Adam, 106, 117, 121 Niccols, Richard, 130 Londons Artillery, 129 Nieuwpoort, battle of: cavalry in, 17, 262 Dutch military methods in, 144, 146, 208, 333 Edmondes’s account of, 99–100, 144, 146–7 Ogle’s account of, 97, 122 Nine Years’ War, 16, 75–6 Norfolk, lord lieutenant of, 89 Norris, Sir John, 64, 65, 232 in Brittany, 64, 108, 270n25 and Thomas Digges, 52, 54 in the Netherlands, 68, 94, 96n48 Northampton, earl of, William Compton, 124 Ludlow Castle “school of war,” 170, 197n7, 284 role in militia and military reform, 89, 135, 169, 172, 203 Northern spears, 267–8 Norton, Bonham, 136 Norton, Robert, 354, 356–60 The Gunner, 318, 322, 339, 348, 353n113, 356, 358–9 Of the Art of Great Artillery, 322, 356, 364 Norwood, Robert: Fortification or Architecture Militar, 342, 362 Oakeshott, Walter: “Sir Walter Ralegh’s Library,” 13 O’Connell, Sheila, 150 officers: aristocracy as, 244, 246, 306 behaviour of, 247 for cavalry, 285, 287, 289–90, 295, 300, 301, 305, 306

index duties and responsibilities of, 208–9, 214, 295, 300, 373 education of, 39n49, 246 in the English Civil War, 94, 101n66, 129n134 hierarchical chain of command, 60–1, 246, 281 infantry captains, 207–8, 214, 223, 246, 247–8 selection of, 208–9, 215, 248 in Swedish companies, 227 Ogle, Sir John, 74, 79–80, 119, 201 account of Nieuwpoort, 97, 122 in Council of War, 82, 92, 101, 132 military salon, 117, 118, 119 Okes, John, 156 Okes, Nicholas, 156, 160–1 Okes, William, 156 O’Neill, Captain Daniel, 303n108 O’Neill, Hugh, earl of Tyrone, 70 Onosander: General Captain (trans. Whitehorne), 44 Oppugnation and fierce siege of Ostend, The, 331 order and discipline: in battle, 159 and the five vowels, 249–54 general precepts of organization, 244–5 hierarchical chain of command, 60–1, 246, 281 importance of, 65, 138, 233, 244 during marches, 231, 233 rules and regulations, 244–5 unit cohesion, 214, 233, 253, 301 Orders Established, Condiscended, And Agreed Vnto, 157n47, 158, 162 ordnance: English Ordnance Board, 320 master of, 351, 356 requirements, 360 Ordonances and instructions for musters, 35–6 Orlers, Jan: Den Nassuschen Lauren-crans/ The Triumphs of Nassau, 332n45 Ostend, siege of, 313, 314n2, 329–32, 330 Edward Cecil at, 122 Henry Hexham at, 97, 335, 360 Francis Vere at, 74, 78, 96n48, 97, 329–30 Oxford, 314, 334 Oxford, 18th earl of, Henry de Vere, 82 Palatinate and Bohemian crisis, 60, 71, 80–4, 101, 131, 203 palisades, 329, 356

433

Palma, 121 Panton, Captain Edward, 129, 159, 221 A Table of the Art Military, 147–50, 149, 153, 164 “paper” or “booke” soldiers, 52, 68, 96, 154, 200 Papillon, David: A Practical Abstract of the Arts of Fortification, 364, 366–7 Parker, Geoffrey, 77, 214 The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 20n1 The Military Revolution, 20n1 Parker, Sir Nicholas, 122 Parliamentry forces. See English Civil War Parma, duke of, 28, 65, 96n48, 326 Passe, Simon van de, 120n108 Patrizi, Francesco: Nuova Geometria, 97 Paralleli Militari, 113 patronage, military. See military circles Peacham, Henry, 116–17 The Complete Gentleman, 116, 117, 273 Graphice, 117 Minerva Britannia, 117 Pennington, Isaac, 362 Percy, Algernon, 10th earl of Northumberland, 221–2 Percy, Henry, 9th earl of Northumberland, 13, 46, 98, 99, 113 Perret, Jacques: Architectura et Perspectiva des fortifications & Artifices, 113 personal defence, 41–2 Personal Rule period (1629–1640), 177–85 petards, 348, 354, 366 petronels, 268, 290 Phett, Phineas, 124 Philip II, king of Spain, 28, 55–6 Philip III, king of Spain, 233 Philip, Duke of Cleves: Instruction de guerre, 52 pikemen: armour for, 152, 255 commands for, 152 coordination with shot, 228 drill manuals for, 175 files for, 250 physical characteristics of, 152, 255 placement of, 252 in Swedish companies, 227 use against cavalry, 206 pikes, 152, 254–7 half-pike, 256 Prince Henry’s training with, 109, 114–15n95, 119–20

434

index

pioneers, 61, 325, 333, 345, 362, 363, 364 pistols, 298 for cavalry, 264, 266–7, 282, 286–7, 294, 296, 307, 310 postures for, 290, 297, 301 Pluvinel, Antoine de, 295 Instructions du Roy (de France) en l’exercice de monter a Cheval, 292 Poland, 93, 228 pole axes, 307 Polyaenus, 45 Polybius, 45 Pompey, 272 Ponsonby, William, 338 Porcia, Jacopo di: The preceptes of warre, 230 Portenbach, Johann George, 47 Porter, Stephen, 349 postures, pike and shot: Barriffe’s discussion of, 181 for calivers, 15, 119, 138, 140, 171, 241, 297 for carbines, 297 for cavalry, 280, 283, 290, 299, 308 commands printed with, 166 in Directions for Musters, 183 engravings of, 167 by Cockson, 164 by Cruso, 299 by Daniel, 136, 166, 283 by de Gheyn, 140–1, 144, 153, 155–6, 158, 160, 162, 166, 178 by Dilich, 144 by Hoffmann, 144 musical accompaniment for, 185 natural movements for, 184–5 for pistols, 290, 297, 301 practise of, 224 safety issues, 259. See also infantry drills and training Poynter, F.N.L., 153 Poyntz, Sydenham, 337, 349 Prince Royal (ship), 124 Privy Council: orders for cavalry, 283 orders for militia and trained bands, 32–6, 89–90 production of Instructions for Musters and Armes, 15, 136, 156, 167–9, 173 Proctor, Thomas: Of the knowledge and conducte of warres, 38 professions and professionals: and the educational revolution, 39–40 manuals written for, 40–5

role in siegecraft, 315, 319–20, 351 standardization of knowledge, 40–1 Purfoot, Thomas, 163 pyrotechnics, 319, 339 Raber, Karen, 274n41 Rab, Georg, 47 Radcliffe, Robert, earl of Sussex, 209 Ralegh, Walter: and Prince Henry, 108, 110–13 and Leicester, 61n108 library of, 13, 112 and Northumberland, 13, 113 and Francis Vere, 94 – works: Arguments for War, 111–12 Of the Art of War by Sea, 111 A Discourse Touching a War with Spain, 111 History of the World, 112 Observations and Notes Concerning the Royal Navy and Sea-Service, 111 Ramelli, Agostino: Mechanick Secrets, 344 ranks, 228, 245–6, 249, 251–2, 282, 290 Ransome, David, 123 Rantzau, Heinrich: Commentarius Bellicus, 114 Raynsford, John: The Yong Souldier, 186, 187–8 reading: public vs private, 57 Recorde, Robert: The Ground of Arts, 322, 323 The Pathway to Knowledge (1551), 322 The Whetstones of Wit, 322 recruitment: books as advertisements for, 24, 371 of cavalry, 283, 303, 304 during the Civil War, 191 class issues in, 183, 246 Fourquevaux’s instructions for, 238 of officers, 208–9, 215 pressing and conscription, 31, 83–5, 88, 174, 303 reform, military: for the cavalry, 263, 285–6, 294–5, 303–4, 311 and the military revolution, 5, 20–1, 43 for the militia, 31–6, 90, 133 role of Honourable Artillery Company in, 91, 137, 156, 166–7 role of Maurice in, 103, 132–4, 136–56, 167, 373 role of scholars in, 66 Swedish formations and tactics, 224–9 trans-national cross-currents in, 140

index Reid, S.: All the King’s Armies, 11 rhombe, 281, 291, 302, 309 Rich, Barnabe, 31, 39, 232 Allarme to England, 84, 114 The Fruites of Long Experience, 115 A Path-Way to Military Practise, 31 A Souldier’s Wishe to Britons Welfare, 114–15 Rich, Henry, earl of Holland, 1, 104 Rich, Robert, earl of Warwick, 209–10 Ridiard, William, 163 Robertellus, 226 Roberts, Captain Lewes, 156–7 Robertson, Humphrey, 338 Rocca, Bernadino: De’ discorsi di Guerra, 112 Impress, stratagemi, et errori militari, 69 Rojas, Cristobal de: Teorica et practica de fortificacio, 112 rondassiers, 175 Roseworme, Captain, 314 Rothenburg, Gunther, 138 Rouen, 65 round targets, 175–6 Royalist army. See English Civil War Roy, Ian, 361 Rupert, Prince, 193, 229, 263, 297, 304, 306, 311 Ruscelli, Girolamo: Precetti della militia moderna, 52, 69, 325 Russell, Sir William, 61 Ruthven, Lord Patrick, 229, 306 Sackville, Anne, 242n124 Sackville, Lord Edward, earl of Dorset, 82, 218 Sackville, Robert, 218n71 Sackville, Thomas, first Baron Buckhurst, first earl of Dorset, 218–19n71 Sadler, John: trans. The Four Books of Flavius Vegetius Renatus, 38, 44 safety issues: for cavalry, 307 for incendiary weapons, 349, 354 for pike and shot postures, 259 Salazaar, Diego: Tratado de re militari, 97 Salisbury, earl of, 123, 128 sallies, 345–6 Santbech, Daniel, 325 Sarpi, Paolo: La simmitria dell’ ottima fortificazione regolare, 49 Saunders, Henry, 181, 223 Savile, Henry, 66

435

Savolio, Vincentio: Vincentio Saviolo his Practise in two Bookes, 42, 44 Scarlett, Thomas, 42 scholars: in military circles, 19, 51, 322 role in military reform, 66 school(s) of war: and the Bodleian Library, 99n62 Honourable Artillery Company as, 167 military societies as, 91 Northampton’s Ludlow Castle as, 170, 197n7, 284 war experience as, 57, 137, 330–1, 337 Scipio Amiratus, 292 sconces, 327, 329, 335, 340, 345 for English Civil War, 362, 363 Scotland, 75, 225, 267 Anglo-Scottish treaty (1586), 75. See also Bishops’ Wars Scott, H.M., 373 Scott, Sir John, 65, 100 Scriverio, Peter: trans. Frontius’s Strategemes, 48 trans. Vegetius’s De re militarie, 48 Scudamore, John, 297 “Rules of Order of the Horse Troope,” 284–5 secretaries, 12–13, 55–7 Seldon, John: The Duello Or Single Combat, 42 Seres, William, 44 sergeant-majors, 233 sergeants: behaviour of, 247 drill manuals for, 92, 188–9 training responsibilities of, 91–2, 184, 207, 214, 248, 251 Shakespeare, William: Henry V, 313 Sherman, William, 13, 52 Short, Peter, 145 shot: armour for, 152, 258 files for, 250 pike-to-shot ratios, 160, 204, 252, 256 sleeves of, 204, 252. See also specific weapons Showalter, Dennis, 271 Shute, William: Triumphs of Nassau, 98, 332n45, 338 Sidney, Henry, 77n7 Sidney, Sir Philip, 28, 58–60, 61, 201n21, 231 Defence of Poesie, 59 Sidney, Robert, Lord Lisle and earl of Leicester, 58–9, 60, 61, 82

436

index

siegecraft, 313–69 anatomy of, 341–2 Dutch methods for, 322–4, 328–9, 332, 341, 345 in English Civil War, 314, 334, 361–9 Prince Henry’s knowledge of, 120–1 in Low Countries wars, 61, 208, 326, 328–38 mathematics for, 119, 323, 342 maxims and rules of, 339, 345 professionals for, 314, 315, 319, 344 soldiers’ knowledge of, 320, 321, 333–4, 369 terminology of, 333–4, 342 treatises on, 336–44. See also artillery; fortifications siege trains, 360 Silver, George: Paradoxes of Defence, 42 Simoni, Anna: “A Present for a Prince,” 11–12, 141 “Soldier’s Tales,” 12 Skippon, Philip, 97n50, 101n66, 192–3, 223, 241, 337, 362 skirmishing, 16, 190, 224, 285 Skytte, Johann, 227–8 Smith, Thomas, 356 The Art of Gunnery, 96n47, 351, 353, 355, 357, 364 Certain Additions to the Booke of Gunnery, 96n47, 353–4 The Complete Souldier, 339, 354 Smythe, Sir John, 263, 267 Certain Discourses concerning the formes and effects of divers sorts of weapons, 44, 113, 263 Instructions, obseruations, and orders mylitarie, 44, 114, 263 Snow, Vernon: “Inventory of the Lord General’s Library, 1646,” 12 soldiers: aristocratic families of, 71 as authors, 9, 12, 63–6, 372 common, 204, 227 fortifications built by, 325, 333, 345 group reading and discussion, 57 mathematical knowledge for, 119, 159, 323, 328n35, 342, 344 model soldiers, 129 “paper” or “booke,” 52, 68, 96, 154, 200 separation from technicians, 319–20, 351 siegecraft and artillery knowledge for, 320, 321, 333–4, 351, 356, 369 traits of, 246

use of academic terminology, 57. See also complete soldier, the; veterans Southampton, earl of, Henry Wriothesley, 46, 61, 68, 69, 70, 72, 108 Spain: Anglo-Spanish conflicts, 4–5, 71, 84, 131, 175–6, 203, 291, 317 Armada (1588), 110 English soldiers in army of, 197, 203, 213–14, 217, 332 Irish soldiers in army of, 213 Italian soldiers in army of, 12 in Low Countries wars, 24–5, 27–9 military techniques and practices, 175–6, 213–16, 231–4 military theorists, 7 possible invasion of England, 96n48, 209, 234, 326–7 Spanish soldiers in Ireland, 77 tercios, 29, 32, 137, 176, 227, 326 Sparke, Michael, 186 Spaulding, Thomas, 235n112 Spinola, Ambrosio, 96, 337 at Breda, 101, 334, 335, 340–1 and the Cleves-Julich crisis, 79–80, 82, 90 sprezzatura, 374 squadrons, Swedish, 227 standardization: for cavalry training, 290 of gunpowder weaponry, 90, 257, 290 for infantry training, 136, 138, 170, 173 and the military revolution, 43 national variation in, 215–16 of professional knowledge, 40–1 role of 1623 Instructions, 170–1 rules for movement of armies, 243, 244–5 trans-national vocabulary of war, 45 statesmen: secretaries, 12–13, 55–7 use of military books, 2, 12 St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, 30 Steenbergen, 332 Stern, V.F., 55, 56, 57 Stevin, Simon, 344 “The Building of forts,” 113n92 Castrametatio, Dat is Legermeting, 49 De Sterctenbouwing, 333n47 Stone, Nicholas, 367 Enchiridion of Fortification, 364, 365–6, 368 Storrs, Christopher, 373 Stow, John, 271 stradiots, 266

index Strong, Roy, 110, 120 Styward, Thomas, 257 The Pathwaie to Martiall Discipline, 38, 44, 196, 249 Suckling, Sir John, 304n108 Sutcliffe, Matthew, 70, 140 The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes, 38, 57–8, 66–7, 261 ancient precepts in, 195n3, 238 on armour, 266 on books, 54–5 on cavalry, 263, 268, 270, 272 illustrations in, 57 Sutton, Sir John, 74 Sweden: Kalmar War, 80, 85 military innovations, 224–9, 230, 251, 252, 296–7, 309 Swedish Intelligencer, 225–6, 229 Swetnam, Joseph: The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence, 42 swords, 298 for cavalry, 264, 266, 286–7, 296–7, 307, 310 English swordsmen, 10 fencing, 41–2 short, 175–6, 215, 258 and target, 175–6, 215 Tacticus, 45 The end of Nero and beginning of Galba Fower (trans. Savile), 66 targiëdragers, 175 Tartaglia, Niccolò, 322, 325 Quesiti, et inventioni diverse (trans. Lucar as Three bookes of Colloquies concerning the Arte of Shooting in great and small peeces of artillerie), 114, 230, 322, 352–3 technological change, 20, 225, 316–21, 371, 373 separation of soldiers and technicians, 319–20, 351 tercios, 29, 32, 137, 176, 227, 326 terminology: academic, 57 of siegecraft, 333–4, 342 Thessalian rhombe, 302 Theti, Carlo: Discorsi di Fortificationi, 48, 52 Thirsk, Joan, 280 Thirty Years War: impact on England, 76, 81, 92, 336, 372 and market for military books, 49–50, 196, 203, 230, 240 Swedish innovations in, 230 veterans of, 192

437

Thomason, George, 48, 50 Thorins, John: trans. de Valdés’s Serieant Maior, 231, 232–3 Three Kingdoms, wars of the, 9–11, 310, 316, 346 Tighe, William, 266 Tilly, Count von, 82, 85, 314n2 tilts and tilting, 269, 271, 273, 276, 277, 287 tournaments, 269, 271, 273 Tournon, Captain A.M. de, 129 trace italienne fortifications, 50, 230, 237, 239, 317–21, 328, 364, 365 trained bands: 1623 Instructions printed for, 167 cavalry, 16 commanders of, 33, 246 drill manuals for, 89, 92 in Herefordshire, 89, 284, 285, 297 impact of printed books on, 88–90 introduction of, 5, 32, 88–9 in London, 192–3, 256, 362 recruitment for, 33 training for, 4, 33–6 weapons for, 35, 152 Treadwell, Victor, 76 Treaty of Dortmund (1609), 78 Treaty of London (1604), 5, 73, 115n96, 127, 147 Treaty of Nonsuch (1585), 28, 270n25 Trim, David, 101n66, 105 troop (of cavalry), 301, 305, 308 True Declaration and Just Commendation of . . . Issac Pennington, A (W.G.), 362 True Description of the Discipline of War, A, 186, 188–9, 305 trumpets, 146, 244 acclimating horses to sound of, 277, 295, 306 Trundle, John, 150 Trussell, Thomas, 197n7, 221 The Soldier Pleading his owne Cause, 160–3, 165, 220, 291n75 Tsushima, Jean: “Members of the Stationers’ Company . . .”, 12 Turkish Janissaries, 258 Turnhout, battle of, 17, 262 Twelve Years’ Truce (1609–1621), 78, 81, 123, 140, 144, 332n45 Udall, Sir Edmond, 65, 98, 99 Ufano, Diego, 348, 360 Tratado de Artilléria, 49, 356 Ullyot, Michael, 106n74

438

index

Valaresso, Alvise, 172 Vale, Malcolm: “New Techniques and Old Ideals,” 373n7 Valturius, 54 Vane, Sir George, 303n108 van Nievelt, Abraham, 120 Vegetius Renatus, Flavius, 38, 54, 148, 153, 177n103, 292 De re militari, 48, 99, 227, 245 Epitoma Rei Militaris (trans. as The Four Books of Flavius Vegetius Ranatus), 219 Venn, Thomas: Military and maritime discipline in three books, 180 Vere, Francis, 95 and Cecil, 121–2 Commentaries, 95, 97, 102, 118, 122 education and career of, 73–4, 93–7 and Essex, 61 library of, 97–8 military books dedicated to, 99, 114, 145 military circle, 15, 51, 67, 73, 93–100 at Ostend, 74, 78, 96n48, 97, 329–30 Vere, Sir Horace, Baron Vere of Tilbury, 103 and the Bohemian crisis, 81–2, 83 and Cecil, 81–2, 131 and Charles I, 74 and the Cleves-Julich crisis, 79–80, 101 in the Council of War, 82, 92, 101, 132, 135, 169 and Prince Henry, 121 military circle of, 15, 73, 101–5 in the Netherlands, 74, 101, 108, 167, 202, 337 and Panton, 147n24 Verney, Sir Edmund, 108 Vernon, John: The Young-Horseman, 3–4, 16, 263, 306–9 verse: on militia captains, 248 on motions, 189–90 veteranos, 215 veterans: analytical treatises by, 196–216 in the cavalry, 303, 306 at Charles I’s court, 74, 131–2 in the Council of War, 82–3, 92, 101, 110, 132, 156, 169 drill manuals by, 179–80 in military circles, 73, 94, 96 role in the militia, 159, 173–4, 218

siegecraft knowledge, 334. See also soldiers Villiers, Charles. See Buckingham, duke of, Charles Villiers von Schwendi, Lazurus: Kreigs, Discurs, von Bestellung desz gantzen Kriegswesens, 60, 228 Waad, William, 35 Waller, William, 306 Wallhausen, Johann Jacobi von, 8, 47–8, 292 Art de Chevalerie, 48 L’Art Militarie pour Infanterie, 48, 164 Kriegskunst zu Fuss, 144, 164n66 Ritterkunst, 282 Walsingham, Edward, 334 Walsingham, Francis, earl of Bedford, 28, 327 Walton, Steven A., 351 Ward, Robert, 197, 209–10 Anima’dversions of Warre, 3, 16, 196, 198, 209–12, 212 on artillery, 351–2, 356, 357 on captains, 247 on cavalry, 263, 300–2 on mines, 346–7 on siegecraft, 318, 339–44 on training, 244, 259 Wars of Religion, 64, 234, 241, 267 Warwick, earl of, Robert Rich, 209–10 Watanabe-O’Kelly, Helen, 269 weapons, 254–9 arms and armour merchants, 46 Clarke’s list of, 163–4 distribution of, 35, 152 for the militia, 32–3, 90, 183n125, 257 outdated, 153–4, 267, 287 ranks formed by, 250 scarcity of, 193–4, 257, 305, 361. See also specific types ( pikes, muskets, swords, etc.) Webb, Henry J., 39 Elizabethan Military Science, 2, 4–5 Wechel, Andreas, 58 wedge (formation), 281, 291, 302, 309 Wentworth, Thomas, viscount Strafford, 76–7, 199 Westminster Company and Military Yard, 15, 91, 127, 161, 167, 203 Weymouth, George, 123–5, 159, 333 Weymouth, John, 221, 252

index Low-Countrie Trayning, 123n119, 159–60, 204, 206 Wharton, Nehemiah, 190–1 wheeling: for cavalry, 282, 284, 289–90, 296, 301, 308, 309 for infantry, 146, 184, 189, 223, 249, 252–3 Whitaker, Richard, 48, 50, 174 Whitehorne, Peter, 36–8 Certain waies for the orderyng of Souldiers, 36–7, 320, 338, 352 trans. Machiavelli’s Arte of warre, 36–7, 44 trans. Onosander General Captain, 44 White Mountain, battle of, 81 Willer, Georg, 47 William, duke of Cleves, 78 Williams, Sir Roger, 28, 61, 63–6, 94 A Briefe Discourse of Warre, 63, 65, 66, 263, 267, 268, 313

439

Willoughby, 11th Lord de Eresby, Peregrine Bertie, 64, 66, 71, 94, 96, 100, 218n71 Willoughby, Lord, Robert Bertie, 80 Wilmot, Henry, 303n108, 306 Wingfield, Sir Edward, 63 Wingfield, Sir John, 94 Wolf, John, 42 Worcester, 363 Wotten, Henry, 13, 80 Wright, Edward, 117 Wriothesley, Henry. See Southampton, earl of, Henry Wriothesley Xenophon, 44n67, 45, 54, 227, 272 Yeomen of the Guard, 265 York, 363, 364 Zouch, Edward, 199

History of Warfare History of Warfare presents the latest research on all aspects of military history. Publications in the series will examine technology, strategy, logistics, and economic and social developments related to warfare in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East from ancient times until the early nineteenth century. The series will accept monographs, collections of essays, conference proceedings, and translation of military texts.

1. Hoeven, M. van der (ed.). Exercise of Arms. Warfare in the Netherlands, 15681648. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10727 4 2. Raudzens, G. (ed.). Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11745 8 3. Lenihan P. (ed.). Conquest and Resistance. War in Seventeenth-Century Ireland. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11743 1 4. Nicholson, H. Love, War and the Grail. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12014 9 5. Birkenmeier, J.W. The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081-1180. 2002. ISBN 90 04 11710 5 6. Murdoch, S. (ed.). Scotland and the Thirty Years’ War, 1618-1648. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12086 6 7. Tuyll van Serooskerken, H.P. van. The Netherlands and World War I. Espionage, Diplomacy and Survival. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12243 5 8. DeVries, K. A Cumulative Bibliography of Medieval Military History and Technology. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12227 3 9. Cuneo, P. (ed.). Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles. Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe. 2002. ISBN 90 04 11588 9 10. Kunzle, D. From Criminal to Courtier. The Soldier in Netherlandish Art 15501672. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12369 5 11. Trim, D.J.B. (ed.). The Chivalric Ethos and the Development of Military Professionalism. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12095 5 12. Willliams, A. The Knight and the Blast Furnace. A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12498 5 13. Kagay, D.J. & L.J.A. Villalon (eds.). Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon. Medieval Warfare in Societies Around the Mediterranean. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12553 1 14. Lohr, E. & M. Poe (eds.). The Military and Society in Russia: 1450-1917. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12273 7 15. Murdoch, S. & A. Mackillop (eds.). Fighting for Identity. Scottish Military Experience c. 1550-1900. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12823 9 16. Hacker, B.C. World Military History Bibliography. Premodern and Nonwestern Military Institutions and Warfare. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12997 9 17. Mackillop, A. & S. Murdoch (eds.). Military Governors and Imperial Frontiers c. 1600-1800. A Study of Scotland and Empires. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12970 7

18. Satterfield, G. Princes, Posts and Partisans. The Army of Louis XIV and Partisan Warfare in the Netherlands (1673-1678). 2003. ISBN 90 04 13176 0 20. Macleod, J. & P. Purseigle (eds.). Uncovered Fields. Perspectives in First World War Studies. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13264 3 21. Worthington, D. Scots in the Habsburg Service, 1618-1648. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13575 8 22. Griffin, M. Regulating Religion and Morality in the King’s Armies, 1639-1646. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13170 1 23. Sicking, L. Neptune and the Netherlands. State, Economy, and War at Sea in the Renaissance. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13850 1 24. Glozier, M. Scottish Soldiers in France in the Reign of the Sun King. Nursery for Men of Honour. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13865 X 25. Villalon, L.J.A. & D.J. Kagay (eds.). The Hundred Years War. A Wider Focus. 2005. ISBN 90 04 13969 9 26. DeVries, K. A Cumulative Bibliography of Medieval Military History and Technology, Update 2004. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14040 9 27. Hacker, B.C. World Military History Annotated Bibliography. Premodern and Nonwestern Military Institutions (Works Published before 1967). 2005. ISBN 90 04 14071 9 28. Walton, S.A. (ed.). Instrumental in War. Science, Research, and Instruments. Between Knowledge and the World. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14281 9 29. Steinberg, J.W., B.W. Menning, D. Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, D. Wolff & S. Yokote (eds.). The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective. World War Zero, Volume I. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14284 3 30. Purseigle, P. (ed.). Warfare and Belligerence. Perspectives in First World War Studies. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14352 1 31. Waldman, J. Hafted Weapons in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. The Evolution of European Staff Weapons between 1200 and 1650. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14409 9 32. Speelman, P.J. (ed.). War, Society and Enlightenment. The Works of General Lloyd. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14410 2 33. Wright, D.C. From War to Diplomatic Parity in Eleventh-Century China. Sung’s Foreign Relations with Kitan Liao. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14456 0 34. Trim, D.J.B. & M.C. Fissel (eds.). Amphibious Warfare 1000-1700. Commerce, State Formation and European Expansion. 2006. ISBN 90 04 13244 9 35. Kennedy, H. (ed.). Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria. From the Coming of Islam to the Ottoman Period. 2006. ISBN 90 04 14713 6 36. Haldon, J.F. (ed.). General Issues in the Study of Medieval Logistics. Sources, Problems and Methodologies. 2006. ISBN 90 04 14769 1 37. Christie, N. & M. Yazigi (eds.). Noble Ideals and Bloody Realities. Warfare in the Middle Ages. 2006. ISBN 90 04 15024 2 38. Shaw, C. (ed.). Italy and the European Powers. The Impact of War, 1500–1530. 2006. ISBN-13 978 90 04 15163 5, ISBN-10 90 04 15163 X 39. Biggs, D. Three Armies in Britain. The Irish Campaign of Richard II and the Usurpation of Henry IV, 1397-99. 2006. ISBN-13 978 90 04 15215 1, ISBN-10 90 04 15215 6

40. Wolff, D., Marks, S.G., Menning, B.W., Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, D., Steinberg, J.W. & S. Yokote (eds.). The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective. World War Zero, Volume II. 2007. ISBN-13 978 90 04 15416 2, ISBN-10 90 04 15416 7 41. Ostwald, J. Vauban under Siege. Engineering Efficiency and Martial Vigor in the War of the Spanish Succession. 2007. ISBN-13 978 90 04 15489 6, ISBN-10 90 04 15489 2 42. MCCullough, R.L. Coercion, Conversion and Counterinsurgency in Louis XIV’s France. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15661 6 43. Røksund, A. The Jeune École. The Strategy of the Weak. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15723 1 44. Hosler, J.D. Henry II. A Medieval Soldier at War, 1147-1189. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15724 8 45. Hoyos, D. Truceless War. Carthage’s Fight for Survival, 241 to 237 BC. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16076 7 46. DeVries, K. A Cumulative Bibliography of Medieval Military History and Technology, Update 2003-2006. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16445 1 47. France, J. (ed.). Mercenaries and Paid Men. The Mercenary Identity in the Middle Ages. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16447 5 48. Meyer, J. (ed.). British Popular Culture and the First World War. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16658 5 49. Jones, H., J. O’Brien & C. Schmidt-Supprian (eds.). Untold War. New Perspectives in First World War Studies. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16659 2 50. Burgtorf, J. The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars. History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120-1310). 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16660 8 51. Villalon, A.L.J. & D.J. Kagay (eds.). The Hundred Years War (Part II). Different Vistas. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16821 3 52. González de León, F. The Road to Rocroi. Class, Culture and Command in the Spanish Army of Flanders, 1567-1659. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 17082 7 53. Lawrence, D.R. The Complete Soldier. Military Books and Military Culture in Early Stuart England, 1603-1645. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 17079 7 54. Beckett, I.F.W. 1917: Beyond the Western Front. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 17139 8 ISSN 1385–7827