Malplaquet

Background
The Campaign
Disposition
The Battle.
Battlefield Today
Some Thoughts
General Withers.
Bibliography.
Photographs

Some Thoughts

Considering the need for strict discipline and control to allow each movement and firing drill to be carried out without causing the ranks to become disorganised, then the fighting within the confined environment of the Wood of Sars must have been exceptional for this period. Any change of direction, to the left or right would have been virtually impossible, and the slow ordered advance of 15 meters per minute which could normally be maintained with reasonable precision on open ground was, once inside the constricted entanglements of the forest completely lost.

None of the sources for this great battle deal with the problems of woodland fighting, and for the most part consider that both armies employed the same tactics within this dark tangled mass of foliage and limited vision, as they did in the open. This I find very hard to believe. The fact that Lottum and Schulenburg's massed columns lost many of their officers "before" entering the wood makes it clear that for the most part it was the non-commissioned officers, and also possibly many of the rank and file themselves who endeavoured to try and keep to the methods drilled into them, until such time as all coherence became totally irrelevant and, madden with fear and hatred they began to fight as a mob.

That the French had more control and command during the initial encounter seems obvious, since they were protected by entrenchments, and therefore less likely to have had as many casualties amongst its officers; also, as we have seen in the description given by Corporal Matthew Bishop (see above), the French seem to have prepared the ground ready for a fall-back through the woods once their forward line was overrun. This in itself shows a remarkable understanding of how to conduct a defence in depth, and is yet another uncharacteristic tactic for this period.

One is reminded of the bitter fighting that occurred in the Wilderness Campaign of 1864, during the American Civil War, and indeed the circumstances are almost identical to the way things took place at Malplaquet. The similarity is so striking that I am surprised that no one has ever bothered to compare these engagements before. In both instances the defending forces had constructed log breastworks and entrenchments covering the approaches to their front, and in both cases the stronger force was cut down in swathes endeavouring to break through the defenders lines. If this is not military history repeating itself without having learnt from its mistakes I do not know what is?

The main question to be asked about Malplaquet from the allied perspective is was it necessary? The French were not defeated, and even had they been forced from the field in more disorder than they actually were, it is by no means sure that the Allies would have had the strength, or the will, to pursue them and complete the victory? Marlborough and Eugene could both be accused of criminal sacrifice of life for no real purpose. One feels that in this, their last joint effort together on the battlefield, both commanders threw restraint to the wind, and were endeavouring to end the war no matter how many of their own soldiers got killed or wounded to do so. Dr David Chandler says that, 'The pressure in a Marlburian battle was relentless.' It was relentless for friend as well as foe, and if Malplaquet proves nothing else, it does show that the Duke had begun to consider victory at any price worthwhile.