Battle of Denain 1712 | Villars Triumphs over Eugene

After a bloody decade of non-stop war, it all comes to an end with a incredible twist of fate.
Music from:
filmstro.com/
Consider supporting the channel on Patreon!
/ about
Visit my Discord for video previews and updates!
/ discord
References/Sources:
Sturgill, Claude C, 1965, Marshall Villars and the War of the Spanish Succession
University of Kentucky Press
Kronoskaf, Project WSS Battle of Denain 1712
kronoskaf.com/w...
Upton, George Prince Eugene of Savoy Jovian Press
Falkner, James 2015 War of the Spanish Succession 1701-1714
Pen and Sword Military

[@Raadpensionaris]

Since the Dutch perspective is barely touched upon while they provided most manpower of the allied army I want to add this. (Still a great video btw) The Dutch were very angry and disappointed with the British, when they left the war. Especially since they themselves had had 2 seperate opportunities to make a very advantagous peace with France and leave the allies, but refused that both times. Some voices even called for imprisonment of the 16,000 British soldiers who left the allies. After nearly 40 years of war the Dutch felt so close to taking Paris and paying back Louis XIV for the Disaster Year of 1672. Calmer voices however decided that it was now time to make peace. The peace treaty concluded that the Dutch were to take control of and garrison several cities in the Austrian Netherlands payed for by both Austria and the Dutch Republic. This was to provide the Dutch with a barrier against further French agression and gave the Dutch effectively shared control of the Austrian Netherlands until the late 18th century. This had been the Dutch objective at the start of the war so in that sense the war can be said to have been a Dutch succes. It is however also true that 40 years of warfare had taken great financial toll on the Dutch state, which would mean that the Dutch would enter a period of decline. After 1748 the Dutch would not be considered anymore among the major powers. The 40 years of warfare had however halted French expansion in Europe for a century and safeguarded Dutch independence.

[@FieldMarshalYT]

Indeed the Dutch aren't written about as much despite them making up most of the allied army. They did the bulk of the fighting at Ramillies, routed the French right at Oudenaarde, and paid a great price at Malplaquet. Not to mention took on the burden of paying for much of the allied army.

[@Raadpensionaris]

@@FieldMarshalYT Yeah, only recently really, did Dutch historians themselves start to cover the conflict from a Dutch perspective. Those works have sadly yet to be translated to English, which means that the stories about the war are generally told from a British or French perspective. So I don't blame you from leaving the Dutch perspective out. You still did a fantastic job

[@FieldMarshalYT]

@@Raadpensionaris I will be covering the Battle of Fontenoy soon which heavily involved Dutch troops. Anything you have from the Dutch perspective for me?

[@Raadpensionaris]

@@FieldMarshalYT Well there are a few interesting point to make. While you are researching the topic you might come across the statement that the Dutch were reluctant to fight at the start of the campaign in 1744. This is based on the fact that the Dutch and French still refused to declare war on eachother. While the Dutch were indeed reluctant to declare war they weren't reluctant to fight. They wanted to defend the barrier fortresses for which they had so desperately fought decades earlier. In fact, it were the British who refused at first to engage the French in the open field or to put their troops on garrison duty. George Wade had orders not to risk his British and German troops getting captured. Because of Jacobite tensions in Britian the British wanted the ability to send their troops back any moment. This hampered the allied ability to respond quickly. About the battle itself: The Dutch didn't understand why Cumberland decided to retreat after the battle and leave the Dutch garrison in Tournai to its fate. One officer wrote "We were repulsed without being beaten and now our hasty retreat makes us look like beaten people. (...) Besides timidity there is also the bad thing that we have left a lot of the baggage and many wounded." The British accused the Dutch of cowardice for not continuing their attack on the French right. While this was overblown, there was also unsatisfaction within high Dutch command. Waldeck wrote that "the famous old Dutch courage" had gone and Cröntrom, an officer who fought at Malplaquet, that "these troops are not like those in the previous war". They were used to different standards. This let them to implement an intensive programme of retraining, and the Dutch performed better at Rocoux in 1746.

[@Raadpensionaris]

@@FieldMarshalYT Source is "De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden als grote mogendheid: Buitenlandse politiek en oorlogvoering in de eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw en in het bijzonder tijdens de Oostenrijkse Successieoorlog (1740-1748)" from Olaf van Nimwegen. Sadly it is only available in Dutch as far as I know.

[@Leaffordes]

Something I'd really like to see is a video covering the armies of each (or most) nations involved in this war; their tactics, equipment, uniforms, etc. I understand that this is probably not something you're planning at the moment, with other projects coming up. But hopefully in the future, if you find time. It would be fantastic. This has been an excellent series - of a war I knew so little about. Thanks!

[@FieldMarshalYT]

It's definitely a good idea for some #shorts

[@morriganmhor5078]

You should probably look at SandRhoman - he is more about tactics and more about technics of warfare.

[@oliviervece6121]

​@@FieldMarshalYT thanks a lot .

[@luckysuryajaya2615]

Battle of Denain painting in which Marshall Villars urges the demoralized French to keep on fighting is such a beautiful painting 15:30

[@rhysnichols8608]

What a story finally ending! Poetic that Prince Eugene who saw so much success ended the war with a string of defeats, and the French making a huge comeback! Villars and Vandome are underrated military figures, I’ve been wondering what would happen if they were alive in Napoleons time

[@leonrothier6638]

Wish Monsieur Turenne lived around the time succession war

[@oliviervece6121]

The video is good. Very well presented and serious about the informations. One thing to correct, is that really the whole french army was in front of Landrecies and the manoeuvre was very risky as they left in the middle of the night leaving just a curtain of troups in front of the allies and they march north to attack the rear lines of Eugene de Savoie. This is a genius idea that changed everything.

[@WyomingTraveler]

I have greatly enjoyed this series and my knowledge of the war has been expanded. Again I marvel at your pronunciation of the various towns in France, Flanders, Spain and Germany. What is your next topic?

[@Heisenberg882]

He’s doing the battle of Fontenoy next

[@deteon1418]

Absolute magnificence! Great writing and fantastic animation, as has become the norm on this channel. It is always very nice to watch one of your videos. Quality has become very much better from the first video of this series to the last! Unfortunate for us in the north, this era saw the fall of the Swedish Empire and the decline of Swedish power.

[@ryanjuguilon213]

Why? The Swedes were famous for their barbarity, how they are great in pludering and pillaging. Poland and Northern germany coyld attest to that

[@CivilWarWeekByWeek]

Great End to a perfect series, I'm glad for you friend and I can't wait to see your next adventure

[@alphalunamare]

Prinz Eugen was a fantastic Ship ... it surrendered to the allies at the end of WW2. I always wondered where the name had come from.

[@metarus208]

The battle that saved France ... go Villars go!

[@evrensuer549]

Your topics are great, I am sure you will gain followers you deserve

[@notthefbi7932]

Just finished this series it was quite informative and well done, thanks for covering this topic 👍

[@marcossouza1138]

Congratulations! I had already read about this campaign (Denain) and I can say that your narrative was very good (which includes the maps).

[@michelwardynski6498]

Very good video. Enjoyable and professional. I look forward to your future releases

[@csl7972]

Great battle but I have something to say about the end. Perhaps I completely misunderstood your point and if so I apologize, but is there any evidence that Louis XIV really wanted to unite France and Spain? It's often mentionned as one of his war aims but I don't think it make sense. When Louis claims at the beginning of the war that Philip retains his rights to the throne of France, The Grand Dauphin and The Duke of Burgundy (who was already married to Marie Adelaide of Savoy) are the two immediate successors of Louis to the throne. For a Franco-Spanish union to be possible, Louis would either have to expect both his son and first grandson (burgundy) to die early or he would have to disinherit them to put Philip as his immediate successor, which would make no sense. Granted Burgundy and the Grand Dauphin did eventually die of illness before the war ended, leaving the future Louis XV behind, but this was unexpected and it wasn't the plan at all and Louis XIV was very much devastated by their deaths. So I think Louis claiming that Philip retained his rights was either a simple matter of pride or a "just in case" procedure if Spain didn't work out, or both. Louis was a guy who took dynastic rights extremely seriously.

[@FieldMarshalYT]

I read this a lot too. I imagine that Louis wanted a Bourbon union between the two states so the vast Spanish empire could be brought under the Bourbon Coat of Arms. We know for a fact this was one of his war goals. However, I am not right about everything.

[@csl7972]

@@FieldMarshalYT There's certainly no debate that he wanted a "Bourbon Bloc" with France and Spain being ruled by members of the same dynasty but a universal Franco-Spanish monarchy ruled by a single man wouldn't make sense when looking at the situation at the beginning of the war.

[@gandigooglegandigoogle7202]

nice video! but there is still work to make videos on the battles of Friedlingen (1702), Battle of Luzzara (1702), Battle of Cremona (1702), Battle of Höchstädt (1703), Battle of Castelnuovo (1703), Battle of Cassano (1705), Battle of Calcinato (1706), Battle of Almansa (1707), Battle of Villaviciosa (1710), Battle of Denain (1712)....

[@mariusthomashoutvedkristia7129]

Could you do a series on the War of the League of Augsburg aswell, great content by the way.

[@SolidAvenger1290]

Very interesting video. HistoryMarche is slowly going through Prince Eugene's battles. I'm looking forward to them covering this battle as well against the French.

[@jamesstuart5904]

A thoroughly enjoyable video, as always. Just a side note; The Deerfield Raid of 1704 occurred in Massachusetts, not Maine.

[@vinz4066]

Good Video!

[@azizbey4334]

Just finished the entire series,this is amazing,what would seem as such an important period in early modern history is somehow very little known in this world,despite the fact that it answers a lot of questions,like why the brits hold Gibraltar,and how did the bourbons come to rule in Spain. I thank you for your excellent work. But I'd ask whether you would be interested in going further east,also a neglected period. That of the Ottoman Empire and its 18th century campaigns like the one in morea vs Venice and its Safavid-afsharid wars with Persia. Sounds like a decent comeback story after the disaster that is the great Turkish war.

[@HamanKarn567]

Great series.

[@oliviervece6121]

Message for "field marshal"- Dear Sir, In your vidéo, you talk about the burning of 1 000 000 rations in early match in Arras. In the french sources, it is mantion that the allies were driven back. could you please state your sources. I can give you mine and see where the truth is.Thanks in advance. Thanks again for the great videos you do. Hope to hearing from you soon.

[@FieldMarshalYT]

Sources are in the description. I also never stated they weren't driven back. They fell back afterwards.

[@Raadpensionaris]

The goal of Albemarle wasn't to besiege the fortress, but to bombard it in the hopes of destroying rations. Like the Dutch had attempted in 1696 with Givet. Driven back is not really a good way to describe it I think

[@oliviervece6121]

thanks for your answer@@Raadpensionaris

[@caiussempronius2342]

Excellent job.

[@Melondude-xx5oh]

cant wait for this!

[@gooner72]

Great series mate, well done!!

[@karlthyme9631]

Top notch stuff

[@emmanuelfernandez04]

I wonder what you have for us next?

[@FieldMarshalYT]

On my channel you can see what's coming next in my community posts.

[@andymoody8363]

Great video, I really enjoyed it. Thank you

[@AJ-et3vf]

awesome video! Thank you!

[@CharlesDeGoat]

What a great content i just saw, very impressive

[@ouafallouz]

Great video brother

[@morriganmhor5078]

Why do you say it was Prince Eugene defeated by Villars? It was Albemarle who was unable to 1) have efficient scouting of the area, 2) fortify adequately and 3) withstand the French attack a bit longer.

[@FieldMarshalYT]

Albemarle was subordinate to Prince Eugene this battle. It was his passive marshalling of reinforcements as well as poor placement of Albemarle's troops at Denain that allowed rhe French to defeat the two commanders in detail. Prince Eugene has as much blame despite not being present for all of the battle. Secondly, Eugene was pursued so hard that he would end up losing most of allied gains in the region and be chased to the Rhine where he would be unable to stop Villars at Freiburg.

[@oliviervece6121]

No. Eugene was long to react...and bare a good part of responsability.

[@abukharan5774]

Nice video

[@slome815]

"This brought forward the largest extend of the Holy Roman empire since Charles the 5th in the 14th century." Charles V ruled in the 16th century, not the 14th.

[@ziyadpepe6291]

Are you the commentator only?. or you also editing your own videos?. Nice video by the way 👍👍

[@FieldMarshalYT]

As of right now I make everything for my videos alone.

[@olivierpuyou3621]

It is indeed difficult to say who won this war. But, if the goal was to prevent the Habsburgs from encircling France by taking the Spanish throne, we can consider that it was a French success despite the independence of Spain from the throne of France. The preocpations of kings in a regime that is still almost feudal is a bit complicated, I think, to understand in modern times, which is ours.

[@petitnormand1066]

Yes. And with the victories at the end, France was able to avoid an unfortunate end. If she would have lost the war completely, she could have lost continental territories, and Louis XIV would have reigned for nothing. She saved the furniture and the honor

[@ChevyChase301]

Cover Franco dutch war!

[@jacquesstuartberwick3235]

It would be great to have a french version with the royalist french point of view. Thi war was imposed on Louis XIV who wanted to avoid it. If the allied had been less hard with France and Spain in their peace conditions the war would had be finished by 1708... Hopefully we won a stalemate ! Vive le Roy !

[@pallpalsson6574]

Grade story tellin thengs from iceland

[@bullettube9863]

Thanks to Louis 14th and his persecution of the Huguenots the Dupont family moved to Delaware in America. The family established their sheep farms with their famous black wool, French wine vines and of course the French secret of making granulated gun powder. This gun powder helped America win it's revolution and the black wool kept American troops warm! What would have happened if Britain had continued to support the war? Would the allies, with Austria as the leader, defeated France? Who would take what territory in Europe, and it's colonies abroad? Would the Dutch have prospered and expanded their borders? So many questions all put to rest from the results of one battle!

[@mitchellhorn1102]

I feel like Prince Eugene didn't lose this battle but instead the Torries lost the Alliance this battle.

[@kurtsell8376]

I see your point but Eugene had 20,000 more men than the French, so while the British may have prevented the defeat if they were there their absence defiantly didn’t cause the Allies to lose (especially as Eugene made several mistakes before and during the battle).

[@michealohaodha9351]

Vive le roiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

[@89volvowithlazers]

Dude you should seek out Napoleon Complex his stuff would accent your history docs quite well just a thought

[@charlesiragui2473]

Seen from a very great distance, this war should be placed within the remarkable trait of European history: the failure of hegemons to impose their power across the entire continent. The combination of France and the Spanish Empire would have created a true hegemon, and this was averted by the Coalition. Though a truly disastrous outcome for France was prevented by Villars, Philip did not unite the crowns of Spain and France. If Louis had succeeded, he would truly have been a historic figure: Perhaps there would have been no Enlightenment (autocracy and the divine right of kings confirmed, parliament and Dutch republicanism defeated). Perhaps Protestantism would have been stamped out (remember the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes...).

[@christipher4152]

Hello! I am a user of your mod, eu6 30 years war. May I ask why i can't get access to some countries like russia, france?

[@FieldMarshalYT]

They were neutral in some stages of the war.

[@sevoo1579]

Great !

[@TheManFromWaco]

If you think in terms of dynasties, the War of the Spanish Succession was a massive win for Louis XIV. The Spanish branch of the Bourbons has kept their throne up to the present day (albeit in a purely ceremonial role under a constitutional monarchy and with plenty of hiccups along the way). The main Bourbon branch in France... didn't fare so well. Of course, he was at least partially responsible for the political and economic conditions that set France up for revolution at the end of the century, so maybe not so clear-cut a dynastic win after all. As to whether *France* won or lost, that's an entirely different matter. I once heard the end of the conflict described as "The great powers of Europe had fought for a decade to achieve a peace settlement which looked almost identical to something any number of diplomats could have drawn up in 1700: Bourbon control over the Spanish throne in exchange for territorial concessions and a prohibition on ever uniting the two monarchies". (I'm 95% sure it's from Charles Spencer's "Blenheim: Battle For Europe").

[@TrompetterJanKlaassen]

I think it is fair to say that France lost. They didn't get anything out of the war while doing many consessions. The dynasty change in Spain didn't mean that much when Spain was hostile to France anyway in the aftermath of the WoSS. And they were allowed to because the Maritime powers were indifferent to it after the death of Joseph I in 1711.

[@petitnormand1066]

​@@TrompetterJanKlaassenpersonally I think that it is extremely complicated to really know if it is a defeat or a victory, there are so many parameters to take into account that on certain points it can be considered as a victory and on others as a defeat

[@TrompetterJanKlaassen]

@@petitnormand1066 I don't really see how this can be described as a French victory by any parameter. They got their candidate on the Spanish throne, but Spain became hostile to France till the 1730s and it was allowed because the Maritime powers didn't want Charles to unite the Austrian and Spanish domains

[@petitnormand1066]

@@TrompetterJanKlaassen I misspoke. What I actually wanted to say is that for me, and therefore it only concerns my opinion, it is that my country (I am French, but be careful, I am not in the habit of glorifying when I should not) clearly could have lost even more. In the sense that as we can see the beginning of the war was chaotic for the French, and it was really at the end that the last battles made it possible to save a little bit of honor. I think that without certain combat victories towards the end, France could have ceded (maybe) parts of its continental territory. If this war would have been lost completely it does not seem incoherent to me that the allies would have asked for territories that Louis had conquered during his reign. a Although we cannot speak of a resounding victory in some way the last years of the war made it possible to "save the furniture"(idk what is the expression in english) a little, to avoid a worse defeat. So yeah, I see what you mean. But in this case if it is a defeat France still managed to avoid much worse. I like to say that "the ship did not sink but still has plenty of water"

[@TrompetterJanKlaassen]

@@petitnormand1066 Oh, I very much agree that France managed to regain some of her prestige in the last years of the war. Mostly due to the Tory victory in Britain that sabotaged Allied unity. However, Louis XIV actually did give up French continental territory. He ceded various fortresses in the North of France to the Dutch Republic/Austria. Cities like Tournai, Menin and Ypres

[@Melondude-xx5oh]

how do you make these videos?

[@FieldMarshalYT]

I make my scripts in Google Docs, and go through it a few times to make sure everything reads right. To make general cards/units/maps etc I use gimp 2.0 which is free. To animate I use Adobe After Effects and Premiere Pro to add the finishing touches and render all the parts together since it's faster. There are tons of tutorials on YT if you have the money for Adobe stuff.

[@Melondude-xx5oh]

@@FieldMarshalYT Thank you so much!

[@MCRHN]

Savoy was the winner became a kingdom gain independence of france and gave gain Sicily and gave it for Sardinia becoming the kingdom of Sardinia

[@Raisonnance.]

Everyone in this war won something except Spain. Austria won all the territories that belonged to Spain except Sicily. France get what it wanted first : a French on the Spanish throne. Great britain wins some territory in north America. Prussia was raised to an kingdom.

[@miracleyang3048]

The biggest winners are great Britain and Austria,

[@petitnormand1066]

​@@Raisonnance.Yes. And with the victories at the end, France was able to avoid an unfortunate end. If she would have lost the war completely, she could have lost continental territories, and Louis XIV would have reigned for nothing. She saved the furniture and the honor

[@Raadpensionaris]

​​@@petitnormand1066It was still an unfortunate end. Only less so than it could have been

[@sumazdar]

dziękuję

[@dorussio]

Cambreh, not Cambraeey

[@alphalunamare]

Oi (as in oil) G (as in Gun) En (as in Ten) 'Oi-G-En' ... also the Prince had a sword and Pistol, not an Axe :-)

[@FieldMarshalYT]

Either is correct.

[@alphalunamare]

@@FieldMarshalYT Prince Either! lol :-)

[@christopher-ke9nj]

Treachery God almighty

[@jacquesstuartberwick3235]

No he loose this battle and was very affected by it.

[@FieldMarshalYT]

@@jacquesstuartberwick3235 huh

[@МаксРогозин-е1ю]

With Marlborough on board perhaps no chance for French. He broke through their fortifications. We'll never know though.

[@smal750]

copium

[@leonrothier6638]

Villars would’ve kept him beat

[@grantpaterson1016]

1712......5 yrs after that 'act of union' yet STILL English army???? Not entirely consistent with your post to me. You seem to be quite the anglophile....ignoring the fat that it was NOT an English Army.

[@rollolol6053]

Only English think Great-Britain is an union where everyone is equal. Scots know better.

[@oliviervece6121]

The army of the england was 35 000 mercenaries plus 12 000 coming from the british isles including 4 000 irish 4 000 scottish and 4 000 british. So yes no british army. An army of england or queen s ann.

[@grantpaterson1016]

@@oliviervece6121 Yo forgot to put 'LOL' at the end of your post. 'Britain' IS England, Scotland and Wales....so you can't have 4000 'British' troops and then say Scotland... England is not Britain. It also bodes ill that you don't seem to quite understand what the Second act of Union was about.

[@tzeentchvonsheo9868]

nice video, though the way you pronounce Villars and Eugene is literal earrape XD I think americans should be prohibited by the law from pronouncing european names\toponyms

[@FieldMarshalYT]

Hey, I have my 1st Amendment right to pronounce them fancy Yuropean words however I please. God Bless America!!