Assault on Brussels (1708)

Last updated
Assault on Brussels
Part of the War of the Spanish Succession
Aftocht van de keurvorst van Beieren en de Fransen, 1708 Pralende Beyersen en Franse aftogt van Brussel ende Schelde (titel op object) Palmhof der Bondgenooten 't Lusthof van Momus (serietitel), RP-P-OB-83.071.jpg
Caricature of the retreat of the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of Vendôme, 1708. The Elector is depicted sitting on a chariot pulled by toads. Verses are included on the print in both Dutch and Latin.
Date22 November 1708 – 27 November 1708
Location
Result Grand Alliance victory
Belligerents
Flag of Cross of Burgundy.svg Pro-Habsburg Spain
Statenvlag.svg  Dutch Republic
Banner of the Holy Roman Emperor (after 1400).svg  Holy Roman Empire
Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg  Great Britain
Royal Standard of the King of France.svg  France
Electoral Standard of Bavaria (1623-1806).svg  Bavaria
Bandera de Espana 1701-1748.svg Pro Bourbon Spain
Commanders and leaders
Strength
6,000 15,000
Casualties and losses
413 killed or wounded 2,500 killed or wounded

The assault on Brussels or siege of Brussels occurred during the War of the Spanish Succession, from 22 to 27 November 1708 involving French and pro-Bourbon Spanish troops under Maximilian of Bavaria against the garrison and citizens of the city of Brussels.

Contents

While the army of the Grand Alliance was occupied with the Siege of Lille, the Elector of Bavaria, Maximilian, made an attempt to capture Brussels. He believed the city, with its weak defenses and small garrison, would be an easy target. Despite his confidence the Allies were forewarned of the plan and had already reinforced Brussels' garrison.

Maximilian, expecting a swift victory, faced strong resistance from Colonel Pascale, the governor of Brussels, and his well-prepared garrison. Despite his demands for surrender, Pascale defiantly refused. Maximilian's plan quickly unraveled, and what he thought would be a quick assault turned into a protracted and bloody struggle. The inhabitants of Brussels did not rally to Maximilian's cause as he had hoped and his attempt to take Brussels by force failed.

Prelude

Campaign map of the Low Countries during the War of the Spanish Succession Low Countries 1700 and entrenched lines.png
Campaign map of the Low Countries during the War of the Spanish Succession

Following the Battle of Ramillies in 1706, where the Allies severely defeated a Bourbon Franco-Spanish army, much of the Spanish Netherlands fell into Allied hands. The Allied commander, the Duke of Marlborough, remarked that it was "very astonishing that the enemy should give up a whole country with so many strong places without the least resistance." However, the Allied hold on these lands remained precarious. Most of the towns that surrendered to the Allies in the weeks following Ramillies hardly deserved the designation of "fortress." The major towns of Spanish Brabant and Flanders, in particular, had weak fortifications, stemming as much from lack of maintenance as from outdated designs. This was common knowledge even before the war, and French commanders had been complaining about the state of these newly acquired towns from the moment they occupied them in 1701. Well-fortified cities like Namur, Mons, Tournai, and Lille remained, however, out of Allied hands. [1]

The 1707 campaign in the Low Countries was marked by a lack of any successes on either side. For the Allies, a major issue during this campaign was the severe limitation of their mobility, as they were forced to protect numerous vulnerable towns. This constraint significantly hampered their strategic operations. Lieutenant-General François Nicolas Fagel captured the sentiment among the Allies during the campaign, stating: "We don't have in all of Brabant a single town or place of which we can be assured... when our army is far from these places, they are in fear." By 1708, Marlborough's only viable solution was to abandon Brussels—a politically risky decision that greatly unsettled his Dutch allies. [2] [note 1]

At the start of the 1708 campaign, the French, in a surprise attack, captured two of those weakly fortified major Flemish towns, Ghent and Bruges. The unexpected fall of these cities exposed the vulnerability of the Allied positions, strained relations between the British and Dutch, and fostered discontent among the local Flemish populations. It also destroyed Marlborough's plan to leave Brussels, because the city now became the only remaining link with Dutch territory. However, a major French defeat at the Battle of Oudenaarde placed the initiative again in Allied hands. After considerable debate, the Allies decided to besiege the strongly fortified city of Lille. However, Louis-François de Boufflers and his French garrison defended the city tenaciously, causing the siege to progress very slowly. [4]

19th century image of Maximilian of Bavaria as a military commander, by Anton Hoffmann Maximilian II Emanuel on horse.jpg
19th century image of Maximilian of Bavaria as a military commander, by Anton Hoffmann

In November, as the 1708 campaign entered its final phase, the French forces, led by Marshal Vendôme, shifted their focus towards Brussels, the key administrative and political center of the Spanish Netherlands. To lift the siege of Lille, Vendôme directed Maximilian of Bavaria, who had previously served as the governor of the Spanish Netherlands, to march on Brussels. Maximilian, who had propagated this attack on Brussel, anticipated an easy victory. He assumed support from the civilians in Brussels due to his prior popularity and the city's outdated fortifications. It was also believed that the Allied garrison was too weak to sustain an attack. [5] [6]

The city's capture was seen as a crucial strategic objective for the French because the loss of Brussels would have made it nearly impossible for the Allies to repair and resupply Lille, whose fortifications had been severely damaged during the siege. Additionally, the supply depots in Menen, Kortrijk, and Oudenaarde were nearly depleted, meaning that at the start of the following year, all of these strongholds could have been easily recaptured by the French. [7]

Marlborough's Secret Service however informed him of this plan almost as soon as it was conceived. When Maximilian marched on Brussels with 15,000 mostly French troops Marlborough had thus already reinforced the garrison of Brussels. [5] [6] While it was still true that François de Pascale, the governor of Brussels, commanded a garrison of only 6,000 troops—too few to sustain a prolonged siege—these troops were strong enough to repel a direct assault on the city. The morale of the garrison was particularly high, as the Dutch deputies Johan van den Bergh and Frederik Adriaan van Renswoude had ensured that the soldiers were well-paid and cared for. Of the nine battalions in the garrison, three were Dutch, two Imperial, one British, one Saxon, and two were from the Southern Netherlands itself. Pascale also had a regiment of dragoons from the Southern Netherlands and 400 Imperial hussars at his disposal. [8] [9]

Assault

Contemporary map of the Attack on Brussels, by Jacobus Harrewijn. Mislukt beleg van Brussel door de Fransen, 1708 Plan de la ville de Brusselles avec les attaques par l'Armee de France sous le ordres de S.A.E. de Baviere du 24. de Novembre 1708 (titel op object), RP-P-1910-2233.jpg
Contemporary map of the Attack on Brussels, by Jacobus Harrewijn.

With the Bavarian Jean Baptist, Comte d'Arco as his deputy commander, Maximilian appeared before Brussels on November 22. The Allies had taken strong measures to prevent any unrest among the citizens so when Maximilian summoned Governor Pascal to surrender the city, Pascal was able to resolutely reject this demand. Contrary to his expectations, Maximilian now had to bring in artillery from Mons, which would take several days. The night of November 24 to 25 was spent by the attackers opening trenches on the southeastern side of the city. In the early morning of November 26, they opened fire for the first time with 8 cannons and 4 mortars. However, the artillery fire from the city was so effective that the French guns were quickly silenced. In the evening, the French resumed their fire, this time in combination with a large infantry assault on the city. [10]

After 20:00, a fierce assault began on the covertway when 6,000 French soldiers stormed the city. The fighting continued throughout the night, with the defenders, bolstered by numerous volunteers from the civilian population, repelling no fewer than nine attacks. The French forces advanced no further than the palisades. The next morning it was discovered that several French troops had taken shelter on the glacis during the night. By nine o'clock, Pascal decided to launch a counterattack. This sortie, led by Pascale at the head of his cavalry, was highly successful. Maximilian's troops were driven into a full retreat, and the Allies pushed forward to attack the attackers' artillery. [11] [9]

The following night, the defenders braced for a renewed assault or at the very least, a bombardment with heated shot to provoke a civilian uprising. Yet, to everyone's surprise, neither materialized. Instead, around midnight, it was discovered that the enemy had quietly withdrawn. Pascale, again at the head of the cavalry, initiated a pursuit. During this pursuit, it became clear that the Elector had hastily abandoned his wounded and nearly all his artillery, leaving behind 17 cannons and 2 mortars. The French had lost around 2,500 men in the assaults while the Allied lost around 400 men. [11]

Crossing of the Scheldt

The reason for Maximilian's retreat must be understood in the context of events unfolding elsewhere. To cut off the Allied army near Lille from their supply lines, the French had established fortified positions along the Scheldt River. If Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy intended to relieve Brussels, they would have had to force their way across the Scheldt with their army. [7]

On 26 November, Marlborough, bolstered by reinforcements from Prince Eugene, who had diverted as many troops as he could spare from the siege of Lille, advanced swiftly from Kortrijk. The Allies then forced the line of the Scheldt River at two key points: Kerkhoff and Gavere. The troops crossed the wide river using pontoon bridges, catching the French completely by surprise, which resulted in minimal resistance. [12] In the ensuing confusion, the French retreated in disarray, pursued by Dutch cavalry under Lord Albemarle. The French suffered over 650 casualties, while the Allies sustained fewer than 200 losses. [13]

By the afternoon of November 27th, the entire French army was forced to retreat from the fortifications along the Scheldt River. Some units withdrew to Ghent, while others fell back to Tournai. The position of the Elector of Bavaria in Brussels became immediately untenable and he escaped to Mons. During this time, the strategically important post of Saint-Ghislain, which had been stripped of its garrison to support the siege of Brussels, was captured by a surprise raid led by the governor of Ath. This forced the French to expend significant resources to reclaim it. [14]

Aftermath

Once it was confirmed that the Allied forces had successfully crossed the Scheldt, Prince Eugene swiftly returned to reinforce the siege around the citadel of Lille. This rapid and well-executed operation against the numerically superior French forces forced Vendôme to retreat in the vicinity of Douai, while he left the Count de la Mothe with a force to guard Ghent and Bruges. The fall of Lille's citadel now appeared inevitable. Marlborough's operation not only relieved Brussels but also reestablished the eastern supply line crucial for the besiegers of Lille and ensured the securement of winter quarters for his troops. The French army's morale took another significant blow during this campaign. Finally, on December 9th, the citadel of Lille surrendered. Marshal Boufflers, who had valiantly defended the city, was allowed to march out with honors, leading the remnants of his garrison back into France. [14]

Although it was late in the year, and while the French had already gone into winter quarters, the Allies decided to continue their campaign following the successful siege of Lille. Marlborough and the Dutch deputies concluded that the capture of Ghent would be of great strategic value for ensuring the supply lines to Lille in the following year. On December 18th, the Allied forces under Marlborough advanced on Ghent. After a brief siege of 12 days, La Mothe surrendered the city, allowing his troops to leave with honors. Bruges surrendered soon after this. [15]

With these actions, one of the longest and most eventful military campaigns of the era came to an end. Although the year had started poorly for the Allies with the French capture of Ghent and Bruges, the masterful generalship of Marlborough and Eugene, combined with the skillful management of supplies by the Dutch deputies, had reversed the situation. The French were defeated at Oudenaarde, Lille—one of the most important and strongest French cities—was captured, and Ghent and Bruges were reclaimed. [16] [17]

Although Vendôme's army was not decisively beaten and many strong fortresses were still in French hands, the Great Frost of 1709 brought further misery to the French. Additionally, the French treasury was severely depleted. Consequently, Louis XIV of France was prepared to make significant concessions in the negotiations that began in 1709. However, the Allies' heavy demands proved too great for Louis's pride, leading to the continuation of the war into the following year. [18]

Notes

  1. If Brussels would fall to the French the territory of the Dutch Republic itself would be exposed, and the connection with the Meuse would be severed. During the Nine Years' War King William III, despite facing similar predicaments as Marlborough, had never been willing to abandon Brussels, even after the defeat at the Battle of Landen in 1693. Similarly, Field Marshal Georg von Waldeck, had not retreated following the Battle of Fleurus. There were also fears that the Allies would lose prestige abroad and risk alienating the people in the Southern Netherlands who were well-disposed towards them. [3]

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">War of the Spanish Succession</span> Succession crisis and subsequent wars in 18th-century Spain

    The War of the Spanish Succession was a European great power conflict fought between 1701 and 1714. The immediate cause was the death of the childless Charles II of Spain in November 1700, which led to a struggle for control of the Spanish Empire among supporters of the claimant Bourbon and Habsburg dynasties. His official heir was Philip of Anjou, a grandson of Louis XIV of France, whose main backers were France and most of Spain. His rival, Archduke Charles of Austria, was supported by the Grand Alliance, whose primary members included Austria, the Dutch Republic, and Great Britain. Significant related conflicts include the 1700 to 1721 Great Northern War, and Queen Anne's War in North America.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Fleurus (1690)</span> Battle in the Nine Years War between France and the Grand Alliance

    The Battle of Fleurus, fought on 1 July 1690 near Fleurus, then part of the Spanish Netherlands, now in modern Belgium, was a major engagement of the Nine Years' War. A French army led by Marshall Luxembourg defeated an Allied force under Waldeck.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Denain</span> 1712 battle

    The Battle of Denain was fought on 24 July 1712 as part of the War of the Spanish Succession. It resulted in a French victory, under Marshal Villars, against Dutch and Austrian forces, under Prince Eugene of Savoy.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Oudenarde</span> Battle in the War of the Spanish Succession

    The Battle of Oudenarde, also known as the Battle of Oudenaarde, was a major engagement of the War of the Spanish Succession, pitting a Anglo-Dutch force consisting of eighty thousand men under the command of the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy against a French force of eighty-five thousand men under the command of the Duc de Bourgogne and the Duc de Vendôme, the battle resulting in a great victory for the Grand Alliance. The battle was fought near the city of Oudenaarde, at the time part of the Spanish Netherlands, on 11 July 1708. With this victory, the Grand Alliance ensured the fall of various French territories, giving them a significant strategic and tactical advantage during this stage of the war. The battle was fought in the later years of the war, a conflict that had come about as a result of English, Dutch and Habsburg apprehension at the possibility of a Bourbon succeeding the deceased King of Spain, Charles II, and combining their two nations and empires into one.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthonie Heinsius</span> Dutch statesman (1641–1720)

    Anthonie Heinsius was a Dutch statesman who served as Grand Pensionary of Holland from 1689 to his death in 1720. Heinsius was an able negotiator and one of the greatest and most obstinate opponents of the expansionist policies of Louis XIV of France. He was one of the driving forces behind the anti-French coalitions of the Nine Years' War (1688–97) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14).

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Barrier Treaty</span> Series of three Austro-Dutch agreements (1709 - 1715)

    The Barrier Treaties were a series of agreements signed and ratified between 1709 and 1715 that created a buffer zone between the Dutch Republic and France by allowing the Dutch to occupy a number of fortresses in the Habsburg Netherlands, ruled by the Spanish or the Austrians. The treaties were cancelled by Austria in 1781.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Namur (1695)</span> 1695 battle of the Nine Years War

    The 1695 Siege of Namur or Second Siege of Namur took place during the Nine Years' War between 2 July and 4 September 1695. Its capture by the French in the 1692 siege and recapture by the Grand Alliance in 1695 are often viewed as the defining events of the war; the second siege is considered to be William III's most significant military success during the war.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Ekeren</span> Part of the War of the Spanish Succession (1703)

    The Battle of Ekeren, which took place on 30 June 1703, was a battle of the War of the Spanish Succession. A Bourbon army of around 24,000 men, consisting of troops from France, Spain and Cologne, surrounded a smaller Dutch force of 12,000 men, which however managed to break out and retire to safety.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Lille (1708)</span> 1708 siege

    The siege of Lille was the salient operation of the 1708 campaign season during the War of the Spanish Succession. After an obstinate defence of 120 days, the French garrison surrendered the city and citadel of Lille, commanded by Marshal Boufflers, to the forces of the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Wijnendale</span> Battle in the war of the Spanish succession in 1708

    The Battle of Wijnendale took place during the War of the Spanish Succession fought on 28 September 1708 near Wijnendale, Flanders, between an allied force protecting a convoy carrying ammunition for the Siege of Lille (1708) and forces of Bourbon France and Spain. It ended in a victory for the allies, leading to the taking of Lille.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Bouchain (1712)</span>

    The siege of Bouchain, was a siege of the War of the Spanish Succession, and a victory for the French troops of the Duc de Villars. A French army of 20,000 men besieged and captured the Allied-controlled fortifications after an 18-day siege, with the 2,000-strong Dutch-Imperial garrison under Major-General Frederik Sirtema van Grovestins capitulating on 19 October.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Zoutleeuw</span> 1705 siege at Zoutleeuw during the War of the Spanish Succession

    The siege of Zoutleeuw or the siege of Léau was a siege of the War of the Spanish Succession. Allied troops with 16 artillery pieces under the command of the English Captain general the Duke of Marlborough, besieged and captured the small French-held Brabantine fortified town of Zoutleeuw in the Spanish Netherlands.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Ghent (1708)</span>

    The Siege of Ghent was the last operation of the 1708 campaign season during the War of the Spanish Succession. After successfully taking Lille shortly before, the Duke of Marlborough moved his forces onto the town of Ghent where after a 12-day siege the town's governor, Count Charles de La Mothe-Houdancourt, surrendered.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Claude Frédéric t'Serclaes, Count of Tilly</span> Dutch States Army officer and nobleman

    Claude Frederic t'Serclaes, Count of Tilly was a Dutch States Army officer and nobleman. He took part in the Franco-Dutch War, Nine Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession and proved a brave and capable cavalry general. In 1708 he became the de facto supreme commander of the Dutch army, and led the Allied forces together with the Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Bombardment of Arras</span> 1712 engagement of the War of the Spanish Succession

    The bombardment of Arras was an engagement of the War of the Spanish Succession which took place on 2–3 March 1712. A Grand Alliance army under the command of Arnold van Keppel, 1st Earl of Albemarle closed in on Arras with the aim of destroying the supplies held there. The Allies intended for this to prevent the French from fending off sieges of Arras and Cambrai. Although the Allied succeeded, the advantages gained to them were ultimately unexploited due to Austrian troops arriving too late to the Allied army.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Frederick Christiaan van Reede, 2nd Earl of Athlone</span> Dutch States Army officer, diplomat and nobleman

    Frederick Christiaan van Reede, 2nd Earl of Athlone was a Dutch States Army officer, diplomat and nobleman who fought during the Nine Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Tournai (1709)</span> Siege during the War of the Spanish Succession

    The siege of Tournai was a siege of the city of Tournai, then part of the Kingdom of France, between 28 June and 3 September 1709. A Grand Alliance army under the British Duke of Marlborough successfully forced the surrender of the French garrison during the War of the Spanish Succession.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniël van Dopff</span>

    Daniël Wolf baron van Dopf was a Dutch States Army officer and nobleman. He was, among other things, general of the cavalry of the Dutch army during the War of the Spanish Succession, Quartermaster general of that army, and later commander and governor of the fortress of Maastricht.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Stekene</span> Part of the War of the Spanish Succession (1703)

    The Battle of Stekene took place on 27 June 1703, during the War of the Spanish Succession, when a Dutch force of 7,000 men, under Karel Willem Sparre, attacked the Franco-Spanish defensive that ran from Ostend to Antwerp. The lines at Stekene were defended by 2,500 French soldiers under La Mothe and 1,500 to 6,000 local Flemish farmers. After a 3-hour long battle, the French abandoned their posts, which allowed the Dutch to capture the defensive works. The Dutch then attacked and captured the village of Stekene itself where the local farmers fiercely resisted.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Venlo (1702)</span> Military siege by the Grand alliance against French troops

    The siege of Venlo was a 12-day siege of the city of Venlo commenced by the Grand Alliance which saw the city being taken after being occupied by French troops the year before. The siege of Venlo in 1702 was one of many sieges that Venlo had endured throughout its history.

    References

    1. Ostwald 2000, p. 668.
    2. Ostwald 2006, p. 110.
    3. Veenendaal 1950, p. 36.
    4. Veenendaal 1950, p. 34-47.
    5. 1 2 Falkner 2007, p. 158.
    6. 1 2 Churchill 1936, p. 459.
    7. 1 2 Nimwegen 1995, p. 236.
    8. Wijn 1959, p. 405.
    9. 1 2 Van Lennep 1880, p. 274.
    10. Wijn 1959, p. 405–406.
    11. 1 2 Wijn 1959, p. 406.
    12. Falkner 2007, p. 159.
    13. Wijn 1959, p. 413.
    14. 1 2 Churchill 1936, p. 464.
    15. Nimwegen 1995, p. 236-242.
    16. Wijn 1959, p. 436.
    17. Nimwegen 1995, p. 242-243.
    18. Veenendaal 1970, p. 436–437.

    Sources