Topic: Battles
Shortly after the battle of Errastfer Schlippenbach sent the King an extensive account of the battle. A couple of days later (5 January 1702) he added his own analysis. Schlippenbach emphasized that he had always attempted to serve Charles to the best of his ability and the defeat was primarily a result of the cavalry not having done its duty. It was impossible, the major general wrote, to rely on such soldiers. Could the King not send some reinforcements? The units sent in September had only partially reached him. Albedyhl’s dragoons were supposed to be 300, but were only 60. Only ¼ of Stenbock’s dragoons were with the army and Wactmeister’s regiment was 120 men short.
Schlippenbach’s brother had also been ordered to join the army, but his unit had neither received supplies nor weapons. I dare not, the major general stated, write everything because of fear that those who have caused these problems will take their revenge on me. The artillery had done very well, especially captain Sonnenberg who had been forced to assist in loading the guns. The guns had 25 to 30 shots each and had used up all but 3-4. If the cavalry had had not begun to flee so quickly the guns would have been saved and the army could have stopped its retreat much earlier.
Schlippenbach had, he stated, done everything he could and no one could reasonably blame him for the defeat. All the officers had done their duty, so the fault lay with the common soldiers in the cavalry. The major general had brought the executioner from Dorpat to set an example.
Source: Riksarkivet, Skrivelser till Konungen. Karl XII, vol. 24.
Posted by bengt_nilsson
at 5:46 PM MEST