Hello everyone!

I happened to find Pierre Picouet's website and there's some information on Spanish infantry tactics
http://tercio1617.0catch.com/TactiqueUk.html#Ta52

Here are my questions.

Are the "Escuadrón Cuadro de Terreno" and "Escuadrón Cuadro de Gente" the oldest and the most typical escuadrones in Spanish Army? Do these 2 type of escuadrones have different strengths and weaknesses?

I haven't found any sources with regard to the effectiveness of different infantry formations and when these formations were invented. Picouet's website seems to me that it mainly focuses on XVII century military. I assume Spanish infantry had then been going through some changes and its tactics and formations might be quite different from early in XVI century.

The website lists other escuadrones as well. I really want to know the difference between "Escuadrón Prolongado" and ""Escuadrón Prolongado de Gran Frente" and terms mentioned elsewhere for example "Escuadrón de Doble Frente".When were these escuadrones introduced and how well did they perform?

There are also some other names of different escuadrones that I'm afraid are not mentioned on Picouet's website.
I found this probably from a Facebook page whose name I can't recall

Quote:

Las Banderas, formando también su cuadrado propio, y rodeadas de su Guardia de las Banderas , ocupaban el centro de los escuadrones. Las formaciones básicas de las que todas las demás partían pueden reducirse a estas: El Escuadrón cuadrado, el Triángulo y la Media Luna. Las combinaciones posibles era variadísimas, siguiendose los criterios tácticos de cada general. Las formaciones más corrientes eran: El Escuadrón Cuadrado: es decir, del mismo frente que fondo. Con la fuerza repartida por igual, esta formación era ideal cuando se temía un ataque enemigo por cualquiera de los lados y cuando la inferioridad propia era patente, debiendo apoyarse en este caso el escuadrón en el terreno ( río, peñascos, viñas, etc ) por los flancos y la retaguardia. Era eficaz contra Escuadrones prolongados y en Media Luna, siempre que contase con buenas mangas o flancos que evitasen que fuera cercado. El Escuadrón Prolongado: es formado por 3 cuadrados unidos, y tenía la ventaja de aparentar más fuerza de la real cuando presentaba su lado mayor, siendo corriente para proteger los bagajes en las marchas. El Prolongado en forma de Media Luna o Cornuto era una modalidad del anterior al que se alabeaban las alas a fin de que fueran éstas las que entrasen en contacto con el enemigo, mientras que el centro convenía que se mantuviese alejado. Se adoptaba cuando el centro o batalla contrario era más fuerte que el propio, y frente al Escuadrón Oval. El Escuadrón de Tres Medias Lunas se utilizaba para proteger por separado un bagaje. Con sólo Dos Medias Lunas se denominaba Escuadrón Oval. El Escuadrón Triángular, o en Cuña o Cuneo, se formaba colocando 1 hombre al frente, seguido de 3 y aumentando 2 más en cada hilera. Era aplicable frente al Escuadrón Cuadrado, al Prolongado y al de Media Luna, ya que el número de gente de sus alas era superior a la que presenta el enemigo en vanguardia. El Escuadrón en Tenaza, estaba compuesto por 2 Esc. Triángulares acodados por la base. Se empleaba frente al Romboidal y frente al de Cuña, ya que podía dirigir ataques en mas sentidos y coger enmedio al escuadrón enemigo. La formación podía presentar un mayor número de dientes, con sólo dividir los efectivos totales por el número deseado, en este caso recibía el nombre de Escuadrón en Sierra, cuya modalidad de 3 dientes era la empleada contra El Escuadrón en Tenaza. El Escuadrón en Rombo estaba formado por 2 cuñas unidas por la base y con puntas opuestas. Muy utilizado contra la Caballería por su facilidad de volverse en cualquier dirección. Colocando un mando en cada punta se gobernaba con toda facilidad. Para que las bajas no causasen huecos en la formación que debilitasen la fila y por donde pudiera abrir cuña el enemigo, cada soldado, excepto los de la 1ª fila, tenía instrucciones de adelantar su puesto cuando el anterior quedaba vacío, guardando siempre las distancias ordenadas para poder combatir sin embarazo y que el escuadrón presentase una masa unitaria en la que todos se apoyaban en todos, con su retaguardia y flancos cubiertos.

Does anybody know if there exists a complete list of all types of escuadrones? I'm interested not only in the nomenclature but also their roles in a combat.Also I'm wondering if there are some good examples that show how different infantry formations are deployed on the battlefield and if some of those escuadrones only existed on paper.

I'm a bit confused by the relationship between guarniciones and mangas and infantes perdidos. I guess arquebusiers in guarniciones never stood far away from main body of the pike.But I really don't know what's the difference between mangas and infantes perdidos since both of them are said to fight in vanguard and in detachments. By the way, were musketeers deployed differently from arquebusiers and did they take different tasks on the battlefield or in a siege?

Some halberdiers fought with infantry armed with firearms as they were too far away from pikemen.How were they exactly deployed on the battlefield? Halberdiers unlike pikemen weren't so numerous, is it possible for them to form a core as pikemen and provide enough protection for the missile troops?Did they stand like pikemen to stop the charge of enemy cavalry or did they basically let cavalry charge in and dismount them in a melee? Is it more effective to let musketeers be accompanied by halberdiers or targeteers in a siege rather than on the open field? Are there any examples of soldiers fighting with spears or pikes assaulting ramparts in a siege?

Quote:

On the field, the squadron was organised by the Sargento Mayor (major Sergeant) who organised the companies taking account of the tactic situation, the number of men, the field, the enemy etc...

So what are Maestres de Campo doing while their Sargento Mayor are organizing escuadrones?

I know there are some members who are very familiar with this topic on the forum.I'm looking forward to your posts.

And thanks in advance.

Pike tactic theory for most of the 16th century were primarily based on mathematics and geometrically perfect "squares". In english, the two most popular formations in the 16th century known the "square of men"/"just square" which had an equal number of ranks as files, (but because soldiers needed 3 feet for every file and 7 feet for every rank it would end up looking more like a column than a square in practice) and the "square of ground" which had 7 files for every 3 ranks (resulting in a geometric square even while on the march). You would also often see various "broad squares"/'bastard squares"/"base squares" which were much wider than they were deep, but were still usually described as a ratio of length to width rather than having a fixed number of ranks like later armies.

How useful and how important this was really isn't clear. Even by the mid 17th century people would have been baffled by their forefathers' apparent obsession with square roots. And to be honest a lot of it probably does just have to do with the fact that it was the renaissance and educated men at the time all thought math was super cool. Although there are a number of other possible factors

One possibility is that large squares greatly improved mobility and command and control when it came to very large armies. A square with a narrow front can advance more easily and more quickly without losing cohesion than the same number of troops deployed in a long, thin line. This is the explanation usually given for why the swiss first adopted the square and were able to turn pikemen into an extremely aggressive and offensive arm.

Another factor might be that thinkers in the 16th century still took the threat of cavalry much more seriously. Even large, solid pike squares were still defeated by cavalry charges or flank attacks from time to time. So the thinking may have been that if even an extremely deep formation was at best resistant to flanking, not impervious to flanking, only a mathematically perfect square had the best chance to survive attacks to the flank or being surrounded. This seems to be the explanation Robert Barret gives: the square of men is best in an open field, the broad square is better when you are fighting infantry or can anchor your flanks on the terrain, while the square of ground is the "jack of all trades" formation which is most flexible reasonably effective in multiple situations:

Quote:

Gent. Which of these do you hold for most assured and strong? Capt. I hold them all for sufficient strong, but the difference which may hap∣pen,* is to be iudged according to the situation and disposition of the ground, and occasions to fight, and by the order that the campe shall obserue. For in some oc∣casions the square of men would be best, as in open field, without aduantage of hedge, ditch, water, marish or wood, or where the enemie is strong in horse, to charge on euerie side: the which iust square of men, in euerie part is found to be Page 95 equally strong, and apt euery way to receiue the charge: the which could not be so,* were the battell ouerlong afront, & narrow in flank, as is the bastard, broad, or base square; but yet in other occasions, where these aduantages are to be found, it were better to fight in broad front, for that thereby, many hands do come to fight at once together in the vantguard, and with more difficultie to be compassed by the enemie, hauing any of the aduantages before spoken of to friend: but most cōmonly, if necessitie, occasion, or situation do not constraine otherwise, the qua∣drat of ground [square of ground] is best, and most vsed, as best proportioned with equall strength in vantguard and reareward (especially against footemen) and also flanked suffici∣ently strong: and which of all other doth occupie least quantitie of ground.

A couple decades earlier Barnabe Rich seems to give a somewhat similar conclusion while discussing the formations of the ancients. He thought that broad squares were most useful only when on the defensive and when the ground permitted,

Quote:

THese wt many other proportions which they vsed as their halfe moone, their worme, ther D. their G theyr S. with such like are not worth ye fyguring foorth as the seruice now standeth. Their hearse battailes, their broad squares, their baase squares theyr bastard squares are very good, but best to be vsed vppon aduauntage of ground. . . . . . THere bée other fourmes of battailes framed of many battalions, impaide with sléeues and fillets of Pikes, which as they are very excellent a∣gainst the enemie, so they are most daungerous for that they are quickly disordered, where Souldiours be not most exquisitely trained. But the fight now one∣lie consisting in Shot and Pikes, there is no fourme of imbatteling to be preferred before the iust square, or if your numbers be sufficient to order them into 2. 3. or 4. squadrons according to these figures. . . . . .if you will néedes haue short weapons placed in your squa∣drous, let them be impald euery way a like as well with pikes as with shot. And that the iust square is especially to be preferred, may easely appeare by these considerations. First it is not very curious in placyng, second it is easie for Souldiers to march, especially if they haue to passe any straights through the which they may bee drawne by 5. or 3. in a ranck (if the place will affoorde no greater scope) and be suddainly brought againe in∣to their first proportions without any manner of con∣fusion: but especially the iust square is most defencible and strong, both against horsemen and footemen, wher there is no aduauntage to be taken of ground, either of hedge or dytch, ryuer, hyll, or other like.

There also seems to have been a psychological element when it came to deep pike formations. Aside from the soldiers in the rear perhaps providing a sense of extra comfort and security to those in front, the tall pikes held upright by the rear ranks made the entire depth of the formation very visibile, even from the ground and would greatly intimidate the enemy. This the explaination Thomas Digges gave for why a square armed entirely with uniform pikes was much stronger than a square where only a few ranks had pikes while the rest were given short weapons like halberds and billhooks, even though it was only the first few ranks who actually did any physical fighting.

Over time though you do tend to see less and less reliance on squares of men as armies switch to relying on squares of ground, and later much smaller, thinner battalions during the 17th century. The main nail in the coffin seems to have been the gradual shift from the deployment of a handful of large "battles" to many smaller "battalions" arranged in roman-quincrux-inspired checkerboard formations, most famously used by the dutch. Despite the gaps in the checkerboard formation, the idea seems to have been that these small battalions were more flexible could instead rely on their layers of reserves and overlapping fields of fire to protect their flanks and rear rather than their depth, leading to formations that started to become more shallow and broad over time.

I'll try to get to how the detachments of shot were used in a later post, but for now I want to add that for the 16th century there weren't really concrete doctrines or rules the way their were in later centuries. The few treatises we have are really more suggestions written by private soldiers rather than official manuals. The actual formations and deployment of troops were typically left up to the discretion of the general, colonel, or sergent major and might not even be finalized until the day of battle or involve a great deal of new innovation or experimentation. William Garrard includes a few examples of interesting newly invented formations which he came across at one point, including this one which he saw being used by the Spanish to march along a river. It features many small troupes of skirmishers in front, a large hollow square of pikemen surrounding the whole army, two solid squares of pikemen, and then a wedge for some reason:

[ Linked Image ]

Anyways here's the translation of Mendoza I've been using: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A07432.0001.001?rgn=main;view=toc;q1=Military+art+and+science+--++Early+works+to+1800

Tianhong Yu wrote:

I'm a bit confused by the relationship between guarniciones and mangas and infantes perdidos. I guess arquebusiers in guarniciones never stood far away from main body of the pike.But I really don't know what's the difference between mangas and infantes perdidos since both of them are said to fight in vanguard and in detachments. By the way, were musketeers deployed differently from arquebusiers and did they take different tasks on the battlefield or in a siege?

Again this going to be based more on what i've picked up from english sources and the terminology is far from consistent. While you sometimes see separate units of shot each given a specific role, other times you'll see shot expected to multitask and switch between roles depending on the situation. i.e. if the enemy is far off the shot would be deployed in front of the pikes and fight as a forlorn hope, as enemy infantry approached they would fall back and form two solid wings on either side of the pike square firing volleys, and when threatened by cavalry the shot would need to closely surround the pike square on all four sides, forming an impalement.

Over time an impalement of shot on all sides became more and more important to keep the pikemen safe from charging cavalry armed with pistols or carbines. But while earlier in the century you can find examples like the battle of Ceresole where ranks of pikes and shot were combined to fight against infantry, by the late 1500s the general consensus seems to have been that in an actual push of pike having ranks of unarmored shot in front of the pikemen hurt much more than it helped. By forming the shot into two, deep sleeves or wings on either side of the pikemen firing constant volleys while cycling ranks however, they can continue delivering a constant, close range fire without actually getting in the pikemens' way.

Anyways, regarding the use of mobile detachments of shot like the tercio's "mangas" there seems to have been some disagreement over which was more effective: large bodies of shot firing powerful, concentrated volleys, or much smaller detachments of shot who could more easily spread out into a skirmish line or take advantage of cover. The four sleeves of the tercio seem to have been sort of a middle ground. Four sleeves were certainly more flexible than just two much larger sleeves, but Mendoza felt that even these bodies of 300 arquebusiers were a bit too inflexible and burned through ammunition a bit to quickly for his liking and thought that it would be better to divide them into even smaller troupes.

The use of many small flexible detachments also gets proposed by a number of english authors, with Robert Barret being a particularly strong proponent.

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

For comparison, here's his illustration of what he claims were the two most common formations in use at the time:

[ Linked Image ]

"But (in mine opinion) this order is not so good, as if the shot were deuided in∣to sundry small troupes, trouping round about the battell the one to second the other: placed in forme as hereafter shall follow thus. First, your graund square (or more battailions if you will) being set,* then impale or girdle the same round about with shot, by 3, 5, or 7, or more, in a rank (according to the proportiō of the battell, neare adioyning vnto the armed pikes, to be by them guarded from the horse, if neede were; The rest of the shot deuide into many small troupes by 30 40, or 50 in a troupe, to troupe round about the battell, with some reasonable di∣stance from the same, to maintaine skirmish or fight which way soeuer the ene∣mie approch: Prouided that the same troupes be still maintained, one to second another, that the battell may be by them shadowed, to the end that the skirmishes or troupes of the enemies may not haue that aduantage, to play with their shot vpon your battell: for hee is but a foolish shot, that shooteth at, or among light skirmishers, where he may discharge vpon the body of his enemies battell, which standes thick together, and is a fayre marke to shoot at; for the armed pikes once ouerthrowen, which is the strength of the field, the victorie by all likelyhood is like to ensue."

"The shot appertaining vnto euery of these battels and battallions ought to be deuided (in mine opinion) into sundry small troupes; trouping about the said battels and battallions to maintaine skirmish, and some to be placed vpon bankes,* ditches, and ground of aduantage (the situation yeelding such) according to the direction of the Sergeant Maior generall"

So these smaller troupes would be more flexible, able to skirmish in any direction and keep the main battle safe from enemy shot, keep up a constant skirmish by continually replacing each other as they get worn out. Barret is also critical of the type of volley fire which was used by Maurice of Nassau and instead describes some sort of fire-by-file drill which he claims was more effective, but the description isn't entirely clear.

Anyways, it doesn't seem that this specific type of deployment was actually used much. More often, when small troupes of skirmishers were needed they were probably just formed out of some of the best shooters available, while the rest of the shot was kept in much larger formations for delivering volleys. Describing his experiences in the low countries in "A Martial Conference", Barnabe Rich claims that especially with the musket, many loose skirmishers were skilled enough to be dangerous from as far as 600 yards away and might decide the outcome of an encounter before it even began. The rest of the shot however was still kept nearby in sleeves or wings to deliver powerful close range vollies in case the enemy decided to charge.

". . . when such meetings do happen, captains that be of experience are accustomed to place the stand of pikes (wherein consisteth their strength) upon some ground of advantage, and as neere as they can will bring some hedge, some ditch, some shrubbes or bushes, ors some other like helpes, betweene them and the enemy, because they would not lie open to the musket shot, that the other will then thrust out, (if they can be suffered) to play upon these squadrons or armed men 24. and 30. scores off. Loose shot being thus shaken off, oportunities and advantages are watched on both sides, as well by horsemen as footmen to take their times and occasions, their squandrons standing stil a good distance the one from the other, with wings, fillets, and troupes of shot, to give those volies at hand (that you speake of) if they should be charged, and many times it falleth out, that squadrons be broken and put to a retrait, by advantages taken and procured by these skirmishes. . ."

Thank you for your replies. I find them helpful.

Quote:

The 'escuadrón prolongado' were weak in front an army with a lot of cavalry, so in front of cavalry they prefer to use 'cuadro de gente' or 'cuadro de terreno' in order to be able to defend the formation by his four sides.

Does anyone know how exactly this formation stands up against cavalry? It's clearly different from squares during 18th century.Are there any specific details?

Quote:

According to Lelio Brancaccio, de 25-30 halberdiers armed with corslets, had problems to follow and fight with the arquebusiers of their company, especially in those times [around 1610] when the use of muskets avoid closed combat - skirmishes. So he proposed that they used not halberds or half pikes, but entire pikes, and, even more, suprise those type.

So the halberdiers had trouble keeping up with the arquebusiers.I don't understand how the pike improve the situation.Do pikemen move faster than halberdiers?