[Lafayette C Curtis]

Would a sufficiently large, well-trained, and well-officered body of shot in the mid-17th century be capable of repelling a frontal cavalry charge by the force of its fire alone? It would seem that a single-rank or multiple-rank salvo could allow them to do so, but did their doctrine actually provide for it? (i.e. would it allow a large enough number of shot to face a frontal attack by enemy horse without support from pike, friendly horse, or convenient pieces of terrain)?

Actually, what I'm really wondering about is the horse's perspective on the matter. Would it be realistic for an experienced officer of horse to dread the prospect of attacking the shot frontally under these circumstances?

[Daniel Staberg]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Gordon Frye]

It was certainly considered unwise to leave your Shotte out in the open without pike support in the face of any sort of Horse. The French Wars of Religion are rife with reports of large bodies of unsupported Shotte being ridden down wholesale by the enemy's Heavy Horse. The French, especially the Huguenots, had a strong tendency in this period to prefer the arquebus and musket to service with the pike, and thus their volunteer armies were usually exeptionally heavy with such firearmed foot soldiers. Forming them up in "battalions de parade" were attempts to make a square of Shotte as impervious to Horse as a square of Pikes, but it was for the most part unsuccessful, leading to the massacre of the Shotte. The only times in which Shotte, unsupported by their Pikemen were successful were such battles as Coutras and Ivry, where Henri of Navarre placed his Huguenot arquebusiers in blocks between columns of Heavy Cavalry, and they were used to break up the charging Leaguer Heavy Cavalry with a single salvo delivered at very close range. So even then the Shotte weren't totally unsupported, as they had the Heavy Horse at their side to mop up the remnant Leaguer Cavalry which may have remained to molest them while they reloaded.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, I'm looking for mid-17th century rather than mid-16th century stuff. Still, Gordon, I think your remarks are not irrelevant to the subject of the original question because now it makes me wonder about the difference--if 17th-century Shot could sometimes repel horse just by the force of their fire while 16th-century shot generally couldn't, might there have been some important development that caused this discrepancy? Might the greater concentration of Shot in 17th-century infantry formations have provided them with the necessary mass of firearm-equipped soldiers to deploy enough firepower for repelling Horse, a mass which their 16th-century predecessors lacked? And might better and simplified drills have played a part in this transformation?

Oh well. I just can't help speculating about this stuff. The old adage of "the more you know, the more you become aware of what you don't know" seems doubly true for this subject of pike-and-shot tactics.

[David Evans]

[Sean Manning]

Was there any change in shock cavalry formations over this period, or between Poland and western Europe? It seems like that might affect how the cavalry responded to being shot at.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[James R.Fox]

Sirs-It is my impression that that this was the reason the reason the dragoon or (Reiter in in German )was developed, by the Swedes and the Rhineland troops espically the Bishop of Leiges who was a famous mercenary in the War of the first coallition against Louis XIV. The Dragoons were heavy armoured horse and and man with a a heavy thrusting sword and a heavy carbine called a Dragon or Drragoon.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Let me do a bit of thread necromancy here, since I ran across this interesting bit in Montluc's memoirs (I don't remember who dumped it on me, but I suspect Daniel Staberg deserves the credit and the blame):

[Ben P.]

Another factor would be if the horses were armoured as well as the rider.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the italians still using condotierres at the time? If so the fact they were mercenaries may have had something to do with it.