| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
 Posted: Mon 02 Apr, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
Um...Plutarch himself? 
To get a good picture of what happened at Carrhae, we can't just focus all of our attention upon that single chapter with its dramatic description of the arrow storm and its alleged effects upon the Roman legionaries. The single largest loss of the day was the annihilation of Publius Crassus's detachment away from the main army; Plutarch says that this detachment consisted of 1300 horsemen, eight cohorts, and 500 archers, so it must have numbered over 5000 soldiers in total even if we take account of the possibility that the legionary cohorts might have been understrength from attrition and desertion and all. Compare this to the number of wounded men that Crassus had to leave in camp later during the night as he made a hurried retreat along with the rest of the army: a mere 4000 men. It would not be unreasonable to assume that these 4000 men would have been all (or nearly all) the casualties Crassus's army would have suffered in the battle itself if it hadn't been for the greater and morally more significant loss of Publius and his detachment. 4000 might have been a fairly heavy loss for an army of 40,000 but I daresay that, without Publius's detachment and its disastrous defeat, this 10% loss would not have been crippling to (Marcus) Crassus's army!
(In fact, if we tally the losses mentioned by Plutarch, we find that the majority was due to the annihilation of small detachments that straggled away from the main body, either during the hurried march to Carrhae (such as Vargontinus and his four cohorts) or as the army disintegrated after Crassus was lured into a trap and murdered. The 4000 men lost during the day's fighting pales in comparison to these).
Another issue is that we don't have Parthian sources for this battle. If any of them had survived (and been translated for our study), I believe they would have mourned the heavy losses they incurred as the price for this victory, particularly during the desperate fighting with Publius Crassus and his cornered detachment. In other words, the heavy casualties probably went both ways, albeit much heavier for the Romans than for the Parthians. |
If my memory serves me Surena was later persecuted, maybe lack of parthian sources indicates intentioned erasing of accounts of his exploits, or existence.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
I normally would deny the idea that cavalry went into a "decline" at the end of the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance but, truth be told, this is one of the few things that actually do make a case for such a decline. Medieval men-at-arms were (generally speaking) a versatile elite force able to fight as heavy cavalry, light cavalry, or heavy infantry as needed. As other troops took over the infantry and light cavalry roles, however, the gens d'armes appear to have become more confined and stereotyped into the heavy cavalry role, losing much of their original flexibility in the process. Of course, this was a very gradual process; in the 1460s and 70s the hommes d'armes were still a multirole force, and even their heavy cavalry actions often involved a great deal of manoeuvre (with sometimes hilarious results, such as the mess at Montlhery). Even the Burgundian ordinances of the 1470s still stipulated that their men-at-arms ought to be able to fight dismounted if necessary. In contrast, while 16th-century men-at-arms could theoretically dismount, it seems that in practice they no longer expected to be regularly ordered to do so.
On the other hand, I have to wonder if the image you get of inflexibility is heavily coloured by the bias in your reading towards major battles and large formations. Montluc in his memoirs relates a number of smaller engagements where the shock cavalry on the French side (though not necessarily gendarmes) were able to conduct flanking manoeuvres, regroup after an attack, and the like. The cavalry in these "small wars" also frequently participated in raids and expeditions, some of which required them to dismount in order to join the friendly forces scaling a town wall or something like that. And of course let's not forget Bayard's lightning raid in 1515, which netted none less than Prospero Colonna himself! |
Loyal serviteur mentiones also some other skirmishises in which Bayard took place - like one against Stradiots. It also mentiones french men at arms dismouting and storming enemy barricades with their lances on foot and other examples. I was rather persuaded that they were multi puspouse warriors well into the first quarter of 16th century at least. And even then to teh degree. What about for example nobleman serving as english light dragoon trooper during napoleonic wars? - wouldnt he receive extensive training and be competent swordman, horseman and even marksman at once, and generally quite well educated, so he could serve any role needed as well?
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | Administratively neater, yes. But in terms of military practice the Ordonnances were probably just a formalisation of the structures and methods that had become gradually established among the better elements of the French royal forces during the final phase of the Hundred Years' War. The royal Ordonnance did not spring out of a vacuum either; there were a number of ordinances of a more local nature enacted in the preceding decades. The impact of the royal Ordonnance (and the companies (re)organised under its aegis) largely lay in the fact that this time it was the French king doing it with all the resources of the royal administration (and exchequer!) behind him, thus achieving more far-reaching and longer-lasting effects than the previous ducal and comital ordinances.
(As an aside, De Re Militari (the research group) used to have Brian Ditcham's dissertation on foreign mercenaries in French service in the era straddling the promulgation of the Ordinances, but it seems to be gone now due to a malware attack on their site. Which is too bad since it's a really valuable resource, particularly in showing some of the continuities between the Compagnies d'Ordonnance and earlier practice.)
Not quite true. Charlemagne (or even one of his immediate predecessors) appear to have established royal scarae as some sort of small standing component serving as a mobile reserve that didn't have to be raised anew for each and every campaign. The military Orders of the Crusades were essentially quasi-independent standing armies. Henry II and Richard I of England also made much use of long-service mercenaries who partook of the character of standing armies while their reigns lasted. Simply said, "the first standing army since Roman times" is pretty much a meaningless epithet since it can be assigned to any number of the better-organised military institutions in the era depending on how we define "standing army." |
Im quite lacking perspective from earlier times. I dont know where exactly Ive read it, but it was explained that these ordonnances instituted cavalry companies that wold generally train together and be payed and loyal to the french king immediatly, with him having full power over commisioning commanders et. Good information on the earliest days of ordonnaces seems to be scarce - generally it only mentions first ordonnance being issued in 1445, though Ive seen vague statements of them being issued even earlier, but I dont know any further details. Charles the Bolds ordonnaces seem are accesible in bigger detail, at lest from internet sources. (I mean their exact form, like what was presribed salaries etc.)
|
|
   |
 |
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Apr, 2012 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brian Ditcham's "The employment of foreign mercenary troops in the French royal armies 1415-1470" is available from Ethos, the Brittish Library's online thesis database.
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=7&...hos.483025
You just have to register (which is free) in order to download it, Ethos has a number of other interesting theses as well, it is a superb resource.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2012 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
i found one question about the use of pistols by cavalry to be a interesting one that was proposed by a friend of mine,
where, when i told him of the contents of the article 'from lance to pistol' i told him the wheellock was used by reiters to move close to the lancers and then fire their pistols at the face, thigh and hands etc. since youd be hard pressed to puncture the breastplate (which i assumed were probably of proof against such a thing, even if a arquebus or the later musket could get through such armour.
at which point he asked,
' or you could just shoot the horses' for the reason that, the horses would likely have more exposed areas than that of the man riding it. since a gendarme level lancer would have had a face protecting helmet, and a breastplate, most often one of proof.
and there are indeed more places on even a barded horse, to shoot, namely the eyes of the horse which have larger , possibly the neck maybe as well not the feet, clearly,
and that makes me pause and think, thats a good question
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2012 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | Brian Ditcham's "The employment of foreign mercenary troops in the French royal armies 1415-1470" is available from Ethos, the Brittish Library's online thesis database.
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=7&...hos.483025
You just have to register (which is free) in order to download it, Ethos has a number of other interesting theses as well, it is a superb resource. |
Thank you for a tip it seems really interesting.
| William P wrote: | i found one question about the use of pistols by cavalry to be a interesting one that was proposed by a friend of mine,
where, when i told him of the contents of the article 'from lance to pistol' i told him the wheellock was used by reiters to move close to the lancers and then fire their pistols at the face, thigh and hands etc. since youd be hard pressed to puncture the breastplate (which i assumed were probably of proof against such a thing, even if a arquebus or the later musket could get through such armour.
at which point he asked,
' or you could just shoot the horses' for the reason that, the horses would likely have more exposed areas than that of the man riding it. since a gendarme level lancer would have had a face protecting helmet, and a breastplate, most often one of proof.
and there are indeed more places on even a barded horse, to shoot, namely the eyes of the horse which have larger , possibly the neck maybe as well not the feet, clearly,
and that makes me pause and think, thats a good question |
Hard to say how much proof their armour was in a real fight, Monmorency supposedly had several teeth kicked off his mouth by a bullet before he was taken prisoner at Dreux and I vaguely remember from Ambrois Pares report about the battle of Dreux that he also treated some men at arms with wounds from ranged weapons.
Also Im not perfectly sure if its true, but horse armour tended to be a little thinner so maybe easier to compromise.
But I still wonder if pistoliers by themselves were so effective in melee if lancers werent routed or disordered soon enough. Sure they have pistols, but are propably inferior horsemen with inferior armour mounted on horses of inferior quality compared to average man at arms. I wouldnt say a bullet guaranteed so much more effectiveness than using a mace or a sword against resolute opposition. On the other hand there are battles like St. Quentin or Gravelines at the end of italian wars. If my understanding is correct in both cases french gendarmes in single line were routed by imperial lancers/men at arms arrayed in deep collumns, not unlike reiters maybe. Wasnt it rather superiority of deeper and more compact masses of cavalrymen against single line than pistol itself that contributed to its effectiveness against typical french use of gendarmes in religious wars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2012 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The issue of reiters and men at arms is perhaps also sustainability of performance. Horses need lots of fodder and high performance horses for charges are not as easy to procure as the Ringerpferde (geringere-Pferde = lower ranking horses in comparison to gendarme mounts) of the reiters and probably are not as demanding in diet. Because war seems to be lots of small war before and after a battle a cheap cavalry force could be quite effective in reducing enemy capability of expensive mounts in large numbers. This can give less capable mounts in larger numbers a performance and numerical advantage to win. Be it fodder or a number of light cavalry skirmishes.
Gustav Adolph fought in Poland before entering Germany and while his cavalry without as long lances or lances at all, unlike the heavy Polish winged hussars, did lose fights against these, the Polish victory meant losses of quality horses for their excellent lancers that were hard to replace.
As I sidenote, I've always been asking myself about precursors to the pistol that became a cavalry weapon par excellence. The hurlbats discussed elsewhere are one such option. Were there other earlier weapons that shared pistol traits other than bows (combined with very heavy short range arrows in the Mongol style) and crossbows?
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2012 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: | | Also Im not perfectly sure if its true, but horse armour tended to be a little thinner so maybe easier to compromise. |
In discussing the best way for pikemen to meet a cavalry charge, Humphrey Barwick wrote that horse armor for the breast tended to be thinner than for the head. He considered aiming at the horse's head or the armored rider to be useless, but seemed to think a pike might penetrate a horse's breast armor.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2012 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: |
(...)
at which point he asked,
' or you could just shoot the horses' for the reason that, the horses would likely have more exposed areas than that of the man riding it. since a gendarme level lancer would have had a face protecting helmet, and a breastplate, most often one of proof.
and there are indeed more places on even a barded horse, to shoot, namely the eyes of the horse which have larger , possibly the neck maybe as well not the feet, clearly,
and that makes me pause and think, thats a good question |
Killing the horse was indeed a possibility and cavalry manuals show this being done with lance, pistol and sword. However captured horses was a source of remounts so aiming at the man rather than the horse was a way to preserv this resource. On the other hand some armies were noted "horse killers", the Spanish had such a reputation in the Italian wars of the early 16th Century while the Swedes were instructed to use their swords against the horse rather than the basicly sword proof cuirassiers by Gustavus Adolphus in the 30YW.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
But I still wonder if pistoliers by themselves were so effective in melee if lancers werent routed or disordered soon enough. Sure they have pistols, but are propably inferior horsemen with inferior armour mounted on horses of inferior quality compared to average man at arms. I wouldnt say a bullet guaranteed so much more effectiveness than using a mace or a sword against resolute opposition. On the other hand there are battles like St. Quentin or Gravelines at the end of italian wars. If my understanding is correct in both cases french gendarmes in single line were routed by imperial lancers/men at arms arrayed in deep collumns, not unlike reiters maybe. Wasnt it rather superiority of deeper and more compact masses of cavalrymen against single line than pistol itself that contributed to its effectiveness against typical french use of gendarmes in religious wars? |
I do think you are making far too many assumptions regarding the "inferiority" of the Pistoliers. Why would a Hugenot nobleman be worse mounted than his Royalist counterpart? Why would a veteran Reiter recruited from the ranks of the German "Niederadel" be a worse horseman than the French Gendarme? While many Reiters would be wearing less plate armour than a man-at-arms there is no evidence to my knowledge that the armour itself was of inferior quality. (Not to mention that a considerable number of pistoliers wore exactly the same types of harness as the lancers.)
Contemporary writers considered the Pistoliers/Reiters to be an effective force up to 1570, after that a drop in over all quality and the use of poor tactics gave the German Reiters a poor reputation which to some extent spread to the Pistoliers who did not suffer from their faults. In the 1580's the Pistoliers began to recover their reputation thanks to the battlefield success of Henri IV's cavalry and by the 1590's that had spread to the Netherlands as well in the shape of the reformed cavalry of Maurits of Nassau.
Rabutin writing in the 1550's described the Reiters as follows:
| Quote: | | "...these reitres, who have since been called "black armor", all of whom being armed with pistols, furious and frightening firearms, seemed to have been invented for the amazement and breaking of the French men-at-arms. |
Blaise de Monluc thought highly of the Reiters he fought in the French wars of Religion, he described them as follows in his Commentaries
| Quote: | | "In truth those people encamp themselves like true men of war, it is very hard to surprize them : they are more careful than we, especially of their horses and arms and are besides more terrible in war, for a man can see nothing but fire and steel ; and not a Groom in their Troops but accouters and trains himself up to the fight and so in time become good soldiers” |
The Reiters have better discipline, their horses and arms are in better condition and they were a more terrible foe than the French lancers. No small praise from such an experienced veteran.
La Noue and Davila, both veteran cavalrymen, regarded the Reiters as most dangerous when they were mixed with their enemies in the melee.
La Noue:
| Quote: | | "The one that the Reiter is never so dangerous as when they be mingled with the enemy, for then be they all fire. " |
Davila
| Quote: | | “the Germans, (who if they can once find a breach open , easily overthrow any body of men)” |
| Quote: | | "...the German Horse coming up in two great Squadrons, armed with pistols, with a new and furious assault mingled themselves in the conflict , and absolutely disordered the whole Battalion of the Catholicks so that being defeated and routed, they manifeftly ran away." |
Even Mendoza who was very much in favour of the lancer stressed the need for the lancers to quickly overthrow the Reiters with a fast charge before they had time to use their pistols in the melee.
In the melee a properly loaded pistol would have advantage of not only being more effective against any armoured target but pistol fire also had a much greater psychological effect. The combined effect of the two gave the Reiters the advantage in the melee. The lancer on the other hand would have been force to drop his primary weapon and rely on his sword or other sidearms. However the armour worn by pistoliers would offer considerable protection against such weapons and they lacked the "shock and awe" factor of close range pistol fire.
Of course the deeper, more solid formation often used by Pistoliers was an advantage against the thin "en haye" formation of the French Men-at-arms but pistoliers continued to inflict defeats on the Royalist lancers after they adopted the deeper "en host" formation from 1569 onwards. But the defeats became much less frequent until the Henri IV revitalised the pistol armed cavalry from 1587 onward. Since the change in formation coincides with the begining of the decline in quality among the Reiters as well as the change to poorer tactics it is hard to judge just how important any one factor was.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well sure theres quite a preconcetion on my part about generally better quality of training and fighting proficiency of men at arms and their mounts.
So regarding reiters and also pistoliers of Henry IV, were they mostly heavily armoured? My view was that only a fraction of them wore plate armour, men in front ranks mostly, while other men filling volume of formation would have lesser protection.
Also couldnt a performance/tactics of lancers be considered poor in general in these battles as well? (Like at the battle of Coutras, where they went into gallop too early and arrived completely disordered) Or did they generally performed the best they could?
Also what about gendarmes carrying pistols themselves as sidearms, at the battle of Dreux for example? I cant find exact source now, but werent both Monmorency and St Andre injured/shot by french rather than reiters?
Regarding french wars of religion - was there some occasion when lancers were explicitly beaten by reiters single handedly in condition that wouldnt favour neither side? Most examples Im aware of include reiters supporting their allied lancers. (namely Dreux, St. Denis, Jarnac, Moncontour) Also there were much more reiters in protestant army than gendarmes at Dreux, with huge part of them held in reserve - why havent this reserve played any part in most crucial moments of a battle - can this be explained by them all beginning to loot catholic camp once they perceived battle as won, or does this concern only reiters supporting gendarmes against the Swiss?
Could clashes of Polish hussars with Swedish cavalry in 17th century be considered analogous to reiters vs gendarmes? I have only scarse knowledge of it but if Im right, there were occasions when hussars triumped, just as ones in which swedes won the day, so Im not sure if from this examples conclusion about complete inherent superiority of pistol over lance can be drawn. (Im aware that sometimes accented total praise of winged hussars isnt valid)
My point is mainly that in italian wars gendarmes seemed to be able to best enemy cavalry every time I can recollect owing to their superior discipline, esprit de corps and ferocity. (and greater numbers many times ) At the end of war there were battles of Gravelines and St. Quentin, french were soundly beaten in both and my own search into what exactly happened there indicates french cavalry was on both occasions routed by flemmish horse of comte d´Egmont. These are designated as chevaux legers, I found no clear indication whether they were armed with lances or firearms.
So if temporary setback of reiters can be apologized by them employing poor tactics and drop of standards in quality and discipline, couldnt the same be said about gendarmes, maybe even well before religious wars ever started?
Last edited by Jaroslav Kravcak on Sat 07 Apr, 2012 9:57 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: | | Also Im not perfectly sure if its true, but horse armour tended to be a little thinner so maybe easier to compromise. |
In discussing the best way for pikemen to meet a cavalry charge, Humphrey Barwick wrote that horse armor for the breast tended to be thinner than for the head. He considered aiming at the horse's head or the armored rider to be useless, but seemed to think a pike might penetrate a horse's breast armor. |
I allways wonder why horses legs and feet were completely neglected in protecting them with armour, at least in context of 16th century horse armour. Would they be considered mobile enough not to present good target? There are some quite interesting illustrations in one of Hector Mairs manuscript of two mounted men at arms riding parallel to each other with one thrusting his lance laterally to the ground infront of others horses feet to trip over maybe. Would pikes be used in the same way sometimes/in some situations?
Also how many ranks of pikemen were considered ideal against cavalry? Wouldnt one be theoretically quite enough against anything but pistoliers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i dunno about the feet, but with leg armour, we discussed his in another thread, the issue is that its very difficult to correctly armour a horses legs, they have to be spot on in terms of make and fit otherwise theyll cause the horse to go lame, and a men at arms might hae 3 campaign/ warhorses in his retinue, so thats adding up to a very expensive investment already.
and also unless im mistaken, the front row of pikes braceed their pike into the ground pointing it upwards.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jaroslav,
I'll try to reply to all of your points but will break down the reply into several posts rather than writing a single massive reply that will take forever to finish.
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
Also what about gendarmes carrying pistols themselves as sidearms, at the battle of Dreux for example? I cant find exact source now, but werent both Monmorency and St Andre injured/shot by french rather than reiters? |
Some Gendarmes carried a pistol from the start of the wars of Religion but in the Royal army it did not become regulation equipment until the 1570's and some writers such as Davila suggests that even as late as 1590 a considerable number of Gendarmes on the Catholic side did not carry pistols. (Mayenne's squadron only had swords to defend themselves with at Ivry in 1590 if Davila is correct. )
La Noue comments on the French Gendarmes use of the pistol:
| Quote: | | "It may hereto be replied that the man-of-arms carrieth also one pistol which he useth when his spear [lance] is broken. It is soon said, but coldly practiced, for the most of them scarce caring to charge [load], do refer that to their men [valets], who have no greater use of it than themselves, and when they come to fight, the one half do fail, as hath been oft enough tried, or at least through evil charging do no hurt." |
Wheellock pistols were high tech weaponry in the 16th century and required special skills to use and mantain properly. As can be seen in La Noue’s comment the French Gendarmes all to often did not have these skills nor did they care to aquire them. The Reiters on the other hand did more often have the skilles neded to make much more effective use of their pistols. Reiter companies were also supposed to have a gunsmith in the company staff to keep the pistols and arquebuses do repairs and more difficult mantainance.
The Huguenots were clearly able to become effective users of the pistol more rapidly than the Royal Gendarmes, their close relationship with their German auxiliaries and the fact that their leadership came to favor the weapon could have played a part in this.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
Last edited by Daniel Staberg on Sun 08 Apr, 2012 2:20 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
Could clashes of Polish hussars with Swedish cavalry in 17th century be considered analogous to reiters vs gendarmes? I have only scarse knowledge of it but if Im right, there were occasions when hussars triumped, just as ones in which swedes won the day, so Im not sure if from this examples conclusion about complete inherent superiority of pistol over lance can be drawn. (Im aware that sometimes accented total praise of winged hussars isnt valid)
|
Both yes and no. The wars between Sweden and the Commonwealth provides numerous examples of Pistoliers fighting with Lancers but hussars were not Gendarmes any more than Swedes were Reiters. Though there were similarities in basic fighting methods there were also significant diffrences in equipment and tactics which affected both performance and outcome.
For example at the begining of the wars (the so called Livonian War of 1600-1610) Swedish cavalry was unarmored mounted arquebusiers who recieved Polish-Lithuanian charges at the halt and tried to fight off the charge with fire from aquebus and pistol.
Another example is the lance used by the Hussars. The Kopia was hollow, this made it possible to make longer than the heavy lances used by the Gendarmes even though the hussars did not use a lance rest. However this also gave it worse performance against plate armour as it transfered less kinetic energy to the target and broke more quickly upon impact.
Both hussars and Swedish cavalry fought in formations that were diffrent from those in the French Wars of Religion, the used of the banner & company as the combat unit meant that units were much smaller than the squadrons of the FWOR.
The depth of the formations were also diffrent as the Swedes first adopted Dutch style formations and then proceded to modify them by decreasing the depth even further.
It is futile to look for evidence of ”complete inherent superiority”, the interaction between the two weapons is far more complex than that. Even in the 16th and 17th Centuries military writers argued about the merits of both weapons, while much can be learned from the debate not all writers were equal in knowledge and experience so they do not have equal worth.
The best text I have read on the subject is by Giorgio Basta, a highly experienced cavalryman who served in both the Spanish and Imperial armies and who held senior commands in both armies. He shows that both types of cavalry had their strong and weak points, it is too bad that it is so often overlooked perhaps due to not being available in English.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2012 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
So regarding reiters and also pistoliers of Henry IV, were they mostly heavily armoured? My view was that only a fraction of them wore plate armour, men in front ranks mostly, while other men filling volume of formation would have lesser protection.
|
In general most (all?) Reiters seem to have been armoured, the regulations issued when units were enlisted for service demanded armour of all men.
| Quote: | | ”…good and valiant cavalrymen, men of war and service, true Germans, well mounted and armed with corselet, mail sleeves, gauntlets, morion, and equipped with two pistols each, a sword and a mace” |
-1568 instructions for a Colonel Luneburg to raise Reiters for the Royal Army.
Instructions for Reiters raised for Danish and Imperial service show the same type of armour and it is the kind of armour we see preserved in the Graz Armoury and depicted in period artwork.
Known as a ”Trabharnisch” this type of armour had evolved from a style of lighter suits that seem to have appeared in the 1540’s
August of Saxony’s Trabharnisch from 1546
Emperor Charles V wearing an armour in the same style at Mühlberg 1547
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Titian...A22965.jpg
As time went on the tassets seem to have grown smaller and smaller until they disappeared in the final style of the Trabharnisch. This rare 1560 armour in the Graz Landeszeughaus may represent the link between the style of the 1540’s and the style of the 1570’s.
The Trabharnisch provided effective protection at a price that was cheap compared to that of the full harness worn by the man-at-arms (7.5 to 8 Gulden compared to 35 Gulden or more to use the prices recorded by the Graz armoury). The lower weight gave the Reiter and advantage in mobility and endurance compared to the men-at-arms, if needed the men could even dismount and fight on foot.
There are also some suits of armour identified as belonging to Reiters which even in the 1570’s and later had long tassets in order to protect the thighs:
The problem is that as far as I have been able to tell the identification of this style of armour as belonging to Reiters is based on conjecture. In the cases were we have documentation (the Graz armoury) this style of suits were made for infantry usage. The quality of a suits is not automaticly evidence automatically cavalry armour. Much of the preserved infantry armour is of good quality and Graz has a fair number of high quality armours made for use by ’Trabants” (bodyguards), NCO’s and officers.
There is also some evidence that officers and NCO’s could be wearing better armour including the feldküriss (full harness). A Swedish document provides some interesting evidence that in some units the men in the front rank was equipped with better armour. At the time the Swedish cavalry patterned itself and it’s equipment on the Germans but it is hard to tell if this was another thing that was copied or if it was a local invention.
The armour of the Huguenot Pistoliers is a more difficult question to answer since the level of armour varied greatly during the wars of Religion. The question has already be discussed to some extent in an earlier topic www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=12626&highlight=
By the late 1580’s Henri’s army seem to have suffered from a lot of shortages, cut off from foreign supportes and short of internal resosupportersir ability to equipp themselves properly was poor.equipe point the ciircumstances were such that a gentcircumstancesave been Sully but I struggling to find the quote without success) considered himself to be well equipped with a good horse and a cuirass. Some years later at Ivry writers like Davila described the equipment of the Hugenot Cuirassiers as ”admirably well armed” and ”excellently well armed and gallantly mounted”.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Apr, 2012 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These are all very intresting informations indeed thank you for your time and effort.
What about mounts quality and training and equestrian skills of reiters? If I understood it correctly they would have came from a lesser german nobility, so Id assume they were capable horsemen, nevertheless would they be mounted as well as opposing gendarmes on average? (I recall discussion about comparison of prices of horses for different types of 16th century cavalry with gendarmes mounts being several times as expensive, plus the requirement of having three of them)
Interesting to see analogous statement about german horsemen being more caring about their horses and equipment, it reminds me some quotes about carelessness of french of their horses during napoleonic wars. Wasnt it overstated a little on the side of Montluc? Regarding gendarmes wouldnt they put great effort in obtaining best care for their horses as quite considerable investment?
De la Noue has a quote about lance being ineffective against period armour, yet it could still be good against enemy horses, it seems, especially completely unarmoured. What would be the expected effective range for a wheellock pistol of the period (roughly 1560-1590), especially when compared to a lance length. Or maybe better asked- at what distance would reiters deliver their volley? Against mass of lancers would they rely primarily on accuracy against particular targets, or rather their fire was aimed at disrupting enemy formation? Could it be said how often this would end in melee and how often lancers were broken by fire before they made contact?
How would a melee in this case look like? Would they intermingle chaotically, or would both sides ideally struggle to maintain coherent line? Would a pistolier try to close in to shoot at point blank range, or rather keep his distance? Or would reiters could be said remain in block defending with fire on all sides, aiming at breaking through enemy formation and carry on moving? Would they engage whole line, or rather its segment wheeling then around? Couldnd they be surrounded by gendarmes in line?
What about horse armour for rank and file reiter, I dont recall many images of them using any more extensive protection at all. Why not at least chamfron, crinet and peytral? Was it so expencive compared to the price of all the other equipment or was it so impractical/unessesary due to the way in which they fought? Could this indicate they tryed to avoid close quaarters combat with other cavalry, unless it was sufficiently disorganized and demoralized maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are a great many assumptions up there that as far as I know are little encumbered by evidence.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There are a great many assumptions up there that as far as I know are little encumbered by evidence. |
Great quote, Randall 
Though I read the article above, and I find much that I agree with. The charge of cavalry IMO was much like a game of chicken in cars - whomever "flinched" first lost. And cavalry have an ability to create fear, more than footmen, and cavalry were often the highest in morale among troops.
While there is not much "true" evidence that infantry if facing a cavalry charge would flee, and that's the way cavalry won, there is little or no evidence t the contrary as well.
The battle despcriptions generally don't go into this type of detail - the cavalry are either victorious or not, and the how or why is not usually available.
The thought that infantry stood up to cavalry and slugged it out to to toe is just as much of an opinion as the thought that one side often started to route is.
I agree with much of the above link of William's - though IMO the author may hve gone a hair overboard.
But as one for instance - Stirling Bridge - the failed English heavy cavalry charge results in very few fatalities for the English. A crash into the pike armed shiltrons would seem to result in far more casualties. It seems that a few of the English horse did wind up impaling themselves on the spears of the schiltrons - but the rest fled after realizing sharging a group of infantry with long spears does not work if they stand solid.
Look at the use of cavalry in police riot units - they function in a similar manner. And while rioteers are a mob of unruly humans, there is at least somewhat of a similarity to foot soldiers of antiquity.
|
|
|
|
|
Maurizio D'Angelo
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some soldiers, mercenaries, defined doppelsöldner, with Zweihänder were used to thin the enemy pikes, thus eliminating the greatest danger to the cavalry.
If the bond between horse and rider is so strong, that a horse will allow itself to essentially be exhausted to the point of collapse and death.
Belisario, speaks of military training of his horse.
The cavalry, usually, was not used to frontal assaults against infantry formations trained and equipped.
Better to get around, the losses are smaller.
Ciao
Maurizio
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
btw the debate gets better at the end of the thread..
interesting how it mentions he hussar kopia was like 3-4m long or something.
what they seemed o miss alot was that they seemed to think a charge was always full gallop even on contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic