Good day :)
I wonder why archers accompanying gendarmes evolved from initial mounted longbowmen to another two armoured lancers. Why was it that french considered having force composed of lighter versions of their men at arms to be better alternative eventually than having a force of missile cavalry acting as dragoons? (if it can be called this way)
Maybe its naive imagination but wouldnt they be much more effective against imperialist infantry when combining cavalry charges with close missile support rather than having this medium cavalry?
And one unrelated question: If I got it right there were 2500-3000 gendarmes at the battle of Marignan while there were about 300 at the battle Ceresole. Does this have something to do with severe losses they suffered at the battle of Pavia (either by losing many veterans that were hard to replace or by being motivated to focus more on infantry) or was it just a coincidence?
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
| Good day :)
I wonder why archers accompanying gendarmes evolved from initial mounted longbowmen to another two armoured lancers. Why was it that french considered having force composed of lighter versions of their men at arms to be better alternative eventually than having a force of missile cavalry acting as dragoons? (if it can be called this way) Maybe its naive imagination but wouldnt they be much more effective against imperialist infantry when combining cavalry charges with close missile support rather than having this medium cavalry? |
We don't know how and why the Archers evolved into cavalry only that they did. The most likely reason is that the longbow was an obsolete weapon with rather limited effect against troops equipped in plate armour combined the the fact that the French had trouble raising skilled archers even in the limited numbers needed by the ordonnance companies. On the other hand the Archers who had always been well equipped would provide usefull mounted melee troops either fighting separately or as a second rank to the Gendarmes.
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
|
And one unrelated question: If I got it right there were 2500-3000 gendarmes at the battle of Marignan while there were about 300 at the battle Ceresole. Does this have something to do with severe losses they suffered at the battle of Pavia (either by losing many veterans that were hard to replace or by being motivated to focus more on infantry) or was it just a coincidence? |
The reason that there were so few Gendarmes at Ceresole is that the bulk of the Gendarmerie was busy defending France against the invasion of the English & Imperial armies. Monluc mentions that even at full strenght Enghiens companies would only have had 400 Gendarmes.
Were they all expected to be archers in earlier times? Ive read somewhere they were equipped with either bow or crossbow but Im not sure if it was actually a relevant source (its on wikipedia as well :D)
When I read about the battle of Dreux I was impressed by the part in which Swiss fought against a combination of lancers and german mercenary pistoliers. They seemed to be relatively more effective together in compare to purely lance armed cavalry like at Ceresole against Spanish (but Im aware the situation there was much different) or any other cavalry force that ever tried to fight against Swiss. Werent the shortcommings of gendarmes evident as soon as the battle of Marignan? (Where about 300 french nobles were killed or wounded if I got it right) Wouldnt their archers be of better if they were melee/missile cavalry similar to reiters?
I speculated what would it be like to let the screen of pistoliers approach infantry first firing their pistols and then moving to the side to make room for the charge of lancers. Or similarly to use lancers after fire exchange of two columns or pistoliers. Could this be more effective than what happened- that lance was generally absolutely abandoned for pistols untill napoleonic wars? (maybe in morale impact such a combined blow would have) Or would it be too complicated and inefficient to perform such a things?
When I read about the battle of Dreux I was impressed by the part in which Swiss fought against a combination of lancers and german mercenary pistoliers. They seemed to be relatively more effective together in compare to purely lance armed cavalry like at Ceresole against Spanish (but Im aware the situation there was much different) or any other cavalry force that ever tried to fight against Swiss. Werent the shortcommings of gendarmes evident as soon as the battle of Marignan? (Where about 300 french nobles were killed or wounded if I got it right) Wouldnt their archers be of better if they were melee/missile cavalry similar to reiters?
I speculated what would it be like to let the screen of pistoliers approach infantry first firing their pistols and then moving to the side to make room for the charge of lancers. Or similarly to use lancers after fire exchange of two columns or pistoliers. Could this be more effective than what happened- that lance was generally absolutely abandoned for pistols untill napoleonic wars? (maybe in morale impact such a combined blow would have) Or would it be too complicated and inefficient to perform such a things?
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
| Were they all expected to be archers in earlier times? |
Yes; Commynes's account of a battle in the 1460s or 1470s had the French Ordonnance archers shooting it out with the Burgundians in a skirmish around a village and ripping off doors to use as makeshift pavises.
| Quote: |
| I speculated what would it be like to let the screen of pistoliers approach infantry first firing their pistols and then moving to the side to make room for the charge of lancers. |
Why bother? The contemporary idea of how to attack infantry was not to slam into them frontally (which would have been suicidal), but to run the opposing cavalry off the field and then charge the infantry on the flank or the rear, preferably while your own infantry was pinning them down from the front. Who made the charge and what weapon they used was less material than judging the right moment to hit the enemy infantry when they were weakened, busy, unprepared, or any combination of the three.
| Quote: |
| Or similarly to use lancers after fire exchange of two columns or pistoliers. |
Which brings up the question of why didn't the pistol-armed cavalry just charge their enemy counterparts outright, since the pistol was a very inefficient skirmishing weapon and only worked well when it was treated more like a sword or lance with a bit of extra wallop inside.
Returning to the original topic, it should be noted that the transformation of the Ordonnance mounted archer into a light lancer was apparently not something planned or deliberately encouraged by the French crown. If the initiative really came from below then there might not have been much that the French king could have done to stop the transformation or steer it in any particular direction. Indeed, there might have been some motivation to not stop the change since the equipment of the man-at-arms (gens d'arme, whatever) was becoming more expensive and thus fewer and fewer men could afford to serve as such; having light lancers was one plausible way to bulk out a formation in order to offset the diminishing numbers of the men-at-arms in the front rank.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum