[Daniel Staberg]

The word "Caracole" does not refer to a tactics or a fighting technique at all, it was the word used in certain languages for a manoeuvre where the cavalry trooper faced right or left while remaining in place. I.e the cavalry version of the infantry's "Right face! Left Face!". The Germans actually called this manoeuvre "wenden" (turning) and regardless of the name this manoeuvre was taught to and used by all cavalry as it was an essential part of basic drill. You will also find a number of authors who used the word caracole to describe what we would today consider operational movement by entire armies. For example, Monro uses the word to describe the Swedish field army making sharp turns during a march.

When firing by rank the "caracole"/"wenden" was used to turn the rank into a file which could then easily move of to the rear. When firing by file each individual trooper used it as part of his movement to the rear. ”Wenden” was not the only way this turn was carried out, if there was sufficient space the entire rank could instead use ”schwenken” (”wheeling”) to swing the entire rank around and ride to the rear.

Firing by rank or file was not rare as it was a common tactic used by mounted Arquebusiers and it’s use is well described by military men such as Ludovico Melzo, Johan von Nassau-Siegen, Wendelin Schildknecht, Raimondo Montecuccoli to name a few. Nor did unit size put any limitations on the use of fire by rank or file, Johann von Nassau-Siegen’s instructions include it being carried out in a single file if that was all that the terrain allowed for while Melzo had fire by rank carried out by units of 20-25 men. Something also seen in the Danish army in the 1620s when the Danes (who used Dutch drill & tactics) used it for the 25 Arquebusiers in each Cuirassier company.

Also when used by the mounted Arquebusiers fire by rank done in several different ways, the one described in the Dutch instructions by Johann von Nassau-Siegen actually involved an officer moving up to designate the point at which fire would be given, then each rank would gallop up to that point, give fire and then turn or wheel to gallop back to the main body of the formation which was further back from the firing point. (He is quite specific about the pace used for movement as he wrote “rennen”.) This would allow the arquebusiers to exploit the terrain and to keep the bulk of the unit more protected while the men actually firing were more difficult targets.

The use of fire by rank by cavalry armed with pistols is a more complicated matter as it say the most frequent use in a period which left with less in the way of extensive records while later historians have had a habit interpreting a number of situations as “caracoles” even when they probably were not. Yet we have a clear description of it’s use against the Swiss infantry at both Dreux and Moncontour during the Wars of Religion while it was used to prepare the way for a charge by lancers at Ivry. There is at least one Venetian report of it in use against Ottoman cavalry during the “Long” Habsburg-Ottoman war of 1593-1606 which strongly implies that it was in common use in that war. (The report can be found in a translated and somewhat manipulated form in Delbrück who deliberately quoted in out of context and with certain twists to the translation.)
Of course fire by rank was not the only tactic used by Reiters and other pistol armed cavalry, “pistol charges” are well documented from the very beginning of Reiter style cavalry and there was at least one method in use that I suspect was behind a some of the explained by later day historians as being due to use of the caracole. Apparently there were attempts to use limited fire by one or two ranks in combination with the noise and fury of the rest of the squadron firing in the air to try and win the confrontation by shaking the morale of the enemy. King Erik XIV complained of this method being taught and practiced by Swedish cavalry adopting Reiter style tactics and equipment while Sir Roger Williams seem to have encountered it in the field (IIRC).

[Henry O.]

Thanks Daniel, that's a good point.

I suppose I keep going back to the word "caracole" because it's more convenient to write out than "the accustomed wheeling about of the rutters", which tends to be clearest English term used, and even that seems to have only referred to specific variant of this sort of tactic. Maybe I should start using "wenden" or "Schwenken" as well.

Most treatise writers agreed that shooting from foot tended to be more accurate and more effective than shooting from horseback, but the fact that treatises keep continuing to bring up how important it was for each pike square to be well supported by ample amounts of shot to protect them from pistols or carbines on horseback i think is pretty solid evidence that something was up.

According to mercenary Humphrey Barwick regarding pistoliers: "For as there be many that can ride & vse a horse well, so is there manie that can shoote a Pistoll, and yet but few that can rightly vse both togither: for he that will bée a Pistollier, must vse his horse to know it, whereby he do not feare neither the cracke nor the fire: and that doone, he must learne to occupie his bridle hande, his Pistoll, and his spurs in due time and forme, all at one instant."

So perhaps the reason shooting from horseback eventually fell out of favor among most cavalry is that, if you had to choose, it was better to make cavalry out men who could ride well but not shoot well than out of men who could shoot well but not ride well. I still suspect that cavalrymen who could both ride and shoot well at the same time would have had the advantage over either though.

[Edit: It seems that a difference of opinion on this subject was perhaps developing pretty early on. On the subject of a 1 vs 1 duel between champions, La Noue claims that the French gentry maintained that a single man at arms would always defeat a single reiter, while the Germans believed that a single brave reiter would instead defeat a man at arms, and take home his horse as a trophy. La Noue himself beileved that the reiter would win a duel so long as he could keep from joining the lancer head to head and take advantage of his pistols' range, which would basically mean that victory largely came down to whoever was faster, whether due to being a better rider or better horsed.]

Also, while I'm not quite as familiar with cavalry warfare in later periods, here's something interesting from Wilhelm Muller's 1811 "The Elements of the Science of War", the section on light cavalry service:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433008509139;view=1up;seq=150

Though he states that the sword should be treated as the light cavalrymans' primary weapon he then goes on to say:

[Lafayette C Curtis]

I guess Daniel has provided a better explanation and corrected me on many points. One thing that still bothers me, though, is the mention of "Mongols would disagree." Unlike Renaissance European cavalry, where we at least have manuals showing various methods of rotating fire, we have zero evidence for rank/file-rotation schemes among Mongol horse archers! The only thing I've seen for it is in a modern book (with no clear citations to primary sources) and it seems to completely ignore horse psychology since it has the first rank countermarching back through the gaps between files like infantry -- which might work with people, but with horses it'd just prompt the stationary horses in the formation to follow the retreating/countermarching first rank and precipitate a retreat for the entire unit.

[Henry O.]

Yeah, I admit I know next to nothing about the mongols. and given how few surviving details we actually have about their tactics it wouldn't surprise me if the stereotype of their reliance on horse archers and hit-and-run tactics is way overblown these days.

I was just trying to point out that dismissing tactics like that entirely might still be a bit of a stretch without a lot more evidence. Even during the 16th century "eastern" cavalry forces were apparently well known for using feigned retreats and hit and run attacks. La Noue recommends that christian horsemen need to be very careful when pursuing the Turks because "they are very skil∣full in rallying themselues."

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Feigned retreats and hit-and-run attacks don't require any rank rotation or circulation schemes. It's much easier, in fact, to do them in whole formed bodies that aren't too large -- again, think about platoon-sized detachments of 15-50 horsemen. A cavalry group/unit of this size can be stopped and rallied whole and told to change direction fairly rapidly in a compact body without needing complex rotation/circulation drills.

[Henry O.]

I completely agree.

I'm not keen to get into another heated argument, but if you take a single deep body of horsemen and divide it into individual ranks wouldn't you then be left many small "platoons" of 15-30 men each? This is why I was saying that perhaps some versions of the "caracole" originated as just a method of dividing one large body of horsemen into many small bodies which could each attack and retreat independently, but was at some point re-imagined into a variety of complex rank rotation schemes.