| Author |
Message |
Gordon Frye
|
 Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2005 8:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| David Evans wrote: | [
I'd beg to differ on the numers point there Gordon. Just from my period of deep interest, the English Civil War, I'd say that huge numbers of horse were used on the battlefield. Marston Moor in 1644 outside York saw slightly more than 40,000 troops fighting of whom some 18,000 were Horse. But then again these are mostly Cavalry horses, not war horses.
Cost wise. For the 1640's Troop commanders were paying from a £1 to £5 at most. It's almost impossible to value 17th Century prices but one crude method is the pint of beer mode. A penny in the mid 17th Century would buy 4 pints of beer. therefore £1 (480 pence) would buy 480 pints. Beer costs about £1 without taxes in the UK now....( no taxes on beer in 1640!) so From roughly £480 to £2,400. But that's very crude.... |
David;
You are of course right for the English Civil War period. It is a strange phenomenon that from 1550-1700, an era when supposedly Infantry drove Horse from the field, there was in fact a huge resurgence in the numbers of Horse in any given army. Pre-1550 armies, such as those of the French Kings on their campaigns in Italy, had a fairly large component of Gendarmerie, and as a general rule rode down whatever Italian, German or Spanish Horse might be put against them, but often as not it was due as much to the greater numbers of French Men-at-Arms as it was quality. But most Imperial armies had a fairly small contingent of Horse compared to their huge Foot numbers.
What is most interesting is that after the mass acceptance of the wheellock for arming mounted men, much lighter Horse became the order of the day. A Gendarme on a fully barded horse could charge right through a Pike Square, and yet stay out of the range of a musketeer while still being within striking distance. But against a Pistolier on a cheaper horse, wearing less impressive armour, he was almost helpless. It's almost as much the tactics involved as weapons, but it forms one of Francios de la Noue's "Paradoxes" which he goes into great detail over.
The armies of the French Wars of Religion were VERY horse oriented, in fact Henri of Navarre had extensive campaigns in which he had virtually NO infantry support whatsoever... it all came from his various Shot mounted on cheap horses, acting as Dragoons. They could keep up with a Cavalry force and attack wherever their enemies least expected, yet they could also dismount and form a solid mass on which Henri could rally his Cuirassiers. (I'll take this opportunity to push an article written by a friend of mine, Dr. Ronald Love of State University of West Georgia, entitled "All the Kings Horsemen: The Equestrian Army of Henri IV" published in the 16th Century Journal, Volume XXII, No. 3, 1991. He builds a very strong case for Henri's innovations that became the model for the later Cavalry armies of both the 30-Years War and the English Civil War. But they were built upon the idea that firearms allowed for cheaper horses to be used, since a fully-armoured Lancer on a fully trained, high-quality Stallion was enormously expensive to maintain. Henri had large numbers of Cuirassiers armed with sword and pistols, but only the Catholics were able to field many Gendarmes with full armour and heavy lances after the 1570's)
The Dutch Revolt though was a very different game, involving mostly seige works and Infantry. Not much room for Horse to play, and although there were a few Cavalry fights during the first major phase of the war 1568-1609, there weren't many. Only at Mookerheyde and Tournhout were Horse decisive: the cavalry action at Warnfeld, outside of Zutphen, was pretty much a disaster for the English Heavy Horse, where was killed Sir Philip Sydney for lack of proper armour.
t's an interesting paradox, that while firearms deprived Cavalry of some of it's shock, at the same time it allowed for it's huge expansion in numbers. I think it's also a good proof that the Musketeer wasn't as decisive an instrument in warfare (especially against Horse) that he has been generally accepted. Infantry was pretty much Defensive in nature, be it Pike or Shot, excellent for holding ground but not actually doing a lot of attacking other than during seiges (unless your Swiss, of course!) It was Horse that was for the most part the Offensive Arm, and as the old Feudal-style Gendarmerie passed from the scene his place was taken by successively lighter and lighter Horse, until you get to the 18th Century where most Horse was Dragoons, and the Infantry, with flintlock musket and bayonet, was finally a fairly worthwhile offensive force. There are always exceptions to this rule (like the Swiss) of Horse being Offensive and Foote being Defensive, but in general, it holds up for the entire period from the fall of Rome to the 18th Century.
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2005 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greyson Brown wrote: |
Sounds like the Dresden did the best job with the point (obviously, the circumstances don't allow me to gauge the Lowland really well). I would much rather have my sword take a big chunk out of some fellow and then get clear, rather than embedding itself in some inconvenient skull. It looks cool to display the cabbage on you sword after a thrust, I don't think it would be the most effective thing on the battlefield. Sounds to me like you have a winner.
-Grey |
Greyson;
I suspect that you are correct there! When I connected with the Dresden using the point, I hardly knew that I had in fact connected with the "head". It simply sliced through the body of the cabbage with such ease that I felt a light tug, and saw all of this "coleslaw" flying in front of me. And yes, while it would have been cool to have come through the run with a trophy on the sword, in reality it was one heck of a lot more effective to leave a huge gash in the target, while allowing me to keep total control of my weapon. Had the targets been real heads, I am sure that the other two swords would have been, if not jerked completely out of the hands of the wielders, at the very least would have cause some significant discomfort to their arm and shoulder as they swung around and tried to extricate their sword from the target! The big Dresden, on the other hand, would simply have removed a large portion of the target's anatomy while leaving the weapon itself in my total control. Cool Sword! And thanks for the insight!
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Evans
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Apr, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject: Drill |
|
|
Gordon
Just out of interest, what drill are you using for the Pike and Musket. I only ask cos I'm tempted to whinge at the postures... Comes of being a Drill Pig I suppose......anda little keen on getting it right.....
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: Re: Drill |
|
|
| David Evans wrote: | Gordon
Just out of interest, what drill are you using for the Pike and Musket. I only ask cos I'm tempted to whinge at the postures... Comes of being a Drill Pig I suppose......anda little keen on getting it right..... |
David, glad that you noticed! We compiled the drill from a number of sources from between 1560 and 1610, the primary ones being Robert Barret's "Theoricke and Practicke of Warre" (as I recall it's 1598), Thomas Garrard's "Arte of Warre" 1591, and of course the full-blown Maurice of Nassau drill as illustrated by Jacob de Gheyn in "Exercise of Arms", and published in 1607 (most of the available publications of that lack the notes, which are essential for understanding the intentions). But also Barrett, Bingham, Davies (who pretty much just plagarized Barret, but it's easier to read!) Diggs and a few others were thrown in there to try to help us put together a rational, and reasonable, drill for pikes and shotte which would in some way resemble that of the late-16th Century. It's a compilation and distilling of what we felt was the most common form of drill available and in use at the time. (Most of the early research in this was done by Nick Worthington, and then recently Patrick Gaul, and David "Thorne" Luckhardt refined and pulled it all together.) We might be wrong in some details, but I think we got the overall effect right.
One of the biggest differences between late-16th Century drill and ECW drill is that the Pikes are far more important, numerous and more closely packed in the earlier period. Heavy, armoured Horse was still an often decisive factor, so you needed the mass to off-set that shock-power possessed by Horse. The Spanish Tercio's are a good case in point.
For Horse, well, we didn't have enough to do anything serious, but I had put together a drillbook of sorts based upon Francios de la Noue's recommendations from "Commentaries" and John Cruso's "Exercises". Cruso is a little late, but it's about as early as it gets for a Horse drill manual!
It's somewhat different from the ECW drill, of course, and the fact that you noticed warms my heart! We did it right, then!
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2005 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David;
Let me also add the addendum here that my forte isn't foot drill, either. The discussion and it's results were run past me, and I looked over the information etc., but I can't take credit for it (though I no doubt shoulder the blame, LOL!) The picture where the Pikes are moving forward against the Horse and holding their pikes by the butt end looks odd to me too... but that's the way we have it in our drillbook, moving from "Advance Your Pike" ("Port" in ECW) to "Charge Your Pike". So I'll have to go with my comrade's research on that one.
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Evans
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | David;
Let me also add the addendum here that my forte isn't foot drill, either. The discussion and it's results were run past me, and I looked over the information etc., but I can't take credit for it (though I no doubt shoulder the blame, LOL!) The picture where the Pikes are moving forward against the Horse and holding their pikes by the butt end looks odd to me too... but that's the way we have it in our drillbook, moving from "Advance Your Pike" ("Port" in ECW) to "Charge Your Pike". So I'll have to go with my comrade's research on that one.
Cheers,
Gordon |
It looks odd cos it is odd..! It is "Port your pike" Intended for use when moving thro gatewys and arches and the like....
Have a look at "Directions for Musters". Printed in 1638 by Charles I 's government and intended for Trained Band Units to work from.
"Advance your Pike" is the order to pick the Pike up and bring up the body so it's off the floor and you can walk somewhere with it! "Charge your pike " drops the pike down so the left leg is forward, left hand holds the pike under the chin and the right hand holds the butt. There is a posture to receive Horse known as "Charge your pike for Horse and draw forth your sword". Which has the Pikeman extended into a "lunge" with the pike in the left hand at chest height on a Horse and the sword drawn in the right hand.
Walking anywhere is broken into the "Troop" with the Pike at the advance.. and the "March" with the pike at Shoulder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Myers
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Apr, 2005 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Evans wrote: |
It looks odd cos it is odd..! It is "Port your pike" Intended for use when moving thro gatewys and arches and the like....
Have a look at "Directions for Musters". Printed in 1638 by Charles I 's government and intended for Trained Band Units to work from.
"Advance your Pike" is the order to pick the Pike up and bring up the body so it's off the floor and you can walk somewhere with it! "Charge your pike " drops the pike down so the left leg is forward, left hand holds the pike under the chin and the right hand holds the butt. There is a posture to receive Horse known as "Charge your pike for Horse and draw forth your sword". Which has the Pikeman extended into a "lunge" with the pike in the left hand at chest height on a Horse and the sword drawn in the right hand.
Walking anywhere is broken into the "Troop" with the Pike at the advance.. and the "March" with the pike at Shoulder. |
I'm one of the ECW folks who should have been there this year, but couldn't make it at the last minute :-( We actually use the commands you state. Thorne has many years of Sealed Knot experience from the UK, so he is quite familiar with dealing with horse, and Patrick is also quite savy about things like this. I suspect they just wanted to practice "charge" rather than "charge for horse" for some reason. Out here, almost all ECW folks are musketeers, while the pikemen tend to come from several of the Rennaissance guilds and societies. They use "charge" when closing with another group of pike. Well, I say closing, but its really more "fending off." Engagement rules hamper most actual contact, so alot of what we do is demos.
Gordon, I wish I could have made it! Do you think there will be any opportunity for borrowed or rented horses next year? I grew up riding, but I'm not quite willing to ask my sister if I can borrow her andalusian stallion for the weekend....
Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Apr, 2005 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
David;
In light of your comments, I had to go hit the drill books that we were using, and as much as it pains me to admit this, we/I definitely screwed up on that one. Not in our drillbook, mind you, that's actually correct. But the implementation of it was flawed, to say the least, at least in this instance. For the Pikes to be moving forward towards threatening Horse with their pikes at "Port" rather than "Charge" is certainly wrong! I can't say for sure what was the thinking there, but raw men or not there was no good excuse for it. Thank you for pointing that out, I shall bring it up at our Debrief this weekend.
And, of course, you are again correct in that the order for "Advance your Pike" is for movement, bringing it up in front of you, rather than meaning "Charge your Pike" as I suggested. Dang, getting cobwebs in my head here! So mea culpa on that one too... what a dumb error on my part! Yikes. Sometimes we put the dumbest things in print for all to see... ah,the wonders of the Internet.
Eric;
Sorry that you couldn't have been there! I'm going to TRY to put together another event in the Autumn that will be primarily focused on Horse drill, without all of those pesky Foote running about and getting in the way...and getting us ready for the Spring Muster which we fully anticipate doing again for 2006.
I do have some good local contacts for horses to bring out. Unfortunately due to our rather expansive ideas as to what we were going to do with the event in it's early planning stages, I had pretty much put the idea out of my head because of the expense it would involve for each individual to rent a horse for four days. Now that we've reduced that to a more managable 2-day event, people should be able to swing it. I can forward you via either email or PM some of the contact info if you wish to get a "leg up" as it were, on riding some of their horses. I'll put you on my email list for announcements, too.
Andalusian Stallion, eh? Well, that's certainly ACCURATE for a mount for this period...  But hey, I've seen some Stallions that are better mannered than plenty of geldings.
Anyway, thanks both of you for your comments, I look forward to more discussion!
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Myers
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Apr, 2005 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | I'll put you on my email list for announcements, too.
Andalusian Stallion, eh? Well, that's certainly ACCURATE for a mount for this period... But hey, I've seen some Stallions that are better mannered than plenty of geldings.
|
Thanks, that would be great!
And yes, her stallion is much better mannered than almost any other horse around. In parades and rides, people regularly ride their quarterhorse geldings next to her stallion to keep them from freaking out at the cars and crowds  She's got some Andalusian-Thouroughbred crosses on the way, but they're still way too young to ride.
Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Apr, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Myers wrote: |
Thanks, that would be great!
And yes, her stallion is much better mannered than almost any other horse around. In parades and rides, people regularly ride their quarterhorse geldings next to her stallion to keep them from freaking out at the cars and crowds She's got some Andalusian-Thouroughbred crosses on the way, but they're still way too young to ride. |
Hey, bring him then, LOL! Not that your sister might actually LET you, of course... but a good parade-trained horse is a great start for a Cavalry horse, since they're already used to most of the "Boogards" that might want to eat them. (Jumping off topic for a moment, I found that term "Boogards" in an early 17th Century horsemanship manual by Gervaise Markham, and used in exactly the same manner in which a good modern day Cowboy uses "Boogers". Pretty cool!) But seriously, think about it. I'm not adverse to a stallion that is well mannered, and have known some to be in formation with all geldings, and no one was the wiser. A top-notch, well trained and mannered Stallion is a true joy to behold.
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Myers
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Apr, 2005 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: |
Hey, bring him then, LOL! Not that your sister might actually LET you, of course... |
Well, I mentioned the event to her, and she sounded rather interested in possibly attending the next riding event. She is also pretty active in the local Baroque Horses group, and said she could probably come up with several other people that would be interested as well. They would probably need loaner costumes...
Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Apr, 2005 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Myers wrote: |
Well, I mentioned the event to her, and she sounded rather interested in possibly attending the next riding event. She is also pretty active in the local Baroque Horses group, and said she could probably come up with several other people that would be interested as well. They would probably need loaner costumes... |
Eric;
Well, they have a year to get their clothing together! I would be happy to talk to them, too. I didn't know that there were any folks into Baroque horses in the area though, I'd love to talk to them. Time to brush up on my Pluvinel and Newcastle!
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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