| Author |
Message |
|
Lennon R. Clotild
|
 Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Well this is a good discussion, and I will probably follow the advice of whoever suggested just testing it our for myself.
On the other hand, while I know gap-thrusting is mentioned by many it just doesn't seem to me a practical technique in a large-scale battle, with dozens of men in tight quarters going at each other. And what about latter plate armours, those with reinforced pieces, for example, rotating plates in front of the arm pit. These would've been nearly unpenetrable if going for the gap was the only way, since, they're were no gaps.
As I see it, the most likely answer seems to be that 1) The common soldier around the 16th to 17th century didn't wear plate or wore only a breastplate or at the most half-plate, and so swords were still useful up close. 2) poleaxes and pikes were used when dealing with enemies protected by plate. Swords were consideradly back up weapons, like today's sidearms. 3) Firearms and arbalests.
Overall, though, I think the advent of firearms proved the last straw for armour. This would also explain why firearms became predominant ranged weapons even though the bow could shoot faster and farther.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lennon R. Clotild wrote: | | On the other hand, while I know gap-thrusting is mentioned by many it just doesn't seem to me a practical technique in a large-scale battle, with dozens of men in tight quarters going at each other. And what about latter plate armours, those with reinforced pieces, for example, rotating plates in front of the arm pit. These would've been nearly unpenetrable if going for the gap was the only way, since, they're were no gaps. |
Actually, thrusting to the gaps is almost as easy in melee as it is in single combat--you just have to be aware that the targets you want might be covered by someone else, but that's offset by the fact that you can usually attack the person to your left or right rather than the one directly in front of you which means he's not as likely to see your attack. If you work with good partners you cover for each other as you do this.
As for the reinforcing pieces on armor, remember that most of those are jousting armor. Most museums show most harnesses with all the pieces--garnitures--they have and people forget that many of those pieces would be removed fro foot combat.
| Quote: | | Overall, though, I think the advent of firearms proved the last straw for armour. This would also explain why firearms became predominant ranged weapons even though the bow could shoot faster and farther. |
I believe that the pike and the halberd signaled the death knell for armor, not firearms. Sure, armor was worn even into the English Civil War (and later--the Germans threw away bullet-proof steel breastplates in WWI and soldiers still wear helmets today), but it was going away long before then. The simple economics of warfare is this: Two men on foot with halberds should *always* defeat a fully-armored man at arms, ahorse or no (in fact, it's easier to kill one ahorse). And it's much, much cheaper to put those two halberdiers into the field than it is to put the man at arms there. Moreover, you can hire as many halberdiers and pikemen as you need for as long as you need--they won't have to leave the campaign to go home to manage their crops the way a landed knight would. Cavalry was still important, of course, but masses of lightly-armed infantry became the norm long before gunpowder was really all that effective.
As for forearms replacing the bow, I think you're certainly correct about its penetrative aspects: A gun could penetrate armor when a bow couldn't. But another factor to consider is that it was a prestige and modernization thing, too. That's an interesting side of this I'd never considered until a historian friend of mine pointed it out. Even as late as the Armada in England there were those who argued vehemently for a return to the longbow--to tradition--instead of using these new-fangled guns, but tradition lost out to the gun anyway, and one good reason my have been prestige.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
  |
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just want to note that if I went to battle with armored opponents, gap thrusting in melee is exactly what I would be doing with my tools of choice (like my Landgraf). The distribution of mass is such that while it is capable of an effective cut, particularly against an unarmored opponent, I would be looking for the most efficient use of the weapon. Because of the press of melee, thrusting is quick and efficient. We have tried some free play with close quarters, and frankly, a cut is not always possible. Gaps come open, and as mentioned by others, if I needed a cut (and had the right target) -- I sure would take it in hopes the trauma would be effective. Half-swording in close quarters also allows for effective "punching" power. But given the movement of melee combat and the curves of breastplates, gaps are efficient for driving the point (and catching it on something that can be torn, ripped or pried open).
Again, just my two cents. Writers for centuries have used creative license, so back to the original question, it may come down to making it work for you. 
Good luck!
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | | Regarding Dan's comment about the few people in the world that can reproduce good mail |
Actually there are quite a few people making decent mail today (riveted and welded) and a lot of it is pretty good regarding its ability to resist damage (note this doesn't include much of the stuff coming out of India/Pakistan). My point was that very little of it has much in common with historical examples. Only a handful of people can make an accurate replica of a museum sample. In order to have any idea how effective historical armour was, we need accurate replicas to test.
I agree wirth Hugh that any illustrations showing heavy armour being cut or pierced is simply a way of illustrating a "telling blow" |
Hi Dan,
You're right about comparing it to historical examples, of course, but...
You read my arrow/sword tests, and that was done with about the cheapest riveted mail you could get your hands on. I'm in the middle of similar tests which Julio Junco's mail, which is the most beautiful and period correct mail I have ever seen and separated from the cheap stuff by a margin so wide you could land a 747 on it, but its resistance to sword cuts is the same as the cheap stuff, which is to say I cannot cut through it no matter what I do (though I have not cheated by putting it up against a thick piece of wood...all cuts are with a gambeson underneath).
What I'm trying to say is that there may be a world of difference between the cheap mail and the historically correct mail in terms of appearance, fit, long term durability etc., but not so much in terms of function, at least against swords. I have yet to test with a pollaxe and warhammer, and I have yet to test the good mail against arrows. I will keep you posted.
Mail is good stuff. Even cheap mail.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
I hate to tell you bet most chronicles were still being written by ecclesiastics still. Thomas Walshingham wrote the English history sometime starting around 1380-1422. The best account of Agincourt I think was written by Henry V chaplain and the accounts of almost all the french kings were done by the same group. The real change is from national to regional chronicles in france during the hundred years war, most still being written by non-laity. I would recommend reading the intro to most copies of henry V's chronicle. Most of the ones I have looked at have had excellent info regarding the continuation of eccesiastical writtings. The main difference between 14th and 15th century is that people like froissart and others do start writting but I still would argue he knew no more or less than most church clerks as as I indicated many accompanied the kings or had family who were soldiers. Froissart is just one man who is better known there are many many more writters in this era.
As far as the masters advocating trying to avoid punching through armour. I personally think there are exceptions to this though I would wager almost everytime the author will advocate targets we have mentioned before. If I had my manuals I would gladly find some as I remember a few but would not post them without rereading them as it has been a good year but do not as I do not have them.
A friend of mine just translated a 15th century english sword manual that should prove of interest as well to practicioners but I am unsure when it will come out. It appears to be in a persons ledger amist other things.
True one on one combate does not overly change the plate armour situation except that in a melee you would have less of an oppurtunity to grapple and close in to engage initially and you would likely get stabbed in the back doing many of the one on one tactics.
As far as them being soldiers. Like I said most were not soldiers. A handful possibly were but I am not convinced some who say they were anything above the average joe involved if at all.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I believe that the pike and the halberd signaled the death knell for armor, not firearms. |
I'll have to completely disagree with you here, Hugh. I suggest reading Fourquevaux's Instructions for the Warres. Writing in the middle of the 16th century, Fourquevaux is probably the biggest advocate of armor you'll find. He strongly condemned men who discarded their armor. Based on his arguments, gunpowder weapons seem to be the main reason some men did this. For example, from the 1589 English translation:
| Quote: | | ...for although that Harnes be too weake to refift ordnance or Harquebuffes; not withstanding, it dooth defend a man from the froke, of Pike, Halbard, and Sword, Croffe-bowe, Long-bowe, and from Stones, and from all other hurt, that may proceede from the enemies hande, and fometimes a Harquebufe may bee ill charged, or fo hotte, or may bee fhotte fo farre of, that a Harnes if it be good, may faue a mans life. |
Fourquevaux clearly considered armor a good defense against the halberd and the pike.
| Quote: | | The simple economics of warfare is this: Two men on foot with halberds should *always* defeat a fully-armored man at arms, ahorse or no (in fact, it's easier to kill one ahorse). |
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Fourquevaux seemed to think unarmored pikemen or halberdiers would be easily defeated by similar troops in armor. Perhaps two halberdiers would have the advantage against one armored man in open combat, but I certainly don't see two hundred unarmored halberdiers driving a hundred armored men from the field.
And that's on foot. There's no way two hundred unarmored halberdiers would match a hundred gendarmes. I doubt such a force could manage anything against the horsemen. Look at the battle of Dreux, where around a thousand gendarmes gave five or six times their number in Swiss pikemen a good fight. The gendarmes rode through the Swiss, who steadfastly refused to break. This was considered one of the best examples of Swiss order and courage. Imagine what those thousand horsemen would have done to six thousand unarmored halbediers. It wouldn't have been much of a battle. As Matthew Sutcliffe wrote, "No number of fhort weapons can refift the carriere of horfe in a plaine ground."
Also, unarmored halberdiers would be murdered by archers or crossbowmen. Perhaps I trust Fourquevaux more than I should, but I strongly believe that armor would have never been discarded if not for the rise of gunpowder weapons. As long as combat with edged weapons decided things, armor was a wonderful thing to have.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ben and Hugh,
I would say pole weapons did much to end the armoured men at arms 'dominance' or severly limit it but the gun is what in the end made armour less effective to the point it was discarded (it seemed to have reintroduced in parts so it had some function until today even), but I am not sure this happened in the 16th century but more likely in the 17th sometime. Without the pikes and halbards the musketeers would all have been under hoof in a bad way until the bayonett and really not until they got a better one than the plug bayonett in the 18th century.
There are still many, many indications that armour is deflecting bullets in the second half of the 17th so in the16th it clearly was far from being discarded. Bits and pieces yes, looks at the B and W armour, but not all together. One factor is he seems to be speaking about the lower ranks of soldiers who would be in significantly poorer quality armour. Most of the cavalry breastplates from the 16th I worked with are about 2 times the thickness of the ones for footmen which would make them less likely do deflect. The curator I worked with he made an interesting observation about late 16th and 17th century halbards and pole axes that the dague generally gets longer. He figured it was to go under the lower section of the faulds, tassets and breastplate and into the abdomen and lungs, etc. Interesting thought and being on foot you could get at that angle I suppose....
Last edited by Randall Moffett on Sat 10 Mar, 2007 8:27 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I would say pole weapons did much to end the armoured men at arms 'dominance' or severly limit it |
Sure, but pikemen and halberdiers wore armor themselves, so this didn't remove armor from the field.
| Quote: | | There are still many, many indications that armour is deflecting bullets in the second half of the 17th so in the16th it clearly was far from being discarded. |
Indeed. Armor lasted into the 17th century and beyond, though infantry became more inclined to discard it because exchanges of fire more than melees tended to decide things. And of course because states didn't like paying for armor and soldiers didn't like lugging it around.
For cavalry, it was the pistol that encouraged the decline of armor, though breastplates and helmets lasted a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lennon R. Clotild wrote: | On the other hand, while I know gap-thrusting is mentioned by many it just doesn't seem to me a practical technique in a large-scale battle, with dozens of men in tight quarters going at each other. And what about latter plate armours, those with reinforced pieces, for example, rotating plates in front of the arm pit. These would've been nearly unpenetrable if going for the gap was the only way, since, they're were no gaps.
As I see it, the most likely answer seems to be that 1) The common soldier around the 16th to 17th century didn't wear plate or wore only a breastplate or at the most half-plate, and so swords were still useful up close. 2) poleaxes and pikes were used when dealing with enemies protected by plate. Swords were consideradly back up weapons, like today's sidearms. 3) Firearms and arbalests. |
Well, this reasoning is correct only if we assume that men fighting in a massed battle really aim to kill each other. But the fact is that they didn't--the primary concern for men fighting on a specific side is to defeat the other side, not to kill them. And there are many perfectly applicable methods for defeating enemy formations without actually massacring a large proportion of them.
Remember that most deaths in the vast majority of historical battles occured not within the battle itself, but during the pursuits. if you could rout your enemy, the extent, type, and weight of their armor becomes largely irrelevant. You can tackle them down and then swarm them, or take your time in aiming a weapon at them, or (not rarely) just receive their surrender.
I'm a fiction writer myself (mostly fantasy and historical fiction), and I've never had any problems with getting my characters involved in battles without turning them into undefeatable killing machines. In fact, characters don't have to be killing machines in order to be interesting. The most memorable military character ever for me is Nikolai Rostov from Tolstoy's War and Peace, and he never killed a single man on-stage. He probably killed a lot of French stragglers off the scenes, and he wounded a French dragoon in a rather anticlimactic battle scene, but he made no dramatic kills whatsoever on stage. And that didn't make him any less interesting as a character.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Quote: | | The simple economics of warfare is this: Two men on foot with halberds should *always* defeat a fully-armored man at arms, ahorse or no (in fact, it's easier to kill one ahorse). |
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Fourquevaux seemed to think unarmored pikemen or halberdiers would be easily defeated by similar troops in armor. Perhaps two halberdiers would have the advantage against one armored man in open combat, but I certainly don't see two hundred unarmored halberdiers driving a hundred armored men from the field.
And that's on foot. There's no way two hundred unarmored halberdiers would match a hundred gendarmes. I doubt such a force could manage anything against the horsemen. Look at the battle of Dreux, where around a thousand gendarmes gave five or six times their number in Swiss pikemen a good fight. The gendarmes rode through the Swiss, who steadfastly refused to break. This was considered one of the best examples of Swiss order and courage. Imagine what those thousand horsemen would have done to six thousand unarmored halbediers. It wouldn't have been much of a battle. As Matthew Sutcliffe wrote, "No number of fhort weapons can refift the carriere of horfe in a plaine ground." |
Well, I have to agree with the general tone of this. Anyone who has participated in or done an extensive research of battlefield tactics will understand that the mechanics of massed encounters are vastly different from that of one-on-one combat. Two halberdiers would probably have made short work of an isolated gendarme, but a formation of gendarmes would have been much, much less vulnerable to the halberdiers' attemps even when significantly outnumbered.
However, there was an instance where halberdiers did manage to resist the charge of mounted men-at-arms on relatively level ground--that is, in the battle of Laupen. The charge of the Swiss halberdiers against the mounted right wing of the Burgundians failed because the Burgundian men-at-arms rode away from the charge and reformed at a distance. These men-at-arms then returned and attempted to charge down the halberdiers, but the halberdiers formed a "hedgehog" and repelled them. At this point a standoff developed between the two--the mounted men-at-arms could not penetrate the hedgehog, but the halberdiers with their shorter weapons and lack of armor were sure to be massacred if they tried to break formation in order to move somewhere else. It was resolved only when the Swiss wheeled in their victorious right wing and caught the men-at-arms in the flank--with pikemen, no less.
Just another proof that a seemingly simple and self-evident mode of interaction between weapons in single combat can go out of the window when the encounter happens at a much larger scale.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Indeed. Armor lasted into the 17th century and beyond, though infantry became more inclined to discard it because exchanges of fire more than melees tended to decide things. And of course because states didn't like paying for armor and soldiers didn't like lugging it around.
For cavalry, it was the pistol that encouraged the decline of armor, though breastplates and helmets lasted a long time. |
I would add to the " lugging it around " and objective reduced level of protection, there might have been a loss of faith / confidence in it's protective qualities sufficient that " comfort " would be given an excuse to ditch the stuff !
Who, want to bear the weight and heat of armour if is seems that the odds of getting killed by a musket or canon ball are not significantly decreased ?
Oh, mentioning the increased use of artillery and not just small arms could be a large contributing factor for abandoning armour: Soldiers were not called " canonfodder " for nothing.   More economical to have more and " cheapers " soldiers without armour and even more so if they keep " losing " their armour " accidentally " !
Oh, and body armour seems to be making a big comeback because of modern materials that are more bullet resistant: Sort of sneaking back as heavy bulky badly tailored ( HOT and not in a good way ).
Modern armour makers could look at period tailoring of plate and brigantines and much improve the fit and coverage of modern body armour IMHO ! Oh, and modern cooling systems to make it wearable would be nice.
Hmmmmm: Sort of would look like STAR WARS Stormtroopers. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | The simple economics of warfare is this: Two men on foot with halberds should *always* defeat a fully-armored man at arms, ahorse or no (in fact, it's easier to kill one ahorse). And it's much, much cheaper to put those two halberdiers into the field than it is to put the man at arms there. |
Two unarmoured men on foot facing a armoured man of equal skill, at least one unarmoured man will die. Most likely, both of them will die, since the armoured man can, with a minimum of maneuvering, attack one of them and take him down before the other can deal a telling blow. The psycological effect is also huge. An armoured man is much more likely to attack, since he can actually get hit and keep going.
Armour only becomes to expensive when it does not matter if your troopers die or not. Under a feudal levy, or landsknecht style mercenaries, the troops provide their own armour, and thus are investing in their own safety. Once the king starts raising armies with tax money rather than rely on the feudal levies, unarmoured soldiers give more power for the buck.
On a individual or unit for unit basis, however, armour is a huge boost for efficiency.
However, soldiers, being the scum of the earth, doesn't always know their own good...
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
And that's on foot. There's no way two hundred unarmored halberdiers would match a hundred gendarmes. I doubt such a force could manage anything against the horsemen. Look at the battle of Dreux, where around a thousand gendarmes gave five or six times their number in Swiss pikemen a good fight. The gendarmes rode through the Swiss, who steadfastly refused to break. This was considered one of the best examples of Swiss order and courage. Imagine what those thousand horsemen would have done to six thousand unarmored halbediers. It wouldn't have been much of a battle. As Matthew Sutcliffe wrote, "No number of fhort weapons can refift the carriere of horfe in a plaine ground."
|
[In the text below 'Gendarme' is used to describe both the actual Gendarms but also their supporting archers aswell as the gentleman volunteers who made up a large part of the Huguenot cavalry]
Dreux is a poor example of the superiority of the Gendarme vs foot since it was a rather complex battle.
At start 600 or so Huguenot Gendarmes were supported by 800-900 pistol armed Reiters faced of against 5000-6000 Swiss. The Swiss 'square' was formed up only 10 ranks deep and it is likely that only 10% of the Swiss pikemen wore any armour.
The supposed ride through the Swiss 'square' is based a series of confused accounts of the battle between the Swiss regiments and Conde's wing. Conde himself charged the right flank of the swiss square with 400 Gendarmes and 800-900 Reiters while Mouy and Avaray attacked the left flank with 200 gendarmes.
Mouy and Avaray cut their way to the Swiss standards but suffered heavy losses in the process, one company literary vanishing among the Swiss masses while the others had to cut their way out.
Conde's attack forced the rear ranks to give ground but the major casualties were caused by his supporting Reiters who sent a hail of shot into the Swiss ranks. There is no clear description of Conde actually charging through the Swiss square rather it seems like he rode around the Swiss flank to strike them from behind. But this phase is hard to interpret, IIRC one sources does suggest that Conde did pass through the Swiss ranks but that he did so by charging the weak joint between the two Swiss regiments that made up the square.
But the Swiss held on in the face of a series of increasingly disjointed attacks as the Huguenot Gendarmes reformed and charged again and again. The Swiss had give ground but remained unbroken. Conde then committed Rochefoucauld who led forward 300 fresh gendarmes in a head on charge on the Swiss. But Rochefoucauld's charge was repulsed as well. Hot on the heels of Rochefoucauld's Gendarmes came a regiment of Landsknechts attached to Conde's wing, their 'forlorn hope' of 300-400 arquebusiers inflicted severe losses on the Swiss but when the main body of the Landsknechts closed for a push of pike they were routed after a short & savage fight.
The Swiss followed in hot pursuit, intent on recapturing a artillery battery lost early on in the battle, it was at this moment that their now disordered formation was struck by a series of cavalry charges from three directions by reformed Huguenot & German squadrons. This broke the Swiss into small groups which carried out a fighting retreat towards the remainder of the Royal army which was formed up around the village of Epinay.
As can be seen the Swiss had to face a lot more than a 1000 Gendarmes and it was firearms, not lances or swords which inflicted most of the Swiss casualties. In addition the lack of armour among the Swiss seems not to have been a notable disadvantage when fighting the Gendarmes.
The ability of the Gendarmes to penetrate the Swiss formation seems to have been more due to the thin Swiss formation and/or gaps rather than a superior fighting power on part of the Gendarmes.
This said I do agree that in most instances unarmoured Halberdiers would be defeated by lancers in terrain which favoured cavalry.
Cheers
Daniel
Last edited by Daniel Staberg on Sun 11 Mar, 2007 9:16 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Indeed. Armor lasted into the 17th century and beyond, though infantry became more inclined to discard it because exchanges of fire more than melees tended to decide things. And of course because states didn't like paying for armor and soldiers didn't like lugging it around.
For cavalry, it was the pistol that encouraged the decline of armor, though breastplates and helmets lasted a long time. |
Actually firepower tended to be a pretty indecisve tool by itself in the 17th Century, it could inflict crippling losses on an enemy but those losses by themselves seldom decided the outcome of the infantry battle. If neither side was willing to clsoe the ranged for decisive push at pike point the battle was general decided by the outcome to the cavalry melee on the wings.
The various states seem to have been more willing to pay for the armour than the soldiers were to carry it. As the war became one dominated by logn & rapid marches both cavalry and infantry would lighten their load by getting rid of much or most of their armour. Also unlike the wars of the 16th Century the troops themselves had to carry the armour on the march, previously it had mostly been loaded onto wagons or pack horses cared for by servants.
Cheers
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: |
Armour only becomes to expensive when it does not matter if your troopers die or not. Under a feudal levy, or landsknecht style mercenaries, the troops provide their own armour, and thus are investing in their own safety. Once the king starts raising armies with tax money rather than rely on the feudal levies, unarmoured soldiers give more power for the buck.
On a individual or unit for unit basis, however, armour is a huge boost for efficiency.
However, soldiers, being the scum of the earth, doesn't always know their own good... |
I have to disagree strongly with this since I can't find any support for it the sources. In fact the states which raised armies with tax money or conscription often went to great lenghts to supply their troops with armour as long as armour was precived to be a necessary part of a soldiers equipment. Getting the troops to wear armour was often at least as big a problem as supplying it in the first place.
Cheers
Daniel
Last edited by Daniel Staberg on Sat 10 Mar, 2007 9:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Two halberdiers would probably have made short work of an isolated gendarme, but a formation of gendarmes would have been much, much less vulnerable to the halberdiers' attemps even when significantly outnumbered. |
I still doubt that. They'd have a chance, but the gendarme would have a big advantage in reach, mobility, and protection. The examples I've seen footmen beating heavy cavalry involve worse than 2-to-1 odds. This picture is the classic example:
| Quote: | | However, there was an instance where halberdiers did manage to resist the charge of mounted men-at-arms on relatively level ground--that is, in the battle of Laupen. |
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Doesn't surprise me, considering it was the Swiss. Good order and morale make all the difference.
| Quote: | | Dreux is a poor example of the superiority of the Gendarme vs foot since it was a rather complex battle. |
Well, I wasn't trying to argue that gendarmes were superior to all types of foot.
| Quote: | | and it is likely that only 10% of the Swiss pikemen wore any armour. |
I don't know if I believe that. What evidence do you have for this claim?
| Quote: | | As can be seen the Swiss had to face a lot more than a 1000 Gendarmes and it was firearms, not lances or swords which inflicted most of the Swiss casualties. |
I agree about the first part, but I'm not so sure about the second. What are you getting your account of the battle from? It's somewhat different from the one's I've read, though I'll admit Oman's account is the one I remember the best. He's rather dated, and thus perhaps incorrect. But I clearly remember Oman using a period account that considering that battle the height of Swiss valor and heroism
Perhaps Gordon have something to add. He's the one who original convinced me of the power of 16th-century heavy horsemen, using the battle of Dreux as an example. Gordon has also cited other battles, such as Ravenna and Ceresole, as examples of gendarmes riding through pikemen.
| Quote: | | Actually firepower tended to be a pretty indecisve tool by itself in the 17th Century, it could inflict crippling losses on an enemy but those losses by themselves seldom decided the outcome of the infantry battle. |
Well, I was just thinking of accounts of men choosing to shoot it out instead of closing to fight with pikes. Seems very different than the close and bloody clashes in the middle of the 16th century. (I noted that example of the first rank of pikemen taking around 98% casualties.)
Honestly, I know very little about warfare past the 16th century. It makes sense cavalry would be needed to really break a formation. Still, if the main danger came from guns and not swords, it seems reasonable that soldiers would discard their armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Daniel Staberg"] | Elling Polden wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: |
Armour only becomes to expensive when it does not matter if your troopers die or not. Under a feudal levy, or landsknecht style mercenaries, the troops provide their own armour, and thus are investing in their own safety. Once the king starts raising armies with tax money rather than rely on the feudal levies, unarmoured soldiers give more power for the buck.
On a individual or unit for unit basis, however, armour is a huge boost for efficiency.
However, soldiers, being the scum of the earth, doesn't always know their own good... |
I have to disagree strongly with this since I can't find any support for it the sources. In fact the states which raised armies with tax money or conscription often went to great lenghts to supply their troops with armour as long as armour was precived to be a necessary part of a soldiers equipment. Getting the troops to wear armour was often at least as big a problem as supplying it in the first place.
Cheers
Daniel |
I didn't write that.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | [
Perhaps Gordon have something to add. He's the one who original convinced me of the power of 16th-century heavy horsemen, using the battle of Dreux as an example. Gordon has also cited other battles, such as Ravenna and Ceresole, as examples of gendarmes riding through pikemen. |
Thank you for your kind words, Sir! Perhaps Dreux isn't the finest example to use though, since as Daniel says, there were multiple arms being used against the Swiss (Gendarmes, Pistoliers and Lansknecht Pikes and Arquebuses) and even all together they didn't manage to defeat the Swiss.
I do think though that some of the best examples of the power of the Gendarmerie actually are in fact in cases were they were used in conjunction with other arms. Marignano (1515) and Ceresole (1544) are, I believe, prime examples of this (and Pavia [1525] is a good example of how not to do it!). In the former, the Gendarmerie of Francis I used charge after charge into the attacking Swiss to halt them in place, allowing Francis' efficient artillery to come into play, and mow down deep rows of Swiss. Even at that, the Swiss were able to march away in good order, though. But since here-to-for they had been able to sweep away all that lay before them, it was considered to be quite a feat.
The second, Ceresole, involved two rather desparate charges on either side of the battlefield, both of which were by themselves ineffective in their immediate aims, but highly effective in the outcome of the battle. On the French Right Flank (as I recall...  ) des Therme's cheveaux lègers hurled themselves into the flank of the oncoming Italian pike square, which halted it in place to both deal with the assault and then to reform themselves for further advance. This caused them to be quite a ways behind the Germans on their flank, who were then able to be hit both in the front and on the side now exposed by the tardy Italians by the Swiss in front and the Gascon foot in their left flank. Finally, a charge from a company of gendarmes in the right flank caused the total collapse of the formation. That the Germans were able to actually form to flank and fight both attacks at once was remarkable, but never the less they were slaughtered almost to a man.
On the other side of the field, and beyond it's sight due to a hill, the Duc d'Enghien's gendarmes were hurling themselves uselessly against another column of German Lansknechts, and in fact they were notes as indeed having gone completely through the German pike column, popping out the other side (with severely reduced numbers, of course!) They were about to throw themselves in for a final suicidal charge, when the victorious Swiss and Gascons came running over the hill, where upon the Germans threw down their pikes to surrender to the very gendarmes who they had been fighting a moment before. However, as Montluc put it, "We cut their throats". The joys of 16th Century warfare at it's finest!
In both cases it wasn't the gendarmes themselves who decided the battle, but it was their ability to force the opposing infantry to have to stand and face the threat that gave the other arm, be it artillery or infantry, the opportunity to come into play to defeat the enemy footmen.
It seems, in general however, that most cases of the heavy cavalry winning battles was more that they would first defeat their opposing numbers, and after doing so would at leisure fall upon the remaining infantry. Being abandoned by their own cavalry, the said infantry lost much of it's morale, and was rather easy pickings for the Heavy Horse and their own supporting Foote. A sad litany that seems to repeat itself with dreadful regularity... 
Per men on horseback vs. unarmoured footmen, the Spaniards seem to have done rather remarkable things with a very small number of horses against literally hordes of footmen. Indeed, when they were separated, a single horseman was more victim than victor, but when they kept to their compact formations, they were virtually unstoppable.
In regards to armour being pierced by the weapons of the day, Francois de la Noue made note of the fact that "it is a miracle if any be slain by the Speare" which suggests strongly that the armour of the day was quite effective against the edged weapons employed at that time (late-16th Century). Pistols, properly employed, would do the trick (usually) but only at VERY close range. I would venture that the armour of the day and age was used precisely due to it's efficiency, but when tactics changed dramatically in the 17th Century and Great Battles ceased to be as common, other issues came into play to encourage the abandonment of most armour.
Long winded explanation, but I hope its worthwhile.
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | Per men on horseback vs. unarmoured footmen, the Spaniards seem to have done rather remarkable things with a very small number of horses against literally hordes of footmen. Indeed, when they were separated, a single horseman was more victim than victor, but when they kept to their compact formations, they were virtually unstoppable. |
You mean in the conquest of Central and South America? They surely did, though I'd still call them a triumph of combined arms. The biggest among Cortez's early battles--at Cintla--was won when his horsemen fell upon the flank of the native foot, who were already engaged with the Spanish rodeleros to their front.
These horsemen did break through a mass of native foot that tried to ambush them some moments earlier, though, so they were capable of making their weight felt even when unaided and fighting against numerically superior enemies--but only if they kept their formation, just like you said. What's interesting is that Cortez explicitly ordered his men to charge at the trot, which meant he was very anxious to keep the solidity of his formation (and for good reason)!
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh & Nathan,
My apologies, I was too tired when I wrote the messages and missed that Hugh's name remaiend when i shortend Elling's post which was the one i quote. I've edited the messages accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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