| Author |
Message |
|
Lennon R. Clotild
|
 Posted: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stephane Rabier wrote: | Hello,
I'm a complete novice but it puts me in mind of the perfect tank Vs the ultimate antitank weapon problem.
I guess today no one would attack a Abrams or Leclerc tank using a 1918 antitank rifle, a 1944 bazooka and even with the latest rocket launcher a skilled soldier would certainly avoid to aim to the front plates and he would rather choose to attack the tracks, the turret/body joint or any vulnerable point, am I wrong? |
You are right, except that today, generally when the two combatant armies are more or less on equal ground, infantry would not be used against armor; instead, anti-armor roles would be fullfilled by other tanks, ground-support aircraft, or specialized self-propelled guns. These weapons are designed to destroy tanks head-on without having to resort to only vulerable points. Plus, there are some one-man shoulder weapons capable of doing significant damange to disable an Abrams, though most of these are in the US's own arsenal.
The point is I don't think that at any point in warfare, combatants could resort to such "strike in vulnerable spots" for long. Either they would lose, or some new weapon developed. In medieval times, that new weapon were firearms. Plus, the majority of armies did not wear head-to-toe plate. The basic soldier wore a helmet and a coat-of-plate, or a breastplate, so they were still quiet vulnerable to sword attacks.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lennon R. Clotild wrote: | | The basic soldier wore a helmet and a coat-of-plate, or a breastplate, so they were still quiet vulnerable to sword attacks. |
That should have been they were still quite vulnerable to non-gunpowder weapons. I'm honestly sick of the sword fixation I see everywhere in discussions of pre-industrial European warfare even though the solid fact is that the sword was not (and never) the primary weapon for the overwhelming majority of warriors in European history.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Indeed. Even in the Roman legion the gladius was rarely the primary weapon. In the earliy days the thrusting spear was the primary weapon. Later on the gladius was the primary weapon only in very specific circumstances. When in broken terrain the auxilliaries did the bulk of the fighting and the sword was not their primary weapon. When on the defensive the Romans legionaries closed ranks and used the heavier pilum as a thrusting spear. Only when in open terrain, when on the offensive, and only after the pila had been thrown could one say that the gladius was the primary weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still, swords and dagger saw plenty of action in combat. They're what many warriors resorted to in the melee. As Smythe wrote:
| Quote: | | And as they doo miftake the conuenient arming of horfemen and footmen, fo they alfo miftake the weaponing of them: for whereas Swords of conuenient length, forme and fubftance, haue been in all ages efteemed by all warlike Nations, of al other forts of weapons the laft weapon of refuge both for horfemen, and footmen, by reafon that when al their other weapons in fight haue failed them, either by breaking, loffe, or otherwife, they then haue prefentlie betaken themfelues to their fhort arming Swords and Daggers, as to the laft weapons, of great effect & execution for all Martiall actions... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, I have no porblems with that, Ben. What I dislike is the way modern literature makes it look as if swords were the best or even the only weapon available before the coming of firearms, or in some cases even after firearms began to take the center stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Sat 05 Mar, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | | 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 |
Good day 
From information I was able to gather about battle of Dreux Ive most times seen Swiss casualties put at more than 1000. Then there is information that according to Condé Huguenots lost 140 and that real number would be higher (From the book The King's Army: Warfare, Soldiers etc. Im not sure ig he was referring to casualtie as a whole or only the ones he was able to percieve)
So if most casualties were caused by firepower, were lance armed Gendarmes really as inefficient as that they wouldnt inflict no significant casualties in compare to the ones they sustained?
Also if my understanding is correct company of gendarmes would consist of 30 gendarmes and 60 archers. Is this what information about company being literally wiped out refers to? Where could I find information about it if I can ask?
How much would landsknecht arquebusiers inflicting severe casualties mean?
At most depictions of the battle (in other words the ones available on the internet ) Most horses are depicted as wearing no armour. Would this be correct for this period (IIRC men at arms only had to give promise to obtain horse harness once they could to be accepted) or in reality more or most of their horses would be barded?
Thank you for any of your answers
|
|
 |
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Mar, 2011 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
Good day
From information I was able to gather about battle of Dreux Ive most times seen Swiss casualties put at more than 1000. Then there is information that according to Condé Huguenots lost 140 and that real number would be higher (From the book The King's Army: Warfare, Soldiers etc. Im not sure ig he was referring to casualtie as a whole or only the ones he was able to percieve)
|
The Swiss losses are very hard to estimate as are indeed all casulties in this battle due to the lack of detailed & reliable sources. The intial report by the Swiss commanders only mentions 300 killed but does not mention missing & wounded troops. A later Swiss source mentions a total loss of 1000 men while the French goverment wanted to recruit 2000 new Swiss soldiers in order to bring the units up to full strenght a week after the battle. But these replacements would fill not only the gaps left by the battle of Dreux but also the losses suffered before the battle. For example the Swiss had lost 600 men during the siege of Rouen. Allowing for additonal losses before the battle about 1000 men killed seems a reasonable number.
Hugenot casulties are also hard to estimate, particularly as their army was scattered at nightfall. The number of 140 killed is for the Hugenot cavalry and is from Throckmorton, Beze/Beza wrote to Calvin that Huguenots lost 150 killed. What is unclear is if these are references only to the French cavarly. Beza for example claims that only 10 of the nobility were killed, all from Mouy's company and that these men were all killed in the first frontal charge on the Swiss Gevierthaufen.
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
So if most casualties were caused by firepower, were lance armed Gendarmes really as inefficient as that they wouldnt inflict no significant casualties in compare to the ones they sustained?
|
Not causing casulties is not the same as being efficient. A Gendarme charge is a shock attack which aims to shatter the enemy with the a violent impact and break-through which breaks the enemy units cohesion and hopefully routs it. The casulties are mainly inflicted during the pursuit of the broken enemy unit, not during the impact and melee. Troops with fire arms were more efficient in inflicting casulties in the melee stage, even a fervent supporters of the lance like Sir Roger Williams & Ludovico Melzo admited this and wanted cavalry with firearms to exploit the breaches the Lancers made in an enemy formation.
So if the a unit held together rather than broke apart and routed the lance armed Gendarmes would not get the chance to hack down fleeing troops in the pursit which was were most of their actual killing was done.
Troops with firearms can inflict more casulties before a unit breaks because firepower in the 16th Century worked by slow attrition most of the time. Men would be shot down here and there but the process of degrading the units cohesion would be very gradual as the casulties were too few most of the time to have an immediate impact on the huge formations used. And good units would be able to endure the fire for a longer period of time and as a result suffer more casulties. A raw unit could panic the first time it came under fire.
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
Also if my understanding is correct company of gendarmes would consist of 30 gendarmes and 60 archers. Is this what information about company being literally wiped out refers to? Where could I find information about it if I can ask?
|
The best description of regulation strenght gendarme companies can be found on page 135 in "The King's Army", there you can see that a 30 lance company would have 30 Gendarmes and 45 Archers. In reality the unit size would have varied a lot, particularly among the Huguenots who had a lot of private volunteer units rather than regulars. (Though the core of the Huguenot cavalry were the regular Gendarme companies which sided with their Hugenot commanders as war broke out)
I have to confirm the description of the company which was wiped out in the the primary sources. It may be a misinterpretation of what happend Mouy's company as well as part of soem whistfull thinking in soem of the Swiss accounts. I'll have to dig deeper into the sources to try to find out more of the details of this alledged event.
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
How much would landsknecht arquebusiers inflicting severe casualties mean?
|
As explained above reliable numbers are rare or nonexistent. La Noue who was the eyewitness who saw the arquebusiers in action simply writes that they "killed many" ("slew many" to quote the English edtion of his Discourse)
Also the original text calls the arquebusiers "Huguenot arquebusiers" which makes it possible, even likely that these were French rather than Germans. My identification was based on Lenz' interpretation and after seeing the orginal French text I suspect that he may have misidentified these troops as foreign translations of La Noue change "Huguenot" into the less clear "Protestant".
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
At most depictions of the battle (in other words the ones available on the internet ) Most horses are depicted as wearing no armour. Would this be correct for this period (IIRC men at arms only had to give promise to obtain horse harness once they could to be accepted) or in reality more or most of their horses would be barded?
|
The graphic depictions of Dreux online are all from the same source as far as I can tell. Namely Tortorel and Perrissin's work (in modern works variously known as "Wars , Massacres and Troubles" or "Quarante Tableaux" or simply named after the authors.)
This extensive set of images were made & published in 1570 and several of the images were then more or less accurately copied by for example German printers.
None of the makers were eyewitness to events and had to rely on oral and written descriptions as sources. There fore the accuracy of the way in which events are depicted varies and the military gear show reflects the apperance in of equipment in 1570 rather than 1562.
Most horses would be unarmoured as it was only the Hommes d'Armes that used barding, the Archers rode unbarded horses at all times. Just how much horse armour was in use in 1562 is impossible to determine with certainty due to a lack sources. 10 years earlier eyewitness accounts show that the French men-at-arms still rode fully barded horses and the regulations in use by 1562 still required it but that tells us little about the reality of the situation on the field of Dreux.
My conjectural view is that some form of barding may have been used by the "best" of the regular gendarme companies. I.e units with enough discipline, will and money to follow the regulations. I doubt that the "ordinary" companies used much horse armour, possibly armour for the head if any was used. The volunteer units which formed a good part of the Huguenot men-at-arms would almost certainly have used no horse armour due that kind of equipment being both rare and expensive.
"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: Thu 10 Mar, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was nice to finally find out what gendarmes really referred to (gendarmes, their archers plus noble volunteers) Would this term in most cases refer to heavy cavalry as a whole as well for other battles?
At Ravenna there are about 1700 french and italian lances mentioned for example in The art of war in Italy by Taylor. So if I understand it right this would refer to 1700 and four times the number of cavalry in total (in case italian lances were also composed of four fighting men) Or would this be rather a count of whole heavy cavalry force?
At Marignano Ive seen most times number of about 2700 men at arms (unspecified further). Once again would this be reference for gendarmes only or their archers and any other heavy cavalry as well?
And finally at the battle of Ceresole. Ive just read a part about it from Francois de la Noues memoirs from archive.org. As my french is terrible or rather non-existent I hope I understood it right that he mentions 150 men at arms under Boutieres and 200 men at arms under Enghien. (page 40) Then there is a mention about 100 noble volunteers. So this 350 together is number for gendarmes and archers combined?
Then in memoirs of Montluc there is a passage that should describe a struggle between Enghiens men at arms and landsknechts/spanish, where he speak about all captains and lieutenant in front ranks being killed but they still held and at last after two charges there were only 100 horsemen left for other shock. This is passage I became interested in:
Ceste bataille de cinq mille picques s'en alla le grand pas
droit aux Gruyens. Il falloit qu'ils passassent à costé de
M. d'Anguien, lequel seigneur fust mal conseillé : car il
donna avec-la gendarmerie tout au travers du bataillon, les
autres par flanc. Et là fust tué et blessé beaucoup de gens do
bien et des principaux , comme M. d'Assier, le sieur de La
Rochechouart, et plusieurs autres, et encore plus à la so-
conde recharge. Il y en eut qui passèrent et repassèrent au
travers, mais toujours ils se rallioient, et vindrent en ceste
manière aux Gruyens, qui furent bientôt renversez sans tirer
un seul coup de picque. Et là moururent tous leurs capi-
taines et lieutenans, qui estoient au premier rang; et fuirent
droit à M. de Gros. Mais ce bataillon d'Espagnols et d' Al-
lemans, suivoit tousjours au grand trot leur victoire, et ren-
versèrent ledit sieur des Gros : et là y mourust , et tous les
capitaines. M. d'Anguien ne le peut secourir, pource que
presque tous les chevaux de sa cavalerie à ces deux furieu-
ses, mais Irop inconsidérées charges, estoient blessez et s'en
alloient le pas par la campagne à costé des ennemis. Il estoit
au désespoir, maudissant l'heure que jamais il avoit esté né,
voyant la fuite de ses gens de pied, et qu'à peine lui r estoit- il
cent chevaux pour soutenir le choc.
My understanding from this was that even though they were outnumbered by 1:10 and being unsupported and transversing whole formation of the enemy they still were capable of fight and not absolutely anihilated. So Id like to ask what was generally considered acceptable casualties if they manage/fail to break infantry formation and rout them?
Also concerning archers: they were formerly real archers dismounting for combat using missile weapons as I know. I cant find where I read it but if its correct then last mention of them using bows was at the battle of Ravenna. Then there are wars of religion where Im sure they would be lighter version of Gendarmes. What would be in period between? When they really transformed into lancers?
Also maybe rather stupid question but its hard to get a picture about it:
Many times I see phrases like infantry was softened/ weakened by missile fire and this is most times referred to as something that should be done before cavalry charge to raise propability it will be succesfull. I cant understand what exactly should it make to for example pike. Does it takes longer for other men in formation to fill gaps left by dead and close formation aonce again than it takes cavalry to reach them? Was fire simultaneous with cavalry charge? Does soften/ weaken/break their formation refers rather to psychological impact?
Once again about horse armour : In article about french army it is mentioned that from 1534 regulations required only frontal armour for gendarmes. So from the time they were instituted in 1445 untill about a battle of Pavia would they regularly all wear full horse armour? (In Osprey French armies of hundred years war there is a mention about breton men at arms from the end of war that their horses were to this date unarmoured- its in description to a plate that should depict on of these men at arms present at the battle of Castillon) Does horse armour in reality hepls to penetrate among pikemen in case horse is willing to do it or would he had about the same problems doing it as without it?
And finally from a point of organization on a battlefield:
Does en haie means really single line of horsemen or does it mean line of Gendarmes followed by several other lines of archers/coustiliers. Would a company charge as a whole with heaviest and best trained horses serving as a head of a battering ram and others to fill in numbers and exploit disorder left by the charge of their superiors? Or were archers/coustiliers organized into separate units and would have their own unique roles on a battlefield?
Once again thank you for all your answers and have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Mar, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know I love this article because of the vast amount of knowledge that has been brought out. As I read it some time ago, and even skimmed it just now... I know in fact; and rather simply put "Why would there be so much training being taught in manuals to half-sword if a man was capable of just cutting through a helm or other parts of armor" it would be a waste of time. and this topic has been mentioned in the thread, look around page two for reference.
Ok, enough of that we know all that....
However, (And I am not the best source for this) but I remember hearing that according to our standards now-a-days of a perfectly heated sword, and armor that has an exact composition of a perfect steel is somewhat higher than was around back in the day of our study focus. What if a piece of armor was made with a lack of a proper distribution of the compostion of the steel and there was a "weak spot" in the iron of the steel. Such as a breastplate or helm, and a sword happened (by complete chance) to smack and nail that "sweet spot" of the said armor. Could it happen in that case? would that senerio actually be possible?
Also I remember hearing (Please correct me if I am wrong) That "some" period helms were in some manner actually welded together. What if the weld had an imperfection in it that was not visible to the naked eye. Could a sword then "appear" to cut the helm in half, when in actuality the helm was "cracked" in half at the bad weld?
Of course these occurrences would be extremely rare, though plausible.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Gallo
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Mar, 2011 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There could be quite a few reasons (aside from romantic inaccuracy) swords are depicted numerous times defeating helmets and plate.
*The larger examples of the sword being adequate to stun an opponent with a blow to the helmet, even without any penetration or significant denting occurring (although a lot of people disagreed with me when I made a thread about it).
Then the artist painting this as bloody penetration just to say 'he thus wavered'.
As was mentioned by someone else earlier in this thread, if the sword is simply laying against the helm without blood or penetration, we don't know if the blow was completely nullified or if it's knocking him off his feet. Consider it equivalent to drawing yellow lines to show light is coming from a street lamp in a comic book.
*The irons/steels of the day being far less predictable in composition than those today (thus inconsistently heat treated), I've seen photos of cheap reenactment armor cracking like ice from a light blow due to excessive hardening/poor tempering.
Imagine how common this was when steels weren't universally rated, water-based (cracking prone) quenchants were the norm, and the vast majority of soldiers couldn't afford plate at all, much less hold out for the 'good stuff' from a master smith 500 miles away.
*Important figures being drawn in full plate regardless of what they wore as a method of identifying them to the viewer. Virtually everyone of note, regardless of which centuries they lived in, started to be painted in full plate in later romantic art. It wouldn't surprise me if, likewise, pauldrons and greaves over leather/cloth grew into shimmering, engraved full plate when certain contemporary artists depicted important warriors.
etc etc etc
Perhaps none is a concrete theory but you can go on and on.
I think the sword is both overestimated and underestimated nowadays. The casual movie audience who believe swords can cut .50 cal machine gun barrels in half just got so annoying that the hardcore history buffs moved in the extreme opposite direction in reaction and sometimes depict swords almost as ornamental pieces.
Personally I believe that when swords ranged from 1-10 lbs, dagger length to 6+ feet, razor-thin to sharpened bar stock, you can't really say what they could or couldn't do collectively. The standard sword however, obviously prioritized handiness and speed against unarmored opponents and was out of its element elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Johan Gemvik
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Mar, 2011 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're spot on with that post Gallo!
Yes, some swords were flimsy things better suited for dress ornament and then some were sturdy things intended as tools of war, on a battlefield where you might not run into fully armourd opponents all the time, but some times. For those sometimes it would have to be enough for you to hold your own and not be useless. So to assume some practicality if not being the perfect tool for the job is only logical.
"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristian Fagerström
Location: Sweden Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Mar, 2011 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Metal fatigue is also a factor.
I and a friend did exhibition fights with aluminum swords (I know, let's not talk about that) with a 3mm "edge".
In the final action, he oberhaus, I absetz, sidestep and strikes the back of his helmet as he moves by.
Classic movie-move, wide edges, light swords, 2mm steel helmets. Safe.
Well, I caved in his helmet about 2" deep. I thought I had killed him, and with a heavier blade with an edge, even a blunt one
I am fairly sure that I would have.
The helmet's dayjob was SCA combat, so it had been dented and undented one time too many. I believe that this would be the case with helmets in the past as well.
So if a sword generally does not penetrate plate, I would not be surprised that it happened. How frequently? I dunno.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: | | It was nice to finally find out what gendarmes really referred to (gendarmes, their archers plus noble volunteers) Would this term in most cases refer to heavy cavalry as a whole as well for other battles? |
Difficult to say, since (as Daniel has said) his usage of the term in this particular, inclusive way was just a method to simplify things so that he wouldn't have had to repeatedly write "gendarmes, archers, and volunteers" in his discussion of the battle of Ceresole. We can't guarantee that this mode of usage for the word would be meaningful in discussing other battles, or even for discussing different aspects of Ceresole (for example, administrative details, where there was a world of difference between the gens d'arme and his supporting archers).
| Quote: | At Ravenna there are about 1700 french and italian lances mentioned for example in The art of war in Italy by Taylor. So if I understand it right this would refer to 1700 and four times the number of cavalry in total (in case italian lances were also composed of four fighting men) Or would this be rather a count of whole heavy cavalry force?
At Marignano Ive seen most times number of about 2700 men at arms (unspecified further). Once again would this be reference for gendarmes only or their archers and any other heavy cavalry as well? |
You'd probably be better served by checking out the footnotes of the sources you got those figures from. If they point the way to some primary source, you can then check that out to see what the figures exactly mean.
| Quote: | And finally at the battle of Ceresole. Ive just read a part about it from Francois de la Noues memoirs from archive.org. As my french is terrible or rather non-existent I hope I understood it right that he mentions 150 men at arms under Boutieres and 200 men at arms under Enghien. (page 40) Then there is a mention about 100 noble volunteers. So this 350 together is number for gendarmes and archers combined?
Then in memoirs of Montluc there is a passage that should describe a struggle between Enghiens men at arms and landsknechts/spanish, where he speak about all captains and lieutenant in front ranks being killed but they still held and at last after two charges there were only 100 horsemen left for other shock. This is passage I became interested in: |
You could try PMing or e-mailing Daniel for this, since (if I recall correctly) he seems to have access to scans of (near-)contemporary English translations of La Noue and Montluc. I could try to look my copies up, too (which I think I got from him), but it'd take a while since free time is getting a bit hard to come by these days...
| Quote: | | Also concerning archers: they were formerly real archers dismounting for combat using missile weapons as I know. I cant find where I read it but if its correct then last mention of them using bows was at the battle of Ravenna. Then there are wars of religion where Im sure they would be lighter version of Gendarmes. What would be in period between? When they really transformed into lancers? |
The only thing we can be sure about is that this was a long and gradual process. As far as I remember, in Commynes's memoirs (referring to events in the 1460s and 1470s), they still fought as mounted infantry in the wars between the King(s) and Charles the Bold of Burgundy, but shortly afterwards they had begun to adopt lances and fight mounted as some sort of second-class cavalry. If they (or some of them, anyway) still fought as archers at Ravenna, this just shows how long and uneven the transformation process was.
| Quote: | | Many times I see phrases like infantry was softened/ weakened by missile fire and this is most times referred to as something that should be done before cavalry charge to raise propability it will be succesfull. I cant understand what exactly should it make to for example pike. Does it takes longer for other men in formation to fill gaps left by dead and close formation aonce again than it takes cavalry to reach them? Was fire simultaneous with cavalry charge? Does soften/ weaken/break their formation refers rather to psychological impact? |
It's mostly psychological--just like the whole interaction matrix between shock cavalry and close-order infantry. Inflicting casualties to the infantry would do nothing to help the cavalry unless the casualties also in a degree of disorganization and disorientation in the infantry formation, which makes them more vulnerable to the psychological impact of a cavalry charge. Of course, if you were in the infantry formation, it would have been difficult to not suffer from psychological effects when your buddy got torn to pieces by a passing cannonball....
| Quote: | | Does en haie means really single line of horsemen or does it mean line of Gendarmes followed by several other lines of archers/coustiliers. |
Having lesser cavalry in the rear ranks appears to have been the common medieval method, but I'm not so sure about whether this continued into the renaissance. Cruso (and perhaps Wallhausen?) mentioned that lancers ought to charge in two lines separated by an interval that would allow the first line to get out of the second line's way if the initial charge failed to break the enemy, and this referred to late 16th- and early 17th-century heavy lancers in three-quarters armour without any mention of lighter (or heavier!) types charging in support. Unfortunately, on one hand these lancers were mostly gone by the time Cruso wrote about them (so it's possible that he was just pontificating on a theoretical level), while on the other hand they weren't quite the same thing either as fully-armoured gendarmes on fully-armoured horses. So any extrapolation of this principle to lance-armed gendarmes would have to involve a great deal of educated quesswork (and perhaps a little bit of wishful thinking).
| Quote: | | Would a company charge as a whole with heaviest and best trained horses serving as a head of a battering ram and others to fill in numbers and exploit disorder left by the charge of their superiors? |
Ironically, this method (of putting the best-armoured men in front of a formation bulked out by lighter horsemen) was most commonly used for the very antithesis of the en haye charge--that is, the charge at the trot in deep columns. The most pertinent instances to our discussion are the German cavalry wedges at the end of the 15th century, which evolved into the deep blocks utilized by German reiters and (later on) pistol-armed Huguenot cavalry under Henri IV.
| Quote: | | Or were archers/coustiliers organized into separate units and would have their own unique roles on a battlefield? |
If I remember correctly, there are instances of both archers/coustiliers being brigaded together with the gendarmes and of them being detached for independent operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 5:52 am Post subject: where to look |
|
|
The Medieval illustration is a good example. You see two estocs held close to the body for the push. One is aimed at the pierced breastplate, the other at a shield. These are very powerful pushes. The design of the armor was meant to deflect such attempts of penetration, be they swords, bolts or else. It was for example a trademark of Nuremberg armour that it had a dent showing it stopped the official testing bolt shot from the testing crossbow. Afterwards it received a marking punch. Interpreting this source you get that Nuremberg armour was meant to withstand crossbows, that it was turned trademark means that other armour possibly didn't.
This regulation can imply that some armour could be penetrated by crossbows and also by certain types of swords under specific conditions (the guy with the pierced armour is pressed forward, can't move sideways and can't defend against the guy in front of him leaning with his sword against him).
The Nuremberg example is quite well known, but you will likely find out more about the capabilities of armour if you look at the guild specifications of required quality in order to maintain their "trademark". (N-Italy + S-Germany vs. the rest of Europe)
Another source can be battlefield excavations. There are some publications on battlefield archaeology. Very well known is the mass grave of the Battle of Visby(wiki/google scholar this topic). The skelotons there are wounded, some are warriors with healed old wounds caused by weapons and they are party armoured. The armour contains not only mail, but also early forms of plate armour and lamelar armour (if I remember correctly)
One thing about Medieval illustrations is often the supremacy of modern equipment that clads the good guy, while the bad guy is out of fashion. Blood can be used to illustrate this point.
The already mentioned Burgundian wars also have some battlefields and men-at-arms, including the duke got their heads split by halberds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
Well, perhaps I did make a mistaken assumption. I based my statement on a demonstration I watched in a WMA video, where two highly-skilled halberdiers were pitted against a single man-at-arms on a frontally-armored horse and made short work of him on two out of three occasions--usually by having one of them keep the man-at-arms busy while the other stabs the horse or "breaks its legs" (actually just tapping hard enough that the well-trained steed took the cue and collapses the touched leg). When the man-at-arms tried to charge out of the way, one of the halberdiers just stuck his halberd in the way and clotheslined him.
That was the watered-down version. If they didn't have to care for the horse's (and each other's) safety, it would probably have been a much faster and much more decisive affair.
You're right in that such a level of skill would have been rare among 15th- or 16th-century halberdiers, however, so two ordinary halberdiers would probably have been much less likely to manage the feat the way those two skilled practitioners did. And we essentially agree in that two hundred halberdiers (or two thousand) would have been hard pressed indeed to fend off half their number in mounted men-at-arms. |
I know it has propably been long ago, but do you remember what a horseman did exactly in this demonstration? Looking at some portugese bullfighting I seriously doubt he would have problems to keep himself safe had he been man-at-arms. Looks like horse was trained more to lie down on tapping than to be ridden at least remotedly well to be fit for combat. 
It seems to me like outcome of this demonstration was already settled before it ever started, or did the horseman in this case at least try to outflank them or fight back? Was he able to close and threaten them with his horse? (Little similar to statement that man with bayonet had the advantage against a man on horse one one one using either lance or sword. This was supposedly based on statistical average of outcomes of duels with blunt weapons in Victorian era, where bayonet would have some marginal advantage, yet one great factor ommited was that for all participants safety horse couldnt be used agressively and run into adversary, so basically it was just fencing of man on foot against a man on a horse)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Artman
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lennon R. Clotild wrote: | Below is a 15th century depiction of a melee, showing a breastplate being penetrated by a sword.
Any thoughts on this? |
All I know is that is a really cool shield with a spike on it... I'd like a shield like that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2012 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
as for the ability of a sword to severely hurt a breastplate using a sword thrust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osTQrJ_axfc
nuff said.. peter also points out that the breastplate was 'very thin plate armour' so im gonna assume like 18 guage steel and probably mild steel. i.e not a knightly breastplate.
as peter says, 'at arms length with both hands using all your strength youve managed to puncture it about.. an inch' in the meantime youve been hit three times by the guy wearing this armour.
which id believe, assuming you manage to unbalance him/ get inside his guard enough to get a halfsword thrust onto the breastplate. youd likely not kill him at least not quickly. and he would , by turning, rip your ssword out of your hands, or maybe break the tip. and also promptly bash you over the head, or thrust you in the face like a more professional warrior. who knows tabbing a breatplate is a waste of energy , that strike could have been aimed at an armpit, a visor or the throat or something.
and the guys sword gets stuck in the breastplate.. so maybe not such a good idea..sure if its a one on one single combat but in a melee youve maybe lost your weapon. or maybe gotten killed by another enemy who was standing right beside him..
none of these are particularly appetising.
that said for this episode, moments like this are really the few parts that have any accuracy to them, its purpose was to point out that in a nutshell, a dismounted knight was actually was actually quite hard to kill and give an excuse to introduce the variety of weapons that arnt axes spears or swords aka various polearms, maces flails and warhammers.
and why one couldnt say 'just use a handgonne/ bow/ crossbow, pointing out reloading times, innacuracy, or the fact that a longbow wont kill a knight unless you get a shot at a vulnerable area.
the title 'wierd weapons' should have been replaced with 'defeating plate armour'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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