Tell Techno.

[FierceKitty]

Not entirely silly; you might want to grab a village, ford, or pass, and getting mounted troops there fast could be handy. But cavalry aren't much use on the defensive,,,,

[fsn]

What FK said.

Strategically it may be advantageous to mount men on horseback. The origial dragoons were just mounted infantry; not expected to get involved in a fight on horsebck, and mounted on inferior nags.

They scored on being able to cover 25 miles a day as opposed to the 10 days of a man on foot. They also arrived fresher than their footslogger bretheren, the horse doing most of the work.

[Orcs]

The shorter Arquebus would have been fired without a rest. It was also used by Light Horse, which would imply that it was light enough  to be fired mounted.  The later longer heavier one needed a rest and developed into Muskets. 

I think I know what range your doing 

[Westmarcher]

Link to images of a mounted arquebusier, his equipment and firing from his horse*:-

https://www.google.com/search?q=wallhavsen+art+militaire+a+cheval+images+1616&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifyvzqloPdAhWpKMAKHfHJBi0QsAR6BAgAEAE&biw=1420&bih=720#imgrc=cKrJTPbCngPQJM:

* also in Chapter 3 of George Gush's "Renaissance Armies"** (his source is Wallhavsen, Art Militaire à Cheval, 1616)
** this book also has a section about the arquebus (aka harquebus, hagbush, hagbut, etc.) in Chapter 2. The musket is described as a heavier and longer type of arquebus.

[Ithoriel]

Phil, think of a dragoon as a very early version of the thinking that leads to infantry in half-tracks or IFVs.

They are a better infantryman than cavalry are and better cavalry than the infantry are but not as good as either in their own specialisation.

[Westmarcher]

Phil, in case you don't have Renaissance Armies, some links to more George Gush articles which partially cover the English, Irish and Spanish armies of the Elizabethan era:-

https://myarmoury.com/feature_armies_eng.html
https://myarmoury.com/feature_armies_irish.html
https://myarmoury.com/feature_armies_spanish.html

[d_Guy]

You seem well supplied with info now, Phil. As you are doing 16th c., one oddity I have not seen (I don't get out much) is there was, for a time, mounted pikemen to accompany the mounted arquibusiers. A quick strike force as fsn suggests. I can not recall any actual deployments of the mounted pikes, but a novelty certainly.

[Techno]

This is getting more and more complicated !  (Not really...I'm getting the hang of this now))

It's beginning to sound as though I could get away with almost 'anything'......

But I truly am finding this incredibly interesting.

I think I know what range your doing 

ELIZABETHAN ! (For someone at Pendraken who is not 'Sir' or Milady.).....Can you guess, now ?

Cheers - A Muppet

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Cheers - A Muppet

Hi Miss Piggy ! 

[OldenBUA]

Cavalry in the 16th and 17th century did rely on shooting from horseback.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harquebusier

[Techno]

Blimey !

Cheers - Phil

[Leman]

Some duff info being bandied around by persons who then claim not to know the period. Phil, if you are researching for sculpting purposes I do know the period, I game the period, and I have it in FOUR scales:

1. The arquebus is a handy weapon and does not require a rest.

2. The musket, 1520 - 1640ish was a heavy weapon and did require a rest becoming lighter in the 1640s, hence ECW figures both with and without a rest.

3. The arquebus could be fired from horseback, hence the term mounted arquebusier.

4. During the Italian  Wars there was an ultra-light artillery piece which looked like a giant musket. It had a wooden three-legged rest, allowing the firer to stand, not like the later machine guns, and required a crew of two.

5. If you want to see the current most accurate figures for the earlier Italian Wars I suggest a look at those produced in 28mm by The Assault Group. Below are some Italian arquebusiers. The arquebus looks pretty handy and no sign or need of rests:

[SV52]

What about petronels then? 

[Techno]

I'm going to be going with 'Wot Andy sed.'

Thanks, Andy !

Cheers - Phil

[Leman]

What about petronels then? 

I don't go birdwatching.

[SV52]

I don't go birdwatching.

I think you're mixing them up with Mother Carey's Chickens.

[mollinary]

Some duff info being bandied around by persons who then claim not to know the period. Phil, if you are researching for sculpting purposes I do know the period, I game the period, and I have it in FOUR scales:

1. The arquebus is a handy weapon and does not require a rest.

2. The musket, 1520 - 1640ish was a heavy weapon and did require a rest becoming lighter in the 1640s, hence ECW figures both with and without a rest.

3. The arquebus could be fired from horseback, hence the term mounted arquebusier.

4. During the Italian  Wars there was an ultra-light artillery piece which looked like a giant musket. It had a wooden three-legged rest, allowing the firer to stand, not like the later machine guns, and required a crew of two.

5. If you want to see the current most accurate figures for the earlier Italian Wars I suggest a look at those produced in 28mm by The Assault Group. Below are some Italian arquebusiers. The arquebus looks pretty handy and no sign or need of rests:

. Now those are what I call potatoes!! Wow! 

[Techno]

You OIK !! 

Cheers - Phil

[Orcs]

They are not Arquebus's They are 16th Century  SPUD Guns 

[Techno]

They are not Arquebus's They are 16th Century  SPUD Guns 

Soooooo....You want to be an OIK too, then, Mark.

Well deserved ! 

Cheers - Phil