Okey Dokey, it's time for a couple of new armies and I was thinking of French Wars of Religion (hugeunots/Catholic League etc). Would the Pendraken figures cover the major combatants and mercenaries? I was thinking of using either Impetus or Spanish Fury, any thoughts one way or another on those?...and importantly what basing are people using?
I nearly went this way before getting waylaid by LOA.
Dont know about either of those sets of rules, but FogR gets good reviews (better than its ancient cousin it seems)
Basing - 40mm frontage - depth your choice. Have played FOG, and FOG-R, good game.
IanS
There are plenty of good figures, although I'm not sure what you'd use for Hugenot cavalry. I have two Italian wars armies, and the only troop type that was a problem was the genitor.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 14 October 2011, 10:41:49 AM
There are plenty of good figures [...] the only troop type that was a problem was the genitor.
What did you do? I reckon if I needed
Jinetes I would buy Stradiots and cut off part of their lances and file away the lower sides of the shields to get the heart shapes.
As for rules: in my view there
are no good rules for Renaissance.
Impetus and
Impetus Baroque are elegant, but simplistic as well as competition-driven.
FOGR and
Spanish Fury are much too complex for my taste,
DBR is unwieldy. It's a real pain. Warlord are working on a Renaissance rulebook in the vein of
Black Powder and
Hail Caesar, which might be good.
If it isn't, I'm going to go for my own house rules called
Victoria! which are only 3 A-4 sides long and still allow for very complex situations. Good rules should take their cue from chess: simple principles that allow for huge variation and complexity.
Cheers,
Aart
I like using DBA-Renaissance, Reformation and Restoration (RRR). Fluid, non complex, quick games, uses 40mm frontages standard, armies are small enough that you can paint up several different armies. Biggest headache is the 126 pages of Army Lists :D
Both the rule adaptions and army lists are free downloads at the FADBAG yahoo group, I think it stands for Florida Association of DBA Gamers ;)
cya
Quote from: Blaker on 14 October 2011, 11:53:29 AM
I like using DBA-Renaissance, Reformation and Restoration (RRR). Fluid, non complex, quick games, uses 40mm frontages standard, armies are small enough that you can paint up several different armies. Biggest headache is the 126 pages of Army Lists :D
Both the rule adaptions and army lists are free downloads at the FADBAG yahoo group, I think it stands for Florida Association of DBA Gamers ;)
cya
IS DBA RRR (which I don't know) very different from DBR? To me DBR feels unhistorical (teh weak pikes) and is awkwardly written to say the least.
Cheers,
Aart
I made up genitors from Irish light horse, with shields from lentils filed flat and with a few notches cut in the rim for the lobe effect. They pass muster (although perhaps when the Aztecs come out this Christmas, there'll be a few missing Spanish types to go with the Tlaxcalans).
QuoteAs for rules: in my view there are no good rules for Renaissance
:-\
You could try Maximilian! a DBA type game for the Renaissance and are available as a PDF from Blackhat miniatures for about £6. They use 24 element sized armies as a basic force but two or three forces can be easily linked for a bigger game. Bases are 40mm frontages and 15/20mm for foot and 30mm for mounted although as long as the two sides are basicaly the same it doesn't realy matter.
DBR can be made to work better if you are willing to rewrite the bits that barker wrote when he was drunk.
QuoteDBR can be made to work better if you are willing to rewrite the bits that barker wrote when he was drunk
Barker wasn't drunk, he just has a special relationship with the english language.... he doesn't like it :D
Quote from: FierceKitty on 14 October 2011, 02:58:25 PM
DBR can be made to work better if you are willing to rewrite the bits that barker wrote when he was drunk.
Agreed, and provided you don't have play with a rule-mechanic who insists on interpreting every sentence literally. :(
I am not sure that it is so much that Barker is a bad writer (his introduction to ancient wargaming was quite readable), as that he firmly believes that he can write a sentence that no-one can misinterpret. That is just plain a mugs game.
I'm going to switch my 15mm Renaissance over to Impetus. The pike block picture on my top level blog http://broadfront.blogspot.com/2011/10/gaming-weekend.html (plus the fact that they gave a good game - fun and felt right) should help explain why.
Barker wasn't drunk, he just has a special relationship with the English language.... he doesn't like it :D
[/quote]
He didn't like mathematics either. Remember the instructions to subtract -1 and -2 for a 3rd and fourth rank respectively of enemy pikemen? (Please, Brer Fox, don't attack me with a four-deep pike block!)
Or history, if we note that there were seemingly no flank marches or irregular troops for a few centuries. Or consistency, as you may recall from five editions where pikemen couldn't use shields, then a sudden switch to being able to.
Etc, etc, and so forth....
At SELWG yesterday I bought an Elizabethan tudor army and on getting home ordered up the PDF of Maximilian... basing will be on 40mm frontage with a couple of options for depth. Now, can anyone recommend a decent book on the combatants that will hopefully include troop types and also some idea of how to paint them?
I'm rather short of any info about this period of history!
Any advice on which Pendraken figures I can use for Reiters and Millers would be great, is pike and shot infantry and equipment basically the same between french Catholic, Hugeunot, English etc?. I'm assuming that the Landsknecht range are ok for the mercenary armies that were around at this time?.
thanks!
George Gush's Renaissance Armies 1480-1650 is still probably the best general source around. The man pretty well invented Renaissance as a wargaming period back in the seventies. You could use a mix of armoured and half-armoured pistoliers (or even unarmoured) as reiters. Since each man was responsible for providing his own equipment there would be no uniformity. The "millers" wore a white casaque (long-sleeved surcoat) over their armour, which is why their opponents gave them the nickname.
Landsknechts fought for both sides in the Wars of Religion - as did the Swiss. The common soldier wore his ordinary clothes - the Spanish in particular took the view that "how can you expect a man to fight his best if you don't let him wear what he wants?". Pike and shot would be pretty well interchangeable at this period. Only the Swiss and Landsknechts would stand out.
It's useful, but what he leaves out is no longer acceptable. The hobby has moved beyond Featherstone and Airfix, hasn't it?
I I started with Gush many moons ago, but like all WRG rules of the period they're "bottom up" looking at the minutae and extrapolating up to unit and army level. My favourite was (I think) the Pancerni in the Polish list, this started off as a bloke on a horse wearing little more than a vest but he could be steadily upgraded with armour and weapons until he was a veritable arsenal. I always had a picture of a long line of servants loading more and more kit onto the hapless man.
One issue I have with the Renaissance is "period creep" and expecting a set of rules to cover a very fluid and period. Personally I like playing Renaissance games set in Italy, basically the Italian wars from the original city states to the arrival of the French and Imperialists and the fall of the Papacy.
Speaking of the Italian Wars, has anyone looked into Frank Chadwick's Condottiere, The Dogs of War (http://"http://wargamesfoundry.combooks/wargames_rule_book/any/any/condottiere_the_dogs_of_war_fp024/?sector_id=") (Wargames Foundry) yet?
I'm curious what it's like.
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: FierceKitty on 17 October 2011, 03:04:45 PM
It's useful, but what he leaves out is no longer acceptable. The hobby has moved beyond Featherstone and Airfix, hasn't it?
Quote from: DanJ on 17 October 2011, 03:52:02 PM
I I started with Gush many moons ago, but like all WRG rules of the period they're "bottom up" looking at the minutae and extrapolating up to unit and army level. My favourite was (I think) the Pancerni in the Polish list, this started off as a bloke on a horse wearing little more than a vest but he could be steadily upgraded with armour and weapons until he was a veritable arsenal. I always had a picture of a long line of servants loading more and more kit onto the hapless man.
I wasn't referring to Gush's rules - I never liked them at all - but to the hardback book published in 1975 and updated later that covered all the main armies of the period. Most of the information contained in it is still valid although it may well be out of print now.
The Elizabethan range appears to have most of the figures needed. For Millers you could look at the demilancer EL8 or the 30 Years War cavalry with pistol in burgonet YW3. I would go with Impetus, although Warlord Games are bringing out a Pike and Shotte version of their rules soon. As for DBanything - aarghhh!. Although HOTT ain't too bad and does cater for weapons of the Renaissance period (and dragons and bears).
DP
Ahhh - George Gush's rennaissance rules :)
Many an hour whiled away cutting out the sentences from the errata sheet and then pritt sticking these extracts over the erronous bits of text. ;D 'Cut & paste' before the advent of the PC :o
Takes me back to my days on ROP's updating technical hardware manuals and vehicle logbooks whenever a new operating procedure came out... hence why I never received an LSGC :-[
Hi Freddy
Quote from: freddy326 on 17 October 2011, 09:16:00 AM
I'm assuming that the Landsknecht range are ok for the mercenary armies that were around at this time?.
thanks!
For the French Wars of Religion, the Landsknechts were in pluderhosen so the Pendraken range is for an earlier period. Not sure what to recommend to replace them, maybe the Elizabethan pike could be used.
(http://www.darkwoodarmory.com/images/doubletandpluderhose.gif)
(http://www.theweebsite.com/garb/arnold/ja_06a.gif)
(http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Renaissance/08_2_handed_swordsman.gif)
People were talking about George Gush's reference work, most of it is available here - http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Renaissance/RenaissanceWarfare-AirfixMagazineArticles.htm (http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Renaissance/RenaissanceWarfare-AirfixMagazineArticles.htm)
Cheers
GrumpyOldMan
Quote from: DanJ on 17 October 2011, 03:52:02 PM
Personally I like playing Renaissance games set in Italy, basically the Italian wars from the original city states to the arrival of the French and Imperialists and the fall of the Papacy.
agree; best way to start the period. Lots of colour, all the armies have attractive qualities and strengths, and not too many outlanding heavy cavalry types to confuse new players. A bonus is that you can call it renaissance and for once be using the term accurately!
Funny you should mention the renaissance; an easy way to make some good baggage elements is to print out some renaiiance paintings, stick 'em onto mounts, and stack 'em against each other as loot. A few Botticellis and Leonardos look really smart.
Quote from: FierceKittyA bonus is that you can call it renaissance and for once be using the term accurately!
Better call it
Quattrocento. Or course you would call it
Early Modern Period if you were in the American Historical Association. No offense, but the AHA are politically correct morons whose heads should be stuck on pikes and paraded through western capitals.
Quote from: FierceKittyA few Botticellis and Leonardos look really smart.
=O
"Is that a Donatello in your Plunderhose or are you happy to see me?" :-*
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 18 October 2011, 07:14:52 AM
Better call it Quattrocento.
Mi dispiace, but most of the fighting was in the cinquecento. Fornovo being the honourable exception.
=O
"Is that a Donatello in your Plunderhose or are you happy to see me?" :-*
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: FierceKittyMi dispiace, but most of the fighting was in the cinquecento. Fornovo being the honourable exception.
Va bene, FierceKitty, but I thought DanJ was primarily interested in the Condottiere wars of the fourteen hundreds.
Freddy again likes his wars to be French and religious, for which Le Poulet Gauche (http://www.lepg.org/index.html) is a nice site.
Cheers,
Aart
Reminder: the Grey Company (as in the Three Musketeers) were in fact a cavalry regiment.
Aart
Not enough room in a Cinquecento to swing a cat let alone have a battle.
:D
Chad
[attachment deleted by admin]
Anyone swinging me is going to lose a his cacciatorino.
Quote from: Chad on 18 October 2011, 11:54:20 AM
Aart
Not enough room in a Cinquecento to swing a cat let alone have a battle.
:D
Chad
Leave it to the Italians. You'd be amazed how many children have been fathered (or born, for that matter) in a mere Toppolino. I wouldn't be surprised if the Cinquecento had room for a full-blown Italian civil war.
Cheers,
Aart
Quote...I thought DanJ was primarily interested in the Condottiere wars of the fourteen hundreds
That's right, late fourteenth to early sixteenth centuries, the for me the Italian Wars are Renaissance warfare. It's amazing what the Italians achived in terms of art, litterature, science, religion etc against a backdrop of virtually constant warfare and who couln't be inspired by an army commanded by a Borgia?
By the middle of the sixteenth century the fire had, probably inevitably, gone out of the Renaissance and all we had to look forward to was Baroque architecture, the counter reformation and the interminable wars of religion, none of which I find inspiring.
Incidentaly why would anyone want to call the Renaissance the Early moden period? Early modern period is bland, boring and uninformative and what's none political about Renaissance? It refers to a particular period and place, highlighting the exposion in learning brought about by the rediscovery of many ancient texts and authors which led to the great flowering in Italy and then across Europe.
Quote from: DanJ on 18 October 2011, 01:57:49 PM
By the middle of the sixteenth century the fire had, probably inevitably, gone out of the Renaissance and all we had to look forward to was Baroque architecture, the counter reformation and the interminable wars of religion, none of which I find inspiring.
While I share your admiration for the renaissance, and think that Italy and Japan are worth the rest of the world combined, I think the best was still to come in the mid-16th century. Or aren't you a music-lover? Or an espresso drinker? Or grateful for reliable contraception?
Quote from: freddy326 on 17 October 2011, 09:16:00 AM
I'm rather short of any info about this period of history!
Freddy,
This is a nice article on the rise of the pistol and demise of the lance during the period 1550 - 1620:
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html
Cheers, Rob :)
Quote from: Rob on 18 October 2011, 08:38:39 PM
Freddy,
This is a nice article on the rise of the pistol and demise of the lance during the period 1550 - 1620:
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html
Cheers, Rob :)
Thanks. Hadn't read that one myself.
Quote from: Rob on 18 October 2011, 08:38:39 PM
Freddy,
This is a nice article on the rise of the pistol and demise of the lance during the period 1550 - 1620:
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html
Cheers, Rob :)
You are right, that is a useful article.
regards
Freddy
QuoteI think the best was still to come in the mid-16th century. Or aren't you a music-lover? Or an espresso drinker? Or grateful for reliable contraception?
There are many great things to come (not least Shakespeare) but I hold the opinion that roughly the middle of the 16th century marks the end of the Renaissance. There was an undoubted continum of achievement but often they were achieved on the back of what the Renaissance created. For instance I would say that Shakespeare isn't a Renaissance poet but that Chaucer was, Chaucer was a polymath and diplomat in Italy during the Condotierre wars and was among the first to write in the vernacular while Shakespeare was working more than a century later and is merely the greatest poet the world has ever seen. ;)
Quote from: DanJ on 19 October 2011, 10:21:02 AM
Shakespeare [...] is merely the greatest poet the world has ever seen. ;)
That begs the question how many languages you can read? :P
Don't tell me it's only English. :o
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 19 October 2011, 02:27:53 PM
That begs the question how many languages you can read? :P
Don't tell me it's only English. :o
Cheers,
Aart
Wasn't it Whister who observed that when an Englishman had said that Shakesoeare was the greatest of all writers, he no longer felt any urge to read any other - or to read Shakespeare either?
NO reflection on any posters in this thread is implied.
QuoteDon't tell me it's only English.
OK, you got me there :-[ I can just about get by in French and have a smattering of United States American but I should have said greatest writer in the English Language.
Quote from: DanJ on 19 October 2011, 04:05:03 PM
OK, you got me there :-[ I can just about get by in French and have a smattering of United States American but I should have said greatest writer in the English Language.
No problem, Dan. It's just that if you ask a Russian he's bound to call Pushkin the greatest, a Spaniard would go for Neruda, a German for Goethe and a Frenchman, well, let's just say he has a choice. The point is they're all chauvinistic and probably haven't read much of their 'favourite' poet either, like FierceKitteh suggested.
I really love Shakespeare, by the way. Haven't read all that much of him either :-[ :P
Cheers,
Aart
No problems, I was just being sloppy and chauvanistic
QuoteHaven't read all that much of him either
At least I can claim a to have read a fair bit of Shakespear, my original degree was in English and I recon I've seen and read about half of his plays and poems and studied about a quarter in some depth if only to Grad level. But I was told he was the greatest poet the world had ever seen, so he must be, so much for receive wisdom. :-\
Actually it's shocking how many Germans haven't read Goethe.
QuoteActually it's shocking how many Germans haven't read Goethe.
Apart from depressed teenagers. :D
Quote from: DanJ on 20 October 2011, 03:11:41 PM
Apart from depressed teenagers. :D
And then the book is sold cheaply second handbecause of the bloodstains over the last few pages.
any recommendations for which guns and figures to use as artillery?
We could mix and match some guns from the ECW range with crews from the early 16th C. range? That should do it, until we pester the designer for some Elizabethan artillery! :-[
Then while reloading guns the gamer can exclaim "Once more into the breech".
Sorry. Couldn't resist it.
Quote from: DanJ on 14 October 2011, 02:53:38 PMYou could try Maximilian! a DBA type game for the Renaissance and are available as a PDF from Blackhat miniatures for about £6. They use 24 element sized armies as a basic force but two or three forces can be easily linked for a bigger game. Bases are 40mm frontages and 15/20mm for foot and 30mm for mounted although as long as the two sides are basicaly the same it doesn't realy matter.
My own favourite period would be the Thirty Years War and that isn't covered by Maximilian! Besides, I have a particular issue with every Renaissance rulebook I have seen so far. It's the melee or hand-to-hand combat I don't like.
My point of contention is that historical formations of the 17th century were all developed for a reason and the rules don't take those into account.
Take for instance the late Tercio. Reduced to a wargaming format of 8 stands of pikes and muskets and 1 stand of (regimental) artillery it would look more or less like this on your wargaming table:
(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/2026/latetercioformation.png)
The late Tercio had grown out of the early huge (3000+) formation with the horns, but it hadn't lost its bite; it was big and unwieldy but also well-organised and sustained by great skill, excellent weaponry and a unique esprit de corps (The Spanish army was the first professional army of the modern age). As you can see from my basing sketch above, the stands should afford a player to reconstitute the historical maneuvers of a late Tercio. Pike and musket did change place in the formation if the occasion (such as an enemy charge) called for it. This particular basing also allows for stand removal to mark a unit's losses.
In case of a frontal charge by enemy horse for instance, the pikes would be ordered to the front, with the muskets intermingling as they tried to get their shot in (and Spanish musketeers certainly did). The formation would then look like this:
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/313/latetercioformationpike.png)
Or maybe like this:
(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/313/latetercioformationpike.png)
In which case the charging enemy horse would suffer the full brunt of the Spanish pikes, the muskets hiding among them and the artillery out front. Any losses would be taken out of its front rank as well, through the removal of one of more pike stands. And if this same formation that is already engaged in melee at its front were to be charged from the flank or rear as well, its musketeers would be unprotected and suffer great losses. Sadly none of the Renaissance rules I know takes this aspect into account. Units are treated as static formations with generic qualities.
Another pet peeve of mine concerns charging. At least FOG(R) does a reasonable job in that it allows for enemy units to charge each other and melee with each other obliquely. The first stand of the charging unit that touches the enemy formation halts, after which every other stand in the charging unit with sufficient movement allowance moves forward until it, too, touches an enemy stand. Alas, FOG(R) does not stipulate that the touching enemy stands then fight each other; instead, the ensuing melee is treated generically. In reality it made all the difference whether pikes were charging enemy pikes, or enemy muskets, or an enemy regimental artillery battery.
I realise that the depth of game mechanics which I require is pathological. Forgive an old man his ramblings. 8)
However, I do have a ruleset of my own that takes these issues into account. It's only 3 pages long. Go figure. No blahblah, no eye-candy, no superfluous detail.
Cheers,
Aart
Hi Aart,
Maximillian was originally designed for the inter-state wars of the Italian Renaissance through to the arrival of the great powers in Italy, the mid 17th century was and is well outside my “comfort zone†as far knowing enough to confidently write rules for and I personally don't think of it as being Renaissance at all.
However taking your points, 4 pike and 4 musket for a for a late tercio feels a bit weedy, and while the game is intended for a quick result using 24 elements a better evening’s sport is to play a 72 element game with a main general and two subs. In this case I’d build my tercios with 8 pike and 8 musket units. I’d also consider using the option on page 43 of basing at least some muskets on 2x2 bases which although not as good at shooting allow them to fill in corners of pike formations, achieving a look similar to many contemporary prints.
The point about the pike and shot when charged by cavalry is valid and Maximillian allows muskets in front of pikes to receive a +2 from supporting pikes, in addition to the +1 for missile foot in first round of close combat. This represents shot falling back into the pike for support. This results in the combat being fought at a starting factor of 5 each and sudden death for the looser, not good odds or the best use of gendarmes, while lighter cavalry fare even worse. I’ve seen massed Gendarmes charge tercio type formations and even if they win the initial melee they generally loose horribly in later rounds as weight of numbers prevail. Of course some lucky incidents occur when gendarmes trample all before them but they stand out because they are rare.
If cavalry charge massed pike, with or without shot involved the cavalry deserve a kicking, unless they can get onto an exposed flank…
If a unit is charged in the flank it has a combat factor of 0 and the attackers fight ALL the stands in contact albeit as a possible lesser factor as it may not be in full base to base contact (see below). If a unit looses a combat and can’t make way for some reason i.e. it’s in combat or has friends in the way which can’t make way it will be destroyed in all circumstance.
If units can’t line up neatly for some reason (contacting the flanks of more than one unit, lack of movement, oblique angles etc.) then the combat is fought as normal but both sides have a -1 applied to the die rolls.
Quote from: DanJ on 22 December 2011, 10:45:50 AMHowever taking your points, 4 pike and 4 musket for a for a late tercio feels a bit weedy, and while the game is intended for a quick result using 24 elements a better evening’s sport is to play a 72 element game with a main general and two subs.
Hold your horses, my friend. I didn't say I would field only 1 late Tercio. And I wouldn't charge my cavalry straight into a pike line. Both were merely meant as examples.
My system certainly allows for large armies. At Lützen for instance the Imperial army's central front consisted of five Tercio's in line. Using my 3x3cm basing and my formation as shown in the diagram above, a Tercio would have a 12cm frontage. Five Tercio's in line, with minimal intervals of 4cm, would constitute a front line of 76cm. Not weedy at all, certainly not if you consider the rest of the set-up: a second line of three Tercio's, interspersed with cavalry, a 'forlorn hope' detachment of musketeers out front, heavy artillery batteries on the right flank, plus two sizeable cavalry wings. All in all you would have 1,5 yards of good solid fun for one or more commanders (with some time on their hands).
In short, my criterium for a ruleset is this: does it reward the known historic formations? If it does, it's a good ruleset. If it doesn't, well..
Could you tell me if (and how) some of these formations would work in
Maximilian!? I already stipulated the late Tercio's advantages. Another historic formation would be the Swedish Brigade. In my system it would look like this:
(http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/7589/swedishbrigadeformation.png)
Would the
Maximilian! rules 'work' for these formations. Or rather: would the formations 'work' under those rules?
I will certainly look into the Maximilian! combat system, it seems to have interesting possibilities. Thanks for your post, I love this sort of discussion.
Cheers,
Aart
Hi Aart,
Sorry, I thought you were familiar with Maximilian and had missed some points, Maxililian should favour historic formations and deployments but it might not be able to model armies of the mid 17th century. I also meant that in a 24 element Maximilian game fielding 4 elements and calling it a tercio doesn’t seem to do the original justice, the rules are more fun and work better with the larger number of elements.
I’m much more familiar with the earlier periods and that’s what Maximilian is designed for, I think there could be a fundamental difference in concept between the way pikes, shot and artillery worked in the early period and the way they functioned in the mid 17th century and Maximillian probably can’t work with these differences.
I’m not sure about the formations you depict, they wouldn’t work very well in Maximilian as the rules currently stand, shooters can’t fire through Pikes so putting the muskets behind the pikes wouldn’t work. However putting them in front allows the pikes to support the shooters so if I was fielding a unit of 8 pike and 8 shot I’d have the pikes 2 deep with 6 elements of shooters in front, manouvering as a single unit and with a couple of shooters thrown out in from as skirmishers.
The inclusion of artillery wouldn’t work as artillery moves very slowly in Maximilian and can’t be supported so would be a weak link in a pike/shooter unit. I’d place the artillery out on a flank.
I'll try and do some more "research" on the net and come up with an answer.
I don’t know about the Swedish Brigade, it looks odd, I presume the enemy is at the top of the diagram, if so the artillery looks very exposed, the pikes behind the artillery don’t look like they would be able to do much while the next two units of muskets wouldn’t be able to fire. The remainder of the rear line would be ok to fight or shoot but I’d use a simpler linear formation however this is probably due to ignorance.
Quote from: DanJ on 22 December 2011, 01:15:43 PMI don’t know about the Swedish Brigade, it looks odd, I presume the enemy is at the top of the diagram, if so the artillery looks very exposed, the pikes behind the artillery don’t look like they would be able to do much while the next two units of muskets wouldn’t be able to fire. The remainder of the rear line would be ok to fight or shoot but I’d use a simpler linear formation however this is probably due to ignorance.
Don't worry, ignorance is the mother of all invention. :P
The funny thing is that we are all more or less ignorant here. When it comes to TYW maneuvering and combat we know about as little as we do about, say, early Saxon war bands. We know quite a bit about weapons drill, command, administrative organisation and overall strategy in the first half of the 17th century, but preciously little about the actual functioning of units or formations on the battlefield. As the acclaimed amateur historian and Osprey-author Richard Brezezinski puts it: 'The military systems of the day remain poorly understood (
Lützen 1632, Climax of the Thirty Years War, Osprey, 2008, 3rd print).
As for my diagram of a Swedish Brigade, the unit is indeed facing north as it were.
Light or medium artillery (most often 12- and 3-pdrs) would be installed out front in all battles of the period, for the simple reason that overhead firing was too risky. Only heavy guns could fire overhead with any sort of result, therefore they were emplaced in separate, suitable spots, usually on the flanks and on hill-tops,and preferably well entrenched. The Imperial battery at Lützen being a case in point.
The strength of the Swedish Brigade was its capacity to fight independently. As put by William Watts, later chaplain to Prince Rupert, who travelled extensively in Germany at the time and interviewed officers who took part in the war, in the paper
The Swedish Intelligencer: 'Every part of it consisted of several Maniples and small bodyes of men; of which if anyone were overthrowne, there was nothing so much hurt done, as when one of Tilly's greater battaglons were broken.'
Gustavus' ideas were shaped during his wars with Poland and the confrontation with the superior Polish cavalry which he had come to fear. His Brigade was meant to withstand attacks from all sides, particularly cavalry charges in the flanks. For the same reason Gustavus introduced 'commanded musketeers', units of shot that supported the cavalry flanks. At Lützen the Swedes even added light artillery to these musket units to make their cavalry wings even more formidable. Sweden wasn't big on cavalry and had few or no cuirassiers, hence the need for compensation in the form of extra firepower on the wings.
The flexibility of the system was proven at Breitenfeldt, where the first line of Brigades pinned down the Imperials in the centre and the second line then moved obliquely to the left and flanked the Imperial infantry. This flanking movement would have been impossible with the Mauritian system or any other system in which units were dependent on adjacent units to form a collective, sustainable front line.
Cheers,
Aart
Here is a cut-out of an engraving from the most important primary source, the Theatrum Europaeanum, in which the Swedish Brigade formation is clearly shown:
(http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/7711/uitsnedezweedsebrigadel.png)
Belagerung von Landshut, 1634 (http://media.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/node?id=100212)
Cheers,
Aart
Now that is just plain weird, I can understand the pike formations and the musketeers on the flanks are logical, but all those muskets in the mddle :o what function did they fulfil and how did they do it?
No one knows. Really it's to support the units to either flank by delivering Enfilade fire. It's in the drill books but was it ever used ?
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 23 December 2011, 04:52:10 PM
No one knows.
Well there you go. Most of all that was 'poorly understood' as Brzezinski wrote.
We can only make educated guesses. For instance based on the fact that around 1630 pikemen weren't considered very effective anymore and that during campaigns many pikemen threw away their pikes. Formations were known to fire away at close quarters for hours before they engaged in hand-to-hand, and even then musketeers would often lead the charge using their musket butts and rapiers.
However I suppose that until the advent of the bayonet pikes were really useful against enemy horse. We know that Gustavus was keen on anti-cav measures for reasons mentioned earlier. And I suppose that in the heat of battle the Brigades would often be engaged on several sides at once, firing away on one flank and fighting hand-to-hand, maybe even in push of pike, on another. In that case the disposition becomes more logical.
The thing is, these formations were carefully crafted on paper and then trained in many hours of drilling
for a reason. It is not for us to question Gustavus' sanity because the Swedish Brigade somehow looks odd to us. Instead we should bracket our own (pre)conceptions and take it for granted that these formations served a purpose.
Mind you, units didn't keep their initial formation throughout a battle. Look at my diagram of the late Tercio again. TIMUR's blog (http://rohanturenne.blogspot.com/) recently quoted a contemporeous description of just such a unit, an Imperial Walloon Tercio, leading the attack in the battle of White Mountain (1620):
QuoteLe premier bataillon de la main droite, qui était un peu plus avancé que l’autre, était composé de vallons des régiments du comte et de don Guillerme de Verdugues, ayant deux pelotons de mousquetaires posés trois piques (15 à 20 mètres) devant, l’un pour attaquer la batterie de l’ennemi et l’autre la demi-lune, avec aux ailes droites la cavalerie vallone de Gaucier (Gaucher)et de Valestein (Waldstein), coupée en divers escadrons, pour leur faire épaule. [...] Et comme ils firent primes lors leurs décharges et qu’ils passèrent encore avant la tête baissée, les Bohémois en prirent l’épouvante et commencèrent à reculer, en sorte que le peloton droit gagna le croissant, et la gauche la batterie. (…)
My translation:
"The first battallon on the right hand side, whcih was a bit advanced compared to the other, was composed of Walloons from the regiments of the count and of don Guillermo de Verduga, having two platoons of musketeers placed three pikes (15 to 20 yards) out front, one to attack the battery of the enemy and the other the half-moon, with on their right hand wing the Walloon cavalry of Gaucher and of Wallenstein, divided into several squadrons, to lend them support. [...] And since they were the first to discharge (their muskets) and then pressed on with their heads between their shoulders, the Bohemians were struckwithfear and began to retreat, in such a way that the right platoon conquered the croissant, and the left one the battery."
So in this case two sections of shot were placed in front of the main body to lead the attack. In contemporary sources there are quite a few such instances where platoons left the initial formation during battle, in order to get a particular result. And I think we can safely assume that Gustavus' platoons often changed places in the formation or even changed formation entirely for the same purpose.
Cheers,
Aart
QuoteIt is not for us to question Gustavus' sanity because the Swedish Brigade somehow looks odd to us
I disagree, we should question the source of something which appears to fly in the face of military logic. If your primary offensive arm is the musket then logic of putting a third of your musketeers in a position where they can’t fire and probably can't see the enemy should be questioned.
Such questioning could lead to more research, and a better understanding of how the unit would function and from that how a battle was fought. However at the moment I’d question the validity of this as a “primary sourceâ€, it might be an important source from the period and a contemporary document but who wrote the document and when? Also the wood cut was probably made by someone who hadn’t seen the formation, highly skilled artisans tended to stay away from battlefields), as such he was most likely working either from the text or from a verbal description, hopefully from someone not too far removed from the actual formation, so the representation may have some inaccuracies. It may also be a theoretical or parade ground formation a good idea on paper but one which wouldn't survive long on the battlefield when things must out of necessity be kept as simple as possible.
From Aart’s posts and other reading what is clear is that by the mid 17th century the pike was no longer a major offensive weapon. Gone are the days of the Swiss and Lanskneckts, of massed pikes rolling all before them in a bloody mincing machine but even in the “good old daysâ€, the pike was only part of the offensive solution, after the initial clash the melee would deteriorate into a bloody scum with halberdiers and swordsmen getting involved while the pikemen would swap their pikes for close melee weapons.
If we except that the weapon, the pike, remained the same, then change must have been in the soldiers and and/or the pike’s perceived role on the battlefield. By the mid 17th century the primary offensive weapon was the musket, which given how inaccurate and inefficient they were is hard to believe but muskets have two huge advantages as offensive weapon, they make a lot of noise and smoke. This makes them seem like an effective weapon to those involved and by loading and firing the individual is “doing his duty†even though not much damage is done to the enemy. Eventually one side would gain some sort of moral ascendancy and the opposition would run.
This helps explain early musketeers blazing away with little effect but eventually winning by charging and using their muskets as clubs. It also helps explain the slow but steady development of fire discipline from the mid 17th to early 19th century, the 200 years when the flintlock musket held sway.
Incidentally the clash of the French Column against the British Line in the Napoleonic era exemplifies this in a somewhat simplified and stereotypical manner, the British emphasised fire disciple while the French relied on the weight of a column which advanced rapidly to minimise casualties and break the opponents line.
But to return to the matter in hand, the Swedish Brigade, if I was attempting to reproduce something like the woodcut and make it work from a rules perspective I’d not use Maximilian as it’s modelled on a different era when with different concepts, I’d write a specific “pike and shot†set of rules instead, so has anyone bought the new “Pike and Shotte†set from Warlord yet?
Quote from: DanJ on 28 December 2011, 11:25:22 AM
I disagree, we should question the source of something which appears to fly in the face of military logic. If your primary offensive arm is the musket then logic of putting a third of your musketeers in a position where they can’t fire and probably can't see the enemy should be questioned.
The point is that the ranks of pikes protects the musketeers from enemy musket fire. You see, the Swedes under Gustavus used to march up to the enemy and fire a three-rank volly (the famous 'Swedish vollee') into them from 5-7 yards distance, then attack them hand to hand. In order to preserve as many muskets as psoosible for the vollee, they needed the better protected pikemen as a screen. There's you logic.
Cheers,
Aart
I found a website that presents most of what I wrote above in a compact and visually attractive form. Like all literature on the subject it is not the last word, but it does describe the versatility of the Swedish Brigade and illustrates it rather handsomely with a moving diagram.
Battle of Breitenfeld, Swedish Brigade (http://syler.com/Breitenfeld/infantry/SwedeBrigade.htm)
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 29 December 2011, 08:40:20 AM
I found a website that presents most of what I wrote above in a compact and visually attractive form. Like all literature on the subject it is not the last word, but it does describe the versatility of the Swedish Brigade and illustrates it rather handsomely with a moving diagram.
Battle of Breitenfeld, Swedish Brigade (http://syler.com/Breitenfeld/infantry/SwedeBrigade.htm)
Maybe one for the Resources board? ;) :D
Quote from: Leon on 30 December 2011, 04:08:58 AM
Maybe one for the Resources board? ;) :D
Meh, too specific. But you're right that this dserves a thread. Instead of visual gadgets I have posted a few genuine goodies in Resources. More to follow.
BTW I'm looking forward to the first batch of TYW soldiers I ordered from Pendraken. They're meant to be painted as a Swedish Brigade and maybe as a Spanish Tercio as well. In any case they'll be real 17th century sons of bitches, trust me. 8) :P
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 30 December 2011, 01:04:48 PM
Meh, too specific. But you're right that this dserves a thread. Instead of visual gadgets I have posted a few genuine goodies in Resources. More to follow.
BTW I'm looking forward to the first batch of TYW soldiers I ordered from Pendraken. They're meant to be painted as a Swedish Brigade and maybe as a Spanish Tercio as well. In any case they'll be real 17th century sons of bitches, trust me. 8) :P
Cheers,
Aart
8)
does anyone have a picture of YW2 Mounted Arquebusier that they could post please? I'm wondering if it is suitable to use for French wars of religion.
thanks
regards
Freddy326