New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 37 of 51 FirstFirst ... 12272829303132333435363738394041424344454647 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,110 of 1501
  1. - Top - End - #1081
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemmy View Post
    Man... Walking must have sucked in the olden days.

    Once again, thanks for the information, guys.
    I've seen the opposite argued. It is after all for walking barefoot millions of years of evolution has prepared us. Soft-soled (cushioning) shoes aren't necessarily very good for walking.

    I would also point out wooden shoes (clogs, geta etc) have long traditions.

  2. - Top - End - #1082
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by snowblizz View Post
    I've seen the opposite argued. It is after all for walking barefoot millions of years of evolution has prepared us. Soft-soled (cushioning) shoes aren't necessarily very good for walking.
    It's worth considering surfaces here. The vast majority of relevant human evolution took place in central Africa*, where the ground was generally comparatively warm and soft. On the temperature side, there are surfaces that can get way too hot for barefoot walking (asphalt comes to mind, but sand can get pretty bad too in places and that's been a problem for much longer), along with fun stuff like snow. On the hardness side, asphalt and concrete are ubiquitous today. Neither are what we evolved to walk on.

    *I mean, technically the vast majority of it took place in the oceans back in the single cell stage, but for physiological purposes hominid apes are relevant.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  3. - Top - End - #1083
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    It's worth considering surfaces here. The vast majority of relevant human evolution took place in central Africa*, where the ground was generally comparatively warm and soft. On the temperature side, there are surfaces that can get way too hot for barefoot walking (asphalt comes to mind, but sand can get pretty bad too in places and that's been a problem for much longer), along with fun stuff like snow. On the hardness side, asphalt and concrete are ubiquitous today. Neither are what we evolved to walk on.
    That last part was another part of the argumentation AFAICT. Or they were just trying to sell those weird shoes that fit and are shaped close to the feet.

    I was really just saying walking might not be nicer now than previously necessarily. Be damned if I know how they managed without a good pair of winter boots in Ye Olden Tymes but clearly they must have. At least as long as they weren't soldiers on a campaign who seldom seem to have had decent footware.

  4. - Top - End - #1084
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by snowblizz View Post
    I've seen the opposite argued. It is after all for walking barefoot millions of years of evolution has prepared us. Soft-soled (cushioning) shoes aren't necessarily very good for walking.

    I would also point out wooden shoes (clogs, geta etc) have long traditions.
    Well... Just because we did something for thousands of year, doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. After all, if humans evolved to do one thing, it's to use technology to surpass the limitations of our bodies.

    I doubt anyone would argue that's is best to walk naked, unarmed and with no tools in the African wilds, after all, so I don't see why shoes would be any different. If shoes weren't really useful, we wouldn't have started making and using them. And sure, wooden shoes have long traditions, but again, that doesn't mean they are better than modern shoes, made with modern technology and materials. Most likely, they are traditional simply because they required an earlier technology to make... Just like old oil lamps are traditional, but certainly not better than flashlights.
    Last edited by Lemmy; 2017-01-17 at 12:40 PM.
    Homebrew Stuff:

  5. - Top - End - #1085
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    "Natural" includes:

    * an extensive list of diseases and parasites, both chronic and fatal
    * being eaten by large predatory animals
    * dying from an infection after a minor cut or scrape
    * death from minor childbirth complications
    * high infant mortality
    * constantly being a bad season away from starvation
    * raids by neighboring or roving "bands", including murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, loss of territory, etc

    "Natural" is a rotten measure of what's good or positive.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  6. - Top - End - #1086
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    "Natural" includes:

    * an extensive list of diseases and parasites, both chronic and fatal
    * being eaten by large predatory animals
    * dying from an infection after a minor cut or scrape
    * death from minor childbirth complications
    * high infant mortality
    * constantly being a bad season away from starvation
    * raids by neighboring or roving "bands", including murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, loss of territory, etc

    "Natural" is a rotten measure of what's good or positive.
    My favorite response to the "but it's [un]natural" argument is: "Arsenic is natural too. Doesn't mean it's good for you." Oh, and humans are part of nature so everything we do is natural. Hooray!
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  7. - Top - End - #1087
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Once again my own reasearch has failed me, and i was hoping to get some help. Anyone have any examples of the number of guards a noble would employ for protecting his home and for minor trips? for example if a Daimyo were to visit a local shrine, or a Count goes to the local church or some event, how many bodyguards are they going to have with them for so short an excursion? further, what kind of protection would a Baron or Earl/Jarl have at their manors, keeps, castles when not actively at war or expecting trouble. As in people standing guard at gates, patrolling streets or walls, that kind of thing. i really can't seem to find alot of this stuff detailed, or else it seems ridiculously high, and in the few accounts i can find they seem to include militia-esque forces sleeping in their own homes who have to be called up, clearly not active guards. I've proven myself quite inept so far so any help would be appreciated.

    I understand there is going to be a HUGE difference depending on time period and the rank of the individual, also likely a big difference based on where they were, so if you can provide the who, where and when that would be appreciated. but really any information is welcome.

  8. - Top - End - #1088
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by wobner View Post
    Once again my own reasearch has failed me, and i was hoping to get some help. Anyone have any examples of the number of guards a noble would employ for protecting his home and for minor trips? for example if a Daimyo were to visit a local shrine, or a Count goes to the local church or some event, how many bodyguards are they going to have with them for so short an excursion? further, what kind of protection would a Baron or Earl/Jarl have at their manors, keeps, castles when not actively at war or expecting trouble. As in people standing guard at gates, patrolling streets or walls, that kind of thing. i really can't seem to find alot of this stuff detailed, or else it seems ridiculously high, and in the few accounts i can find they seem to include militia-esque forces sleeping in their own homes who have to be called up, clearly not active guards. I've proven myself quite inept so far so any help would be appreciated.

    I understand there is going to be a HUGE difference depending on time period and the rank of the individual, also likely a big difference based on where they were, so if you can provide the who, where and when that would be appreciated. but really any information is welcome.
    For starters, the same rank did not imply the same wealth or resources even within the same region and in the same time period. Two English Earls could have very different personal retinues.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  9. - Top - End - #1089
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    For starters, the same rank did not imply the same wealth or resources even within the same region and in the same time period. Two English Earls could have very different personal retinues.
    i fully appreciate that, which is why i was asking more for examples i could try and put into context. I'm just not finding much of anything. The few i tend to get often conflate the numbers by including unarmed attendants and house hold servants with the actually armed body guards, or as i said before, include militia forces.

    Even in descriptions of assassinations, where the personal guard are mentioned, numbers usually are not, such as in the many of the responses i got to my previous question, thanks again for those by the way(ofcourse, those guys were expecting trouble ,or should have, but hey i will take anything at this point)

    If you know of any, i'd appreciate hearing them.

  10. - Top - End - #1090
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Brother Oni's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cippa's River Meadow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by wobner View Post
    I understand there is going to be a HUGE difference depending on time period and the rank of the individual, also likely a big difference based on where they were, so if you can provide the who, where and when that would be appreciated. but really any information is welcome.
    During the Edo period in Japan, daimyo were forced to split their residences between their land (han) and a household in Edo in a system known as the Sankin-kotai. Typically this was alternate years, with the daimyo's wife and heir expected to remain in Edo all the time as his representatives (ie hostages for good behaviour).

    The cost of maintaining two households was expensive, often leaving daimyo too poor to start causing trouble (which was intentional) and was reinforced by the elaborate processions to and from Edo (known as daimyo gyoretsu). How large these processions and hence how the large a daimyo's accompanying retinue, was dictated by the government based on the daimyo's income. Daimyo of 100,000 koku income would be expected to bring along at least 250 people, of which 10 must be cavalry samurai and 80 ashigaru foot soldiers. The daimyo of Kaga who was valued at 1,000,000 koku, once had a procession of 4,000 people (assuming the same T3R as before, that would be ~1,450 fighting men).

    I also have some numbers for some daimyo retinues (hatamoto), but these are for major battles like Sekigahara so may be atypical - Kimata Morikatsu of the Ii family had a 4 personal samurai (kinju) and 4 personal ashigaru (tomo) out of his hatamoto of 97 men according to Turnbull: of the 98 in total, 33 were samurai (mounted and foot), 28 ashigaru of varying roles and 37 various non-combatant roles like grooms, porters, cooks, etc.


    Saxon housecarls fulfilled the role of both bodyguard and household troops, so kinda meet your requirements. A minor thane might only have 1 or 2 housecarls in his personal retinue, whereas King Harold had between 2,000 - 2,500 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066.
    Last edited by Brother Oni; 2017-01-18 at 06:41 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #1091
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    One additional problem here is that number of men may very well not reflect the amount of money put into them. A good practical example are reforms in Hungary, where cities that previously had to muster some 100 men were told to give a grand total of 12 - thing is, those twelve were supposed to be outfitted with "all the panoply of war" (paraphrasing slightly from Slovak translation), which is interpreted as at least heavy mounted infantry.

    Another thing is where the person in question is going. There's a difference between full retinue when a noble is travelling somewhere (I'll dig up some numbers I have about 13th century Hungary when I get home) and between who he takes with when he goes hunting or shopping in a nearby town.

    That said, bare minimum for a European knight to function in his role is him, one helper and one more horse. Good source here is Templar Rule, they mention what pages and horses a knight is entitled to, and since these are monks, we can be pretty sure that's the bare minimum. The same document also places a scouting party at roughly a dozen people, which may be indicative of what size a travelling group needed to feel safe from usual (bandits, wolves etc) travel hazards.
    That which does not kill you made a tactical error.

  12. - Top - End - #1092
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Greywolf View Post
    That said, bare minimum for a European knight to function in his role is him, one helper and one more horse.
    If his follower is also mounted, he needs more mounts than one each. A destrier (warhorse) isn't a mount for everyday usage, that's what a palfrey (riding horse) was for.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  13. - Top - End - #1093
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    I have seen some ledgers etc from the 15th century, from mid-sized Danish manor houses (that is relatively rich knights, but not someone who are above "knight" in the hiearchy). They tend to have 4-10 men at arms (they might be a couple of guys with crossbows, a "gunner" using a blackpowder gun of some kind, and a few guys with pole weapons). But this is at their castle, I doubt they take all of them everywhere.... Then they might have one or more sons, an unlanded brother/uncle/cousin etc, who might or might not have an armed servant. In addition to any normal staff (cook, stable hands etc) which might of course take up arms if need be. In case of siege you might also include gathered peasants with weapons to defend the castle.

    But you do see 'knights' or squires (landed lords who have not been knighted) with no retinue of specifically "armed" men, apart from a page/manservant (which might not be fully armoured etc). But you also see richer nobles where their retniue would be much larger, and who would never travel around with less than 20-30 more or less armed men (though they wouldn't be wearing armour or war weapons in everyday life, just as the tank commander is doing his shopping in a tank).

    Saxon housecarls fulfilled the role of both bodyguard and household troops, so kinda meet your requirements. A minor thane might only have 1 or 2 housecarls in his personal retinue, whereas King Harold had between 2,000 - 2,500 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066.
    The housecarls in the sense of Stamford Bridge also included Harolds vasals and their housecarls, so it might be misleading to see that figure as a "how many people he had at his home/retinue". That would be more akin to 400-500 men. He would of course most of the time travel around with fewer than even this number (especially if it is peacetime and he is going for a short visit/errand).

  14. - Top - End - #1094
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    If his follower is also mounted, he needs more mounts than one each. A destrier (warhorse) isn't a mount for everyday usage, that's what a palfrey (riding horse) was for.
    I think thats what the more before horse meant. or that was my take anyway ;).

  15. - Top - End - #1095
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    I have seen some ledgers etc from the 15th century, from mid-sized Danish manor houses (that is relatively rich knights, but not someone who are above "knight" in the hiearchy). They tend to have 4-10 men at arms (they might be a couple of guys with crossbows, a "gunner" using a blackpowder gun of some kind, and a few guys with pole weapons). But this is at their castle, I doubt they take all of them everywhere.... Then they might have one or more sons, an unlanded brother/uncle/cousin etc, who might or might not have an armed servant. In addition to any normal staff (cook, stable hands etc) which might of course take up arms if need be. In case of siege you might also include gathered peasants with weapons to defend the castle.
    I don't know much about Denmark's history, but by the 15th century knights and manorial/knightly castles were mostly outdated as relevant military elements. Castles were too vulnerable to artillery, and knights to guns and pikes; kings and lords powerful enough to raise armies relied mostly on mercenaries and professional armies, and even the french Gendarmes were professional soldiers rather than knights.

    In Spain the old feudal heavy cavalry were called "Las Guardias Viejas" (literally "the Old Guard") and were kept around for prestige and for ceremonial purpuses. I have read a late XV o early XVI century text in which a young noble complains to his father that he can't join the infantry, where the real fighting is done, instead of being stuck as a mostly ceremonial heavy horseman who would make very little difference.

    So, while a knight's household may include very few fighting men during the XV century, it may as well be because at that point they had lost any true military relevance, becoming just rich landholders, but a knight from an earlier period probably had more warriors as part of his retinue, since such retinues made the backbone of armies.
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2017-01-19 at 04:53 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #1096
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Heavy cavalry in the form of gendarmes were relevant as late as the 16th century, I thought (though my source is Wikipedia on that).

  17. - Top - End - #1097
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Incanur's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by VoxRationis View Post
    Heavy cavalry in the form of gendarmes were relevant as late as the 16th century, I thought (though my source is Wikipedia on that).
    Scholars continue to argue about the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in the 16th century (and earlier), but there's no question that at least French men-at-arms played an important military role until the very late 16th century. And the Spanish kept on fielding lancers (riders in full or 3/4 harness on unarmored horses) through the 16th century. I don't know about Denmark, though.
    Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
    I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
    To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
    Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!

  18. - Top - End - #1098
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Yep. In comparison to the hundred years war when both English and French knights often preferred to fight dismounted, the late 15th/early16th century seems to see a resurgence in heavy cavalry. According to Bert Hall, the wheellock pistol was far more responsible for the decline of the traditional heavy lancer than pikes or muskets were. And even then, battles in the 17th century were still typically decided by whoever had the most cavalry left at the end.

    Nor were castles necessarily made obsolete by the introduction of gunpowder. While many needed to be reinforced against cannons and they were eventually superseded by more advanced trace italienne designs, most of the time gunpowder gave the greatest advantage to the defenders. That's why the Hussites were so successful with their mobile wagon fort tactics.

  19. - Top - End - #1099
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by snowblizz View Post
    I've seen the opposite argued. It is after all for walking barefoot millions of years of evolution has prepared us. Soft-soled (cushioning) shoes aren't necessarily very good for walking.

    I would also point out wooden shoes (clogs, geta etc) have long traditions.
    Here are some you tube videos from someone who has done reenacting in period footwear.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-3qTniJsoEg

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xlcd0B0cVqU

  20. - Top - End - #1100
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by VoxRationis View Post
    Heavy cavalry in the form of gendarmes were relevant as late as the 16th century, I thought (though my source is Wikipedia on that).
    Quote Originally Posted by Incanur View Post
    Scholars continue to argue about the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in the 16th century (and earlier), but there's no question that at least French men-at-arms played an important military role until the very late 16th century. And the Spanish kept on fielding lancers (riders in full or 3/4 harness on unarmored horses) through the 16th century. I don't know about Denmark, though.
    Yep. But as I said: "Even the french Gendarmes were professional soldiers". Old feudal mesnadas led by knights became obsolete and were replaced by professional armies.

    The Gendarmes were professional soldiers, not feudal knights. Reiters were mercenaries, as were the Hussars hired by the Habsburgs.

    The king no longer sent heralds to the knights' castles asking them to gather their retinue and come for their 40 days of feudal service, but instead hired professional soldiers.

    Hence that XV century danish knight didn't really need his guards for anything else but for personal protection, defense of his property against robbers and for ceremonial purposes.

    A knight from two or three centuries before, on the other hand, had the responsability of recruiting, training and keeping soldiers for his king, and probably had a larger retinue.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
    Yep. In comparison to the hundred years war when both English and French knights often preferred to fight dismounted, the late 15th/early16th century seems to see a resurgence in heavy cavalry. According to Bert Hall, the wheellock pistol was far more responsible for the decline of the traditional heavy lancer than pikes or muskets were. And even then, battles in the 17th century were still typically decided by whoever had the most cavalry left at the end.

    Nor were castles necessarily made obsolete by the introduction of gunpowder. While many needed to be reinforced against cannons and they were eventually superseded by more advanced trace italienne designs, most of the time gunpowder gave the greatest advantage to the defenders. That's why the Hussites were so successful with their mobile wagon fort tactics.
    As far as I know, the period of least protagonism of cavalry during the Middle Ages and Modern Age was in between the end of the War of the Four Years in 1526 (when the Spanish Tercios proved their effectivitiy against the French heavy cavalry) and the beginning of Sweden's involvement in the Thirty Year's War in 1630 (Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden brought back the relevance of heavy cavalry charges). For almost a century, cavalry was seen as subordinate to infantry, and useful mostly during special circunstances (attacking a foe before it had formed properly, chasing defeated enemies before they could reorganize...etc.).

    While fortified cities and military fortresses remained relevant the knightly manor-castle, the aristocratic home that doubles as fortress and administration center became utterly obsolete during Modern Age.

  21. - Top - End - #1101
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Incanur's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    I guess it depends what importance, effectiveness, etc. mean. Cavalry still played a key role in Western European armies 1526-1630. The infantry was more important overall for battles and for many skirmishes, in part because they were so much more numerous. But heavy cavalry could turn the tide of battle and lighter cavalry was essential for scouting and skirmishing. Just look at the French Wars of Religion for an example of the prominence of heavy cavalry during that period. Part of that was cultural, but I doubt that was all of it.
    Last edited by Incanur; 2017-01-19 at 08:17 PM.
    Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
    I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
    To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
    Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!

  22. - Top - End - #1102
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Yep. But as I said: "Even the french Gendarmes were professional soldiers". Old feudal mesnadas led by knights became obsolete and were replaced by professional armies.
    This might be true (at least partially) of the very late 15th and 16th century, but during the Hundred Years War noble armies was still prominent. At Agincourt both the English (the men-at-arms on foot as well as the longbowmen) and the French (knights on horses) consisted of traditional feudal armies (granted buffed up by mercenaries for specific roles). Agincourt is in the 15th century...

    The king no longer sent heralds to the knights' castles asking them to gather their retinue and come for their 40 days of feudal service, but instead hired professional soldiers.

    Hence that XV century danish knight didn't really need his guards for anything else but for personal protection, defense of his property against robbers and for ceremonial purposes.
    It might be true that large military campaigns relied upon mercenaries as support, however the 15th century and even the 16th century see the use of smaller more quickly assembled noble armies fighting smaller wars/battle.

    Most wars during the period was: a) smaller skirmishes. b) battles to crush peasant rebellions (Christoffer III king 1439-1448 crushed a few with mainly nobles and their men, he also fought against Count Adolf of Holstein, who used a mix of mercenaries and nobles), or c) civil wars between nobles (either against each other or the nobles against the king etc).

    It is true mercenaries played a major roles, for instance at the Battle of Visby, already in the late 14th century, but still backed up by an army of nobles and men-at-arms. Armies of knights, nobles and their men also played a role during Count's feud. Though it was ultimately won by mercenaries.

    A knight from two or three centuries before, on the other hand, had the responsability of recruiting, training and keeping soldiers for his king, and probably had a larger retinue.
    There wasn't "knights" three centuries earlier.... The knighthood was in Scandinavia just forming around 1200, thus during the 12th century (three centuries before the 15th century) you wouldn't really have knights. Also the retinues of knights grew in both Denmark and France/England (and as far as I can tell non-city parts of Germany) during the 14th/15th century, compared to earlier. The Norman "knights" at Hastings for example didn't have a large retinue (you could in fact be a knight without one).

    For almost a century, cavalry was seen as subordinate to infantry, and useful mostly during special circunstances (attacking a foe before it had formed properly, chasing defeated enemies before they could reorganize...etc.).
    While perhaps true that heavy cavalry was less important than infantry: that is exactly a reason for the nobles to employ crossbowmen, men with pole weapons and handgunners!

    Both for defence of their land, but also for taking to war against the peasants OR the king (and quite often the king AND the peasants). Nobles gathering together to challenge the King happened routinely. Sometimes they lost to a mix of mercenaries and other nobles, sometimes they won. But they definately made up the bulk of many wars. This is not unique to Danmark during the 15th century, both French and English nobles where still very much a central part of the army.

    As far as I can tell nobles (with their retinues, men-at-arms and other local troops such as levied peasants, yeoman farmers etc) made up quite a bit of the troops during the War of the Roses (though certainly mercenaries played a role). War of the Roses is very much 15th century!

    In other regions (such as Italy) knights with their own troops might have had a quicker decline, and armies had a faster transition to mercenaries (I don't know enough of southern European history during that period to tell). But in northern Europe nobles still participated, for example: mercenaries did play a vital role in the conflict between the Hanse and Danish king, both burgher armies consisting of militias and noble armies formed by knights and their soldiers formed the backbone of many of the armies. It is true however than in the late 14th and 15th century peasant musters became mnuch rarer and less important; they where replaced by a COMBINATION of knights (professional soldiers) with their household men (also professinal soldiers) and mercenaries (also professional soldiers).

    While fortified cities and military fortresses remained relevant the knightly manor-castle, the aristocratic home that doubles as fortress and administration center became utterly obsolete during Modern Age.
    Yes, but not during the 15th century (or at least not before the end of it, star forts is only becoming popular during the 15th century, and is not widespread before the end 15th/early 16th century as far as I can see the various constructing times).
    Last edited by Tobtor; 2017-01-20 at 09:13 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #1103
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    I greatly appreciate the responses, thank you. Some excellent information
    just to further clarify, I'm really curious as to what day to day life, and minor excursions, without a tangible immenent threat(so not marching off to war) required, what could they afford or felt was needed, in terms of actually warriors, as opposed to servants of various kinds, throughout the years, regions and ranks. (understanding that in some time periods and regions, day to day life included a tangible threat, those are fine too)

    So if you are on a hunting trip and run into bandits, or if you are shopping in town and out of the blue a riot breaks out, if you are lounging in your manor or keep, and without warning someone sends assassins out after you, how many actual armed guards do you have to respond, so for the home, this would also include people on the property who could hear your scream, and not just the one guarding the door. Even if you are traveling, peacefully, with some other nobles and an arguement turns homicidal, someone gets caught with anothers wife, what are the odds gonna be.

    Some of my early attempts were Housecarl, Hirdsmen, Thingmen, unfortunately, like Samurai and Knight, the words mean alot of things other than warrior, especially depending on era, and get applied haphazardly and inconsistently in much of what i've read, much in the way Retainer and Retinue will be used in one sentence to mean only guards, and in the next include all house hold servants.

    Some excellent replies, thank you very much, truely appreciated. The numbers are much more reasonable and on par with my expectations than what i've been find on my own.

    Brother Oni, I knew of the practice but never saw the numbers before, very cool to know. I'm curious, have you heard of anyone ever trying to attack these processions? I'm also kind of surprised noone ever tried to bring nothing but troops and launch a surprise attack.(or did they and i missed it?)

  24. - Top - End - #1104
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    and the beginning of Sweden's involvement in the Thirty Year's War in 1630 (Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden brought back the relevance of heavy cavalry charges). For almost a century, cavalry was seen as subordinate to infantry, and useful mostly during special circunstances (attacking a foe before it had formed properly, chasing defeated enemies before they could reorganize...etc.).
    That's just not correct. It's largely a transitional phase though with developments in weapons, armour and tactics. The caracole, reiters etc etc are all iterations of the development process. The whole Gustaf II Adolf thing is largely a myth too, incidentally the Swedes didn't really have heavy cavalry as other Europeans understood it. They were less well armed with regards to pistols (and horses and armour!) so where for obvious reasons forced to engage more heavily into melee. Gustaf Adolf didn't invent or introduce even a fraction of what he's credited with, but he was the most visible, and successful, commander to pull together many threads of development present in military science at this point.

    And is also location based. Eg the Polish would employ the oldfashioned melee against the modern Swedish army of 1605 at Kirkholm to devastating effect. Not too long after that a much better trained Swedish army decimated the Polish cavalry.

    Even in the 1700s after the purported "Swedish re-invention" of the charge into melee the opinions on "shooting" and "charging" cavalry swinged back and forth.

    As to the cavalry being subordinate to infantry? I guess one could say it depends. The Swedish army conscripted infantry but the cavalry was volounteer (and always prestigious, providing a cavalryman for the army was how you got yourself excempt from taxation[and the dreaded conscription] in Sweden). In the 1620s in Poland the Swedish army was for a time essentially bottled up in towns and other static positions due to lack of cavalry compared to the Polish opponents. That'd be before Gustaf II Adolf invented the heavy cavalry charge in 1630...

    I would say the supposed unimportance of cavalry is equally fallacious as the supposed prominence of cavalry in the high medieval period. And that the truth lies somewhere in between where you need both an infantry anvil and cavalry hammer. At least up to somewhere in the vicinity of the ACW where the firepower finally got so murderous trying to charge infantry really became almost impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by wobner View Post
    Brother Oni, I knew of the practice but never saw the numbers before, very cool to know. I'm curious, have you heard of anyone ever trying to attack these processions? I'm also kind of surprised noone ever tried to bring nothing but troops and launch a surprise attack.(or did they and i missed it?)
    Well, yes (I coudl swear I seen it mentioned). But it'd be more assassination attempts (ninja!) than fights breaking out. You must understand these are highly ritualised things. And 1) the shogun kept a *close* watch with (yes among others ninjas) 2) had the hostages 3) vastly outnumbered any force the various daimyo could bring 4) could count on immediate support from everyone else who would be only too happy to jump at any chance of gaining advancement 5) society simply could not allow for such a thing, not anyone could be shogun, the two men before the Tokugawa shoguns despite holding absolute power could not claim the title. The later Edo period was fairly stable, in part due to how rigidly the system controlled the people who could cause the trouble.

    In short, any unsanctioned (provable, overt) attack against anyone else would result in massive and unprecedented backlash against the aggressor. Brother Oni can correct me but I think I recall one or two daimyo who lost their fiefs (eg the incident leading to the tale of the 47 Ronin) which ruined the entire family of the offender. And that was to some degree just misunderstanding/insult gone wrong, but with honor and dignity of the Shoguante on the stake...


    In passing I found a mention in a book about medieval trade how in 1476 Anthony Woodville (ie brother to Edward IV's wife) was robbed on the way north from Rome. The party included an earl, a baron, a knight, 4 squires and a herald, and states "appropriate amount of servants, which likely was very large" but gives no further details, referring to G B Parks "the Italian Traveller to Italy" p.545, can't find that to read myself though.

    Italy seems to have been rather dangerous though. The Pope's money for his soldiers gurded by 150 knights was robbed too once. And he had to pay for the ransom of many of the guards and reimburse lot of their equipment!

    Not that the forest surrounding Paris was much safer it seems. Funnily enough this is lampooned in an Asterix album even!
    Last edited by snowblizz; 2017-01-20 at 10:37 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #1105
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by wobner View Post
    I greatly appreciate the responses, thank you. Some excellent information
    just to further clarify, I'm really curious as to what day to day life, and minor excursions, without a tangible immenent threat(so not marching off to war) required, what could they afford or felt was needed, in terms of actually warriors, as opposed to servants of various kinds, throughout the years, regions and ranks. (understanding that in some time periods and regions, day to day life included a tangible threat, those are fine too)
    Level 1: Normally a knight wouldnt go to church or to town etc, without an armed guard.

    Level 2: A small scale noble might have a few armed friends/servants, but not in military gear (they might carry a sword for instance).

    Level 3: dukes/kings would be surrounded by a larger retinue, and for longer travels perhaps armoured guards, from a few in the early period, to hundred in the late.

    So if you are on a hunting trip and run into bandits, or if you are shopping in town and out of the blue a riot breaks out, if you are lounging in your manor or keep, and without warning someone sends assassins out after you, how many actual armed guards do you have to respond, so for the home, this would also include people on the property who could hear your scream, and not just the one guarding the door. Even if you are traveling, peacefully, with some other nobles and an arguement turns homicidal, someone gets caught with anothers wife, what are the odds gonna be.
    We have accounts of Kings going hunting almost without guards. But they didn't just happen to hunt in forrest heavily infested with bandits (I mean the medieval period may have been rough, but the King could at least secure his own hunting forest).

    Some of my early attempts were Housecarl, Hirdsmen, Thingmen, unfortunately, like Samurai and Knight, the words mean alot of things other than warrior, especially depending on era, and get applied haphazardly and inconsistently in much of what i've read, much in the way Retainer and Retinue will be used in one sentence to mean only guards, and in the next include all house hold servants.
    Well at the time of Hirdsmen, the concept of "guards" didnt exist. The Hirdsmen was ALL the guards a king had. The same goes for early Knights (but quiclkly becomes a knight and his servant who also cariies weapons, and then the knight and a few full time soldiers, then a the King and his own bunch of soldiers, a groups of knights each with their bunch of soldiers etc).

    When Erik Klipping (a danish King) was murdered in 1287 he apparently sought refuge from bad weather and had very few men around him (perhaps just 1!). He was killed by a group of 8 people (among the the squire Arvid Bengtson, the others are unknown, a series of nobles was prosecuted as the men behind the murder). But that seem an excaption: most of the time the entire court would moved around with the king.
    Last edited by Tobtor; 2017-01-20 at 09:32 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #1106
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    As far as I know, the period of least protagonism of cavalry during the Middle Ages and Modern Age was in between the end of the War of the Four Years in 1526 (when the Spanish Tercios proved their effectivitiy against the French heavy cavalry) and the beginning of Sweden's involvement in the Thirty Year's War in 1630 (Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden brought back the relevance of heavy cavalry charges). For almost a century, cavalry was seen as subordinate to infantry, and useful mostly during special circunstances (attacking a foe before it had formed properly, chasing defeated enemies before they could reorganize...etc.).

    The idea of a Military revolution centered around Gustavus Adolphus has been repeatedly revised over the years, since many of the things he supposedly invented were really based on earlier trends. Tactics for defeating heavy lancers with pistoleirs such as reserving fire until after the melee is joined and attacking in column rather than in thin lines for example were described by La Noue all the way back in the 16th century.

    Well ordered infantry defeating a cavalry charge wasn't exactly something new, going all the way back to the HYW, the Golden Spurs, and earlier. Ironically, medieval cavalry tactics often bared a closer similarity to the caracole than massive decisive charges, with single rows of horsemen charging forward to break their lance and then wheeling away. In the early modern era while there were notable defeats of cavalry by infantry, horsemen still gave an army far more flexibility and far more control over the battle. As Clifford Rogers puts it, if one side had superior infantry, and the other had superior cavalry, then the latter still usually won. It's worth remembering that the whole reason Gustav started instituting his reforms in the first place was the result of battles like Kirchholm where Polish heavy cavalry completely wiped away the Swedish infantry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    While fortified cities and military fortresses remained relevant the knightly manor-castle, the aristocratic home that doubles as fortress and administration center became utterly obsolete during Modern Age.
    That may be, but it doesn't seem that it was due to cannons making walls obsolete.

  27. - Top - End - #1107
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Incanur View Post
    There wasn't "knights" three centuries earlier.... The knighthood was in Scandinavia just forming around 1200, thus during the 12th century (three centuries before the 15th century) you wouldn't really have knights.
    I was speaking of European knights in general there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    This might be true (at least partially) of the very late 15th and 16th century, but during the Hundred Years War noble armies was still prominent. At Agincourt both the English (the men-at-arms on foot as well as the longbowmen) and the French (knights on horses) consisted of traditional feudal armies (granted buffed up by mercenaries for specific roles). Agincourt is in the 15th century.. .
    Wasn’t the English army mostly made of professional soldiers/mercenaries at that point? I have read somewhere that the bulk of the English troops (notably the famous archers) were professionals paid by the king…

    Quote Originally Posted by Incanur View Post
    I guess it depends what importance, effectiveness, etc. mean. Cavalry still played a key role in Western European armies 1526-1630. The infantry was more important overall for battles and for many skirmishes, in part because they were so much more numerous. But heavy cavalry could turn the tide of battle and lighter cavalry was essential for scouting and skirmishing. Just look at the French Wars of Religion for an example of the prominence of heavy cavalry during that period. Part of that was cultural, but I doubt that was all of it.
    Mmm… I think it could be due to the Wars of Religion being mostly an internal conflict between powerful noble houses… The truth is, when the Habsburg armies intervened to support the Catholics, they had greater success against those armies than against the professional national French armies fighting under their king… Of course, the fact that the French were divided and had been trouncing each other for some time had a lot to do with that too…

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    While perhaps true that heavy cavalry was less important than infantry: that is exactly a reason for the nobles to employ crossbowmen, men with pole weapons and handgunners!

    Both for defence of their land, but also for taking to war against the peasants OR the king (and quite often the king AND the peasants). Nobles gathering together to challenge the King happened routinely. Sometimes they lost to a mix of mercenaries and other nobles, sometimes they won. But they definately made up the bulk of many wars. This is not unique to Danmark during the 15th century, both French and English nobles where still very much a central part of the army.

    As far as I can tell nobles (with their retinues, men-at-arms and other local troops such as levied peasants, yeoman farmers etc) made up quite a bit of the troops during the War of the Roses (though certainly mercenaries played a role). War of the Roses is very much 15th century!
    You are right that I was making a generalization, applying the standards of the most advanced armies in Western Europe at the end of the XV century to all the armies of the century. England had a reputation of having fallen behind in the development of modern professional armies during the XV-XVI centuries. And the War of the Roses was an internal conflict among noble houses, so it’s normal that it was fought mostly by nobility’s private armies…

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    Yes, but not during the 15th century (or at least not before the end of it, star forts is only becoming popular during the 15th century, and is not widespread before the end 15th/early 16th century as far as I can see the various constructing times).
    Quote Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
    That may be, but it doesn't seem that it was due to cannons making walls obsolete.
    I was specifically speaking of the importance of manorial castles staffed by a knight, his family and his retinue, not of walls in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
    The idea of a Military revolution centered around Gustavus Adolphus has been repeatedly revised over the years, since many of the things he supposedly invented were really based on earlier trends. Tactics for defeating heavy lancers with pistoleirs such as reserving fire until after the melee is joined and attacking in column rather than in thin lines for example were described by La Noue all the way back in the 16th century…

    … It's worth remembering that the whole reason Gustav started instituting his reforms in the first place was the result of battles like Kirchholm where Polish heavy cavalry completely wiped away the Swedish infantry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    In other regions (such as Italy) knights with their own troops might have had a quicker decline, and armies had a faster transition to mercenaries (I don't know enough of southern European history during that period to tell). But in northern Europe nobles still participated, for example: mercenaries did play a vital role in the conflict between the Hanse and Danish king, both burgher armies consisting of militias and noble armies formed by knights and their soldiers formed the backbone of many of the armies. It is true however than in the late 14th and 15th century peasant musters became mnuch rarer and less important; they where replaced by a COMBINATION of knights (professional soldiers) with their household men (also professinal soldiers) and mercenaries (also professional soldiers).
    Quote Originally Posted by snowblizz View Post
    …The whole Gustaf II Adolf thing is largely a myth too, incidentally the Swedes didn't really have heavy cavalry as other Europeans understood it. They were less well armed with regards to pistols (and horses and armour!) so where for obvious reasons forced to engage more heavily into melee. Gustaf Adolf didn't invent or introduce even a fraction of what he's credited with, but he was the most visible, and successful, commander to pull together many threads of development present in military science at this point.

    And is also location based. Eg the Polish would employ the oldfashioned melee against the modern Swedish army of 1605 at Kirkholm to devastating effect. Not too long after that a much better trained Swedish army decimated the Polish cavalry….

    …In the 1620s in Poland the Swedish army was for a time essentially bottled up in towns and other static positions due to lack of cavalry compared to the Polish opponents. That'd be before Gustaf II Adolf invented the heavy cavalry charge in 1630...
    You are probably right. I have studied mostly the Italian Wars and the Spanish Habsburgs’s wars, and I don’t know much about tactics in Eastern and Northern Europe.

    Makes sense that heavy cavalry retained its protagonism in Poland, since the kept the finest armoured lancers in Europe up to the Napoleonic Wars…

    Quote Originally Posted by snowblizz View Post
    That's just not correct. It's largely a transitional phase though with developments in weapons, armour and tactics. The caracole, reiters etc etc are all iterations of the development process.
    All I know is that I have read many texts both from contemporary sources and from modern authors pointing how inefficient was the caracole, and how heavy cavalry charges were almost abandoned during the big battles in Western Europe. Of course, I have studied mostly the Trastamaras and the Habsburgs and their foes, and everything probably was very different in other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by snowblizz View Post
    I would say the supposed unimportance of cavalry is equally fallacious as the supposed prominence of cavalry in the high medieval period. And that the truth lies somewhere in between where you need both an infantry anvil and cavalry hammer. At least up to somewhere in the vicinity of the ACW where the firepower finally got so murderous trying to charge infantry really became almost impossible.
    I dunno. I don’t think I can remember many examples of the combined use of “infantry anvil and cavalry hammer” in the big battles in Western Europe during that period, at least not when well equipped and trained infantry had formed their pike and shot squares…
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2017-01-20 at 07:08 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #1108
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post

    All I know is that I have read many texts both from contemporary sources and from modern authors pointing how inefficient was the caracole, and how heavy cavalry charges were almost abandoned during the big battles in Western Europe. Of course, I have studied mostly the Trastamaras and the Habsburgs and their foes, and everything probably was very different in other places.



    I dunno. I don’t think I can remember many examples of the combined use of “infantry anvil and cavalry hammer” in the big battles in Western Europe during that period, at least not when well equipped and trained infantry had formed their pike and shot squares…
    La Noue also had a negative attitude towards the fire-by-rank tactic we call a "caracole". However that was mainly in the context of an encounter between cavalry. Clifford Rogers in "Tactics and the Face of Battle" argues that the caracole was extremely effective at what it was intended for, that is breaking apart pike squares. He gives the example of Turnhout in 1597 where the English cavalry closed to a very short range then fired with their pistols until the Spanish pikemen had been thinned out enough that the english could charge in and break up their square.

    There were still effective shock actions carried out during this time. At Nieuwpoort the Spanish were eventually put into retreat after the dutch cavalry made a well timed charge against the exhausted tericos on the Spanish left. Interestingly there are quite a few battles where the role is reversed, ie. the cavalry effectively becomes the anvil rather than the hammer. For instance at the battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547 the English Men at arms charged headfirst into the Scottish pikemen. They were eventually beaten back after a bloody fight, but they had successfully robbed the scottish attack of all its momentum allowing the massive pike formation to be completely devastated by arrows, firearms, and artillery. After the Scots broke most of them were then ridden down and slaughtered by english horsemen. Cuirassers later became extremely effective at pinning down enemy infantry, since they could open fire in caracole from a distance forcing both the pikemen and attached shot to remain in a tight, stationary square or risk being caught off guard by a sudden charge.

  29. - Top - End - #1109
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
    La Noue also had a negative attitude towards the fire-by-rank tactic we call a "caracole". However that was mainly in the context of an encounter between cavalry. Clifford Rogers in "Tactics and the Face of Battle" argues that the caracole was extremely effective at what it was intended for, that is breaking apart pike squares. He gives the example of Turnhout in 1597 where the English cavalry closed to a very short range then fired with their pistols until the Spanish pikemen had been thinned out enough that the english could charge in and break up their square.
    But in Turnhout the Habsburg's army (there were only around 50 Spaniards among 4300 troops) were already retreating, escaping from a superior army. The Dutch cavalry caught them during said retreat, charging their rear, and the German regiments surrended without a fight, and the the Walloons escaped. Only the Italians fought back, until their leader was killed and they ran too.

    It could be argued that the Dutch cavalry (supported by English musketeers) didn't break the Habsburg army, but just stopped their retreat, and that it was the sight of the main body of the enemy army approaching them what made the German and Walloon troops to lose heart and surrender or run away, leaving the Italians very badly outnumbered against the enemy infantry that was closing on them, so they escaped too when their leader Varas was killed.

    And the Dutch cuirassiers didn't use the caracola, but rather repeated charges head on against the enemy, stopping and shooting all at the same time only when they were very close.

    I have read that the caracola was very ineffective because infantry gunmen could take better aim from their static positions, which combined with the size of the horses and the short range of the pistols compensated for the greater dispersion of the cavalry, and anyways, while the rate of fire of the horsemen was continuous, whey could shoot very few bullets per minute, which diminished the psychological impact.

    As for Nieuwpoort, the Tercios were, as you have said yourself, very tired and weakened already.
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2017-01-20 at 10:38 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #1110
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    But in Turnhout the Habsburg's army (there were only around 50 Spaniards among 4300 troops) were already retreating, escaping from a superior army. The Dutch cavalry caught them during said retreat, charging their rear, and the German regiments surrended without a fight, and the the Walloons escaped. Only the Italians fought back, until their leader was killed and they ran too.

    It could be argued that the Dutch cavalry (supported by English musketeers) didn't break the Habsburg army, but just stopped their retreat, and that it was the sight of the main body of the enemy army approaching them what made the German and Walloon troops to lose heart and surrender or run away, leaving the Italians very badly outnumbered against the enemy infantry that was closing on them, so they escaped too when their leader Varas was killed.

    And the Dutch cuirassiers didn't use the caracola, but rather repeated charges head on against the enemy, stopping and shooting all at the same time only when they were very close.

    I have read that the caracola was very ineffective because infantry gunmen could take better aim from their static positions, which combined with the size of the horses and the short range of the pistols compensated for the greater dispersion of the cavalry, and anyways, while the rate of fire of the horsemen was continuous, whey could shoot very few bullets per minute, which diminished the psychological impact.

    As for Nieuwpoort, the Tercios were, as you have said yourself, very tired and weakened already.
    That's sort of getting nitpicky about what a "caracole" actually is. Sometimes fire by rank was performed with essentially a stationary countermartch, sometimes each rank would first charge forward a ways before firing and then retiring to the rear, sometimes they would stop to shoot, other times they would shoot while moving, etc.

    Here's the quote from Sir Francis Vere, "we charged their pikes, not breaking through them at the first push, as was anciently used by the men-at-arms with their barded horses: but as the long pistols, delivered at hand [i.e. fired at very short range], had made the ranks thin, so thereupon, the rest of the horse got within them."

    The attached shot was seen as the one thing that could keep a pike square from being destroyed by pistolers or mounted harquebusiers, sure, but that hardly means that they were useless. Nor was a successful defense necessarily a sure thing. The cavalry were usually better paid and better trained than the infantry and the infantry square still made a very dense target. In addition the arquebusiers were typically unarmored and it was no guarantee that a single body would be enough to stop a pistol bullet. If the men in front ever do lose heart then bad things tend to happen to pike squares once the front ranks start shuffling backwards. Also keep in mind that it's the cavalry who get to decide where and when to attack, while the infantry must essentially remain stationary.

    The fire from successive ranks was generally necessary for pistol cavalry in order to maximize the amount of fire from a deep formation and concentrate fire more effectively. It's similar to how countermartch volleys became necessary for Dutch infantry tactics. Pistols especially were most effective at fairly short distances, so a single thin rank 100 horses wide, in addition to being rather unwieldy, isn't going to concentrate their fire as effectively as 10 ranks of 10 horses delivering pistol shots to a single area in quick succession at close range.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •