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

[Lemmy]

So... I've been researching about bastion forts and how they were meant to resist cannon fire, but now I have a question:

Does architecture like the one below have any disadvantage or flaw that would make it a problem if the invader didn't have cannons? Or was it just simpler/cheaper to build in the usual castle shape (or maybe it's simply because no one came up with this building design before cannons became a problem).

Spoiler

Show

As usual, thanks in advance for any replies.

[Storm Bringer]

So... I've been researching about bastion forts and how they were meant to resist cannon fire, but now I have a question:

Does architecture like the one below have any disadvantage or flaw that would make it a problem if the invader didn't have cannons? Or was it just simpler/cheaper to build in the usual castle shape (or maybe it's simply because no one came up with this building design before cannons became a problem).

Spoiler

Show

As usual, thanks in advance for any replies.

not really, its just optimisation against different threats.

pre cannon, their weren't that many weapons that could actually break a properly made wall, so you tended to go for high, comparatively thin stone walls that were hard to scale and have you a greater height advantage over an attacker. Once cannons started to become common, walls tined to become lower, but much thicker, and stone faced earth, all to be better at absorbing cannon fire. But the other methods of attacking a fort were not forgotten, and forts were still designed to defend against them.

Against a foe with no cannons, the attackers options are basically either attempt a escalade (ie scale the walls with ladders), undermine a section and then storm the breech, or encircle, besiege and try to stave the defenders out. the walls are generally lower, which makes scaling a little easier, but they are still designed to defend against that sort of attack (normally they have some sort of protruding frame or such which makes it impossible to place a ladder onto the fort walls), and the defender has plenty of good sight lines. undermining, as far as I know, wasn't normally attempted against these sorts of forts, but I don't know it that's just because there were faster options available or if they included extra defences against it (a lot of the time, the terrain makes it impossible to undermine, such as on near rivers where the tunnels would flood, or bare rock).

the reason why castles were generally rounded was that it made it harder to break into them (a corner of a wall is easier to damage, so they avoided corners). the straight angles of star forts are to avoid creating "dead ground" at the base of the wall, where cannons cant fire. each "face" of a bastion is covered by fire form a neighbouring bastion, so you cant "run in under the guns", get to the base of the wall, and be free to do what you want with no threat form the defenders.

[Galloglaich]

So... I've been researching about bastion forts and how they were meant to resist cannon fire, but now I have a question:

Does architecture like the one below have any disadvantage or flaw that would make it a problem if the invader didn't have cannons? Or was it just simpler/cheaper to build in the usual castle shape (or maybe it's simply because no one came up with this building design before cannons became a problem).

Spoiler

Show

As usual, thanks in advance for any replies.

I would say that those kind of trace italienne fortifications are a little flawed against pre-firearms armies in that the glacis (the sloped, grass-covered dirt ramparts or mounds) which work so well against cannonballs are actually easier to climb and dig into than a strait vertical wall.


Prior to the larger cannon coming online in the 14th Century, (in fits and starts) the main threats were

1) scaling ladders \ swarming attacks

2) massive siege engines (everything from siege towers to giant trebuchets and so on)

3) battering rams

4) tunneling

5) Pre-gunpowder pyrotechnic weapons.


All of these things still existed after cannon, but by then the defenders too had cannon, guns and pyrotechnic weapons which gave them extra capabilities against attackers. Siege towers could be blown apart at a distance with cannon. It was easier to set mantlets and tunneling operations on fire much more quickly. You could repel swarms of men with ladders with volleys of gunfire and hurled grenades, and all sorts of other diabolical pyrotechnic weapons like hoops and trumps and etc.


but if cannons weren't there, it made more sense to have taller, harder walls.

Some castles and fortresses well within the gunpowder era still retained these design features and relied on having a lot of their own cannon to fend off enemy artillery. I think these were sometimes called 'artillery forts'. here is an interesting example of an early artillery fort, Deal Castle in England.

Spoiler: Deal Castle

Show

This drawing was made in 1539

You'll see both types in the Carribbean if you ever travel around there, it's quite interesting to compare and contrast them. Two particularly impressive ones I remember were El Morro in Puerto Rico and Brimstone castle on St. Kitts.





Brimstone




El Morro

G

[Clistenes]

1) most of the original group of Spanish troops were rodoleros - lightly equipped guys with sword and shield. So not that much metal armor anyway. Also they came with their own textile armor it wasn't something they learned from the locals as is often claimed, though they adopted the similar local armor once theirs got rotten or torn up.

2) They had small numbers of special weapons but all were used to the max and all were very important. About 20 cavalry, most apparently armored, were very important ad decisive in several battles. 12 arquebusiers and 13 crossbowmen, all of whom were very important. About half a dozen small cannon, also important, and the dogs. They also had a small number of men armed with polearms, halberds or bills etc., and possibly a few montante (big two handed swords). The polearms were also crucial in a couple of situations.

The Conquistadores weren't, for the most part, professional soldiers, but adventurers (some of which had a military background, and some which didn't). They didn't fit properly in any of the typical soldier types of the century.

They carried as much weaponry as the could afford to lug around. Ideally, they would try to have a morrion, steel rodela (round shield), breastplate, sword, dagger, and some other weapon like an arquebuss, spear or crossbow. Horsemen would wear a bit more armor.

Of course, their weapons would break and their gunpowder would get spent, so they had to improvise as they went. I guess some of them couldn't afford armor and had to settle for textile or leather armor (a jerkin) from the beginning.

I don't think they carried montantes, those were mostly outdated weapons by then, and unpractical in their context.

4) Cortez's original force was only 500 guys and he had to defeat the tlascans before they joined up with him. The credit for his victory always gets handed to his allies in modern accounts but I don't think that is realistic.

Yes, and the Spaniards were always first in line during battle, even when backed by huge armies of allies.

During the Noche Triste the Spaniards were put in between their retreating allies and the enemy, and they did most of the work covering the retreat (there was little space to manouver, and only a small fraction of the army could fight, so Cortez put his most effective troops where the actual fighting was done).

6) The dogs do seem to have been a factor, along with the horses, and not just in the occupation. They called them 'greyhounds' but clearly it's not the same dog they race today. I think they had military significance.

They weren't modern greyhounds, which have been selectively bred for speed for very long, but big game sighthounds/bay dogs, similar to deerhounds, catch dogs similar to modern Dogos Argentinos or Presa Canarios, or a mix of both.

Dogs like Leoncillo, Becerrillo and Amadís were dangerous enough that even Conquistadores were careful around them. Vasco Nuñez de Balboa lent his dog Becerrillo to his lover as self-protection, and the dog was poisoned by another man who wanted to seduce the woman but was afraid she would sic the dog at him...

Those dogs receives a pay as an elite soldier, and human soldiers didn't protest about that, because they acknowledged they were more useful than men.

[Lemmy]

Thanks for the information, guys. I really appreciate it.

I have a question, though...

During my research (today was a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery slow day at work) I found the following image:

Spoiler: (spoiling for size)

Show

With what else I could find abou dead zones and general castle/fort defenses, I have to ask:

Wouldn't the bolded part on the quote below also apply to pre-gunpowder combat as well? Wouldn't it be more advantageous than having round walls?

the reason why castles were generally rounded was that it made it harder to break into them (a corner of a wall is easier to damage, so they avoided corners). the straight angles of star forts are to avoid creating "dead ground" at the base of the wall, where cannons cant fire. each "face" of a bastion is covered by fire form a neighbouring bastion, so you cant "run in under the guns", get to the base of the wall, and be free to do what you want with no threat form the defenders.

BTW, is there point does increasing the height of the castle walls provides no significant benefit? If yes, how does that point change between the absence and the presence of cannons in the attacker's forces? I noticed bastion forts had lower, thicker walls to better resist cannon fire, but what if they had enough resources that they didn't have to compromise between height and thickness (I know that's absurd, I'm just wondering if there's a point where height won't matter significantly, even if it can still be increased)?

[rrgg]

I would say that those kind of trace italienne fortifications are a little flawed against pre-firearms armies in that the glacis (the sloped, grass-covered dirt ramparts or mounds) which work so well against cannonballs are actually easier to climb and dig into than a strait vertical wall.

I'd argue that has more to do with whether the defenders have firearms. The idea behind the trance italienne design is that there isn't any place for the attackers to climb up without being blasted away by musket and cannon fire from protected positions. If the defenders are relying on arrows or stones dropped on top of the attackers instead then stopping the enemy becomes far less certain and the more complete fields of fire probably don't help as much.

An example would be the siege of Fort Zeelandia. Koxinga had defeated the small Dutch force sent out to meet him and was expecting to easily overrun the fort, yet the garrison had no trouble repulsing his massive army. This resulted in a protracted siege which lasted for months. It apparently wasn't until a dutch defector came to Koxinga and taught him were to dig trenches and concentrate his cannon fire that the fort finally fell.

On the subject of the English device forts such as the picture you showed, keep in mind that England was relatively slow to modernize and wasn't using guns much during the early part of the 16th century. As a result their more "medieval" design might have more to do with the English being unfamiliar with the developments occurring in Italy.

The device forts were designed primarily to protect English harbors. They appeared as part of a general retrofitting of the English army and Navy which occurred after king Henry VIII decided antagonize most of mainland Europe and the threat of invasion suddenly became very real.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks for the information, guys. I really appreciate it.

I have a question, though...

During my research (today was a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery slow day at work) I found the following image:

Spoiler: (spoiling for size)

Show

With what else I could find abou dead zones and general castle/fort defenses, I have to ask:

Wouldn't the bolded part on the quote below also apply to pre-gunpowder combat as well? Wouldn't it be more advantageous than having round walls?



BTW, is there point does increasing the height of the castle walls provides no significant benefit? If yes, how does that point change between the absence and the presence of cannons in the attacker's forces? I noticed bastion forts had lower, thicker walls to better resist cannon fire, but what if they had enough resources that they didn't have to compromise between height and thickness (I know that's absurd, I'm just wondering if there's a point where height won't matter significantly, even if it can still be increased)?

On the dead ground thing, yes, in theory, it was Never Good to have dead ground at the base of a wall. However, pre gunpowder, people didn't have the weight of fire needed to keep people away form the base of a wall, if they really, really wanted to get their. Plus, unless they brought a ladder, their wasn't much a man could do at the base of a solid stone wall, so it was less of a worry. what was more of a worry was that a square tower (with a point on it) would be more vulnerable to things like trebuchets or some mining methords, because the loads would concentrate at the corners, and breaking the corner could breach a wall much eaiser (see the siege of Rochester castle, for example)

for height, it point of deminising returns is the point where it becomes impractical to built a man portable ladder to try and scale the walls. once you get the point where any ladder tall enough to scale your walls is so long and unwieldy that they cant actually raise it against your walls without mechanical assistance (which you could easily smash with a cannon), then extra height it really not needed.

However, the effort needed would likey be better spent adding outworks and thus "depth" to the forts defences, rather than height.

[snowblizz]

On the subject of the English device forts such as the picture you showed, keep in mind that England was relatively slow to modernize and wasn't using guns much during the early part of the 16th century. As a result their more "medieval" design might have more to do with the English being unfamiliar with the developments occurring in Italy.

The device forts were designed primarily to protect English harbors. They appeared as part of a general retrofitting of the English army and Navy which occurred after king Henry VIII decided antagonize most of mainland Europe and the threat of invasion suddenly became very real.

It was a certain type of fortification that was briefly popular, in hindsight as a transitional fortresss design. Rounded towers were a response to guns. The natural reaction to them not holding up to bigger guns was lower and much thicker walls with their own cannon. The method was used in the Swedish kingdom under king Gustav (I) as being hypermodern. In many cases yes, built to augment existing castles so would tend to adapt to their older medieval "environment".

I would say it was more of a case that the trace de italienne becomes fashionable as siege engineering developes quickly into a science. There was more money and need in the areas where the Italian Wars raged.

Most coastal forts seem to imitate this style I've noticed. And in the middle of the 19th centurey they still build round coastal fortresses.

[Beleriphon]

You'll see both types in the Carribbean if you ever travel around there, it's quite interesting to compare and contrast them. Two particularly impressive ones I remember were El Morro in Puerto Rico and Brimstone castle on St. Kitts.

Don't forget the Caribbean forts were designed to protect from attacking ships rather than land based offensives. If you really consider it most Caribbean islands have a very limited number of effective ports to land troops, so a defender only needs to really defend a port from canon fire with fortress facing the sea. You see similar designs in the Mediterranean. The Caribbean design of only one defended facing obviously doesn't work well if you land troops 50 miles away like you can in many places in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia.

[Galloglaich]

The Conquistadores weren't, for the most part, professional soldiers, but adventurers (some of which had a military background, and some which didn't). They didn't fit properly in any of the typical soldier types of the century.

What type would that be? In the 15th Century most 'typical' soldiers were actually people who had some other kind of day job or identity. That didn't mean they were bad at being soldiers either.

Most of the early conquistadors were poor peasants and gentry from estramadura and other improverished parts of the Iberian peninsula.

They carried as much weaponry as the could afford to lug around. Ideally, they would try to have a morrion, steel rodela (round shield), breastplate, sword, dagger, and some other weapon like an arquebuss, spear or crossbow. Horsemen would wear a bit more armor.

Most of Cortez' original band of 500 men were specifically rodeleros, meaning they had the rotella and the sword, and as much as armor as they could afford of course, but not much else in the way of other weapons. As I already mentioned, he only had about a dozen each of arquebusiers and crossbowmen, both of whom were specialists and paid more than rodoleros. Very few were carrying spears.

Of course, their weapons would break and their gunpowder would get spent, so they had to Improvise as they went. I guess some of them couldn't afford armor and had to settle for textile or leather armor (a jerkin) from the beginning.

Agreed except leather armor isn't likely. Textile yes.

I don't think they carried montantes, those were mostly outdated weapons by then, and unpractical in their context.

Not only were montante's still in use then, that exact period was actually the heyday of the montante, particularly in Spain. Most of the fencing manuals which teach the montante were written in the lae 15th and through the 16th Century. They also (after Cortez) established a fencing school in Mexico City which was still teaching montante in the late 16th Century. They would train elite soldiers from the Americas to use as muscle in their far flung Empire.

I don't however know for sure that anyone with Cortez had them. Some of the cavalry had longswords apparently but that's a different weapon. Some of Cortez's men did also have halberds or bills (roncha)

Yes, and the Spaniards were always first in line during battle, even when backed by huge armies of allies.

Yes that is a good point.

They weren't modern greyhounds, (snip) Dogs like Leoncillo, Becerrillo and Amadís were dangerous enough that even Conquistadores were careful around them.

Yes that is what I assumed, fits the pattern of that kind of dog in that era. They had a type of hunting dog called an alaunt which was considered unsafe to be around and had to be kept in kennels.

G

[rrgg]

What type would that be? In the 15th Century most 'typical' soldiers were actually people who had some other kind of day job or identity. That didn't mean they were bad at being soldiers either.

Most of the early conquistadors were poor peasants and gentry from estramadura and other improverished parts of the Iberian peninsula.

I think what he's getting at is that European soldiers were undergoing some major changes during the late 15th and 16th centuries with rising levels of drill and professionalism. Most notably starting with the Swiss. A popular theory holds that this development is in part responsible for the growing western military dominance which begins in this era, but the counter-argument is that most of the actual conquering wasn't actually done by modern European armies marching in lock-step formation. Instead it was done by small ad-hoc bands of adventures like the conquistadors in the Americas or the Cossacks in Sibera.

Most of Cortez' original band of 500 men were specifically rodeleros, meaning they had the rotella and the sword, and as much as armor as they could afford of course, but not much else in the way of other weapons. As I already mentioned, he only had about a dozen each of arquebusiers and crossbowmen, both of whom were specialists and paid more than rodoleros. Very few were carrying spears.

As I understand it, rather than a steel shield most of the rodeleros would have been using a wood or leather version, or at least adopted a leather version once they reached the Americas. Although I'm a bit unclear on on the concept of the "rodelero". According to Taylor's Art of War in Italy, de Cordoba's reforms just called for 1/3rd of the men to be armed with a sword and dagger, as opposed to those who needed to bring a pike, sword, and dagger or an arquebus, sword, and dagger and that the decision to bring a shield as well was one the soldiers themselves made. Does that mean that the presence of so many sword and shield men was more of a cultural result rather than a tactical decision made by higher ups? For instance how 16th century English armies kept finding themselves flooded with billmen?

As for Spears, Bernal Diaz does mention at one point that Cortes had some of his native allies manufacture a large number of copper-tipped spears to equip his men with.

[snowblizz]

I would say that those kind of trace italienne fortifications are a little flawed against pre-firearms armies in that the glacis (the sloped, grass-covered dirt ramparts or mounds) which work so well against cannonballs are actually easier to climb and dig into than a strait vertical wall.

I disagree on that. On a properly made starfort the earthen ramparts aren't continuous. It's slopes up to protect the walls behind. But they will stop in a many meters wide moat (which is covered by guns down low) intended to contain any breach material in case of walls breaking down. This means you work up a sloped swept by guns, only to find you need to leap a metes wide chasm to actually reach the fortress walls proper.

A temprary field fortification, or hastily and cheaply built fortification (and there were plenty) would be more likely be what you describe as easily scaled.

[Lemmy]

Thank you all for your replies to my questions. It's really cool that I can learn this stuff over here.

I hope I'm not abusing your patience, but I have a two other questions:

1- If I had to make a fort to defend against both cannon fire and pre-firearm armies, what would be a good compromise in architectural design? I suppose it'd just be better to use anti-cannon structure and then use cannons yourself to repel armies without firearms... But what if cannons were rare and/or too expensive too have in significant numbers?

2- What is the longest blade (or maybe I should say "reach"?) a one-handed curved blade can have (or has had, historically) before curving too much to be able to stab efficiently? I'm not sure if my words convey the exact doubt here... Like... What is the longest a one-handed saber (or similar sword) could be?

As usual... Thanks in advance for all and any replies.

[Clistenes]

What type would that be? In the 15th Century most 'typical' soldiers were actually people who had some other kind of day job or identity. That didn't mean they were bad at being soldiers either.

Hernán Cortez started his conquest in 1519, and Francisco Pizarro started in 1524, so it was the XVI century.

If we are speaking of Spain, soldiers were by then full-time professionals who were recruited at 20+ years old by a captain who was touring towns and villages seeking soldiers, accompanied by a banner-carrier and a tambourine player. The captain would go to the main square, have the tambourine man play to call for attention, and make a speech asking for soldiers to serve the king.

Men under 20 years old were usually rejected, as they were thought to be not tough enough to endure war. Men who were too old or weren't physically fit would be rejected too.

Teenagers could join the army as servants: scullions, mochileros ("backpack carriers", would take care of their master's stuff during battle), pajes de rodela ("shield page", would carry their master's shield until he needed it)... etc.

Soldiers were expected to buy their own equipment, but sometimes wealthy captains and maestres who wanted their unit to be powerful bought armor and weapons for them.

The basic unit was the company of 250 men (before 1534 companies could be as big as 500 men), but those often couldn't cover their losses and shrunk to 100 men or little more. 12 companies made a coronelía (before 1534) or tercio (after 1534).

Within the company there were "brotherhoods" of men who lived in the same tent, bought and cooked their food together, and helped each other... they were basically friends and roomies. The captain took into his own brotherhood the poorest men in the company and supported them.

Companies were of two kinds: Pikemen (made of pikemen, a few halberdiers or glaivemen and a few musketeers) and Arquebusseers (made of arquebusseers, a few halberdiers or glaivemen and a few musketeers).

By 1503 the soldiers were evenly divided among pikemen, shieldmen (rodeleros) and gunmen, but rodeleros soon dissapeared, being folded into the other categories (pikemen and gunmen would carry a shield on their back and a sword and would drop their pike or gun and take their shield and sword for close combat). The number of gunmen grew steadily, going from 1/3 of the army to 2/3 or even 3/4 of the army during the XVI century.

At the beginning, the rodeleros would carry javelins too, and they would throw those before engaging the enemy in close combat, but those were soon regarded as too ineffective and ceased to be used. Halberdiers were added to the mix to make it more effective in close combat.

Pikemen, halberdiers, glaivemen and rodeleros would use half-armor and morrion, and the rodeleros would use a round shield (usually of steel) too. However, some soldiers could afford neither a gun nor armor, and those would be given a pike and put in the rear until they could save enough money for armor. Soldiers with better armor were put in the vanguard, and would earn more money and have better chances of promotion.

Gunmen were supposed to have a steel morrion, breastplate and steel shield, but many couldn't afford it, and were allowed to use just a leather jerkin and a morrion, or sometimes not even that. Over time it was acknowledged that speed and stamina was more useful to gunmen than armor, and they were allowed to ditch armor entirely (many would keep using a leather jerkin, though).

Spaniards prefered to be arquebusseers, while Germans prefered to be pikemen.

As for crossbows, those were outdated in Europe, but they were still used in America due to the scarcity of gunpowder.

Spanish recruits were usually sent to Italy (which was considered an easy, low risk zone), where they would be distributed among veteran companies, so they could learn from their seniors. Once they were judged to be trained and hardened enough, they were sent to Netherlands, Franche-Comté, Germany... etc., were the fight was harder.

They had a lot of trouble getting good cavalry, or any cavalry at all. Spanish horsemen tended to be "lanzas ligeras", armed with lance and half-armor, while German one tended to be Retiers, armed with guns. Maestres tended to recruit the cavalry directly, since it was so hard to find.

There wasn't a fixed term of service for these soldiers; on paper, it seems they would serve until the king or the maestre chose to discharge them, but there are stories of men entering service, leaving and coming back, so it seems there was a way for them to leave the army without dishonor.

Most of the early conquistadors were poor peasants and gentry from estramadura and other improverished parts of the Iberian peninsula.

Mostly Extremadura and Andalucia, which were closer to the ports of Cadiz and Seville, the only allowed to host the American fleets.

"Poor peasants and gentry" was pretty much most of the population of Spain by then. Hidalgos (low rank aristocracy) were overrepresented in America, due to the lack of opportunities in Spain (Hidalgos were forbidden to pursue both commerce and most menial jobs under penalty or losing nobility status, so those who didn't want to be priests, were too poor to go to college or didn't like studying and couldn't rise in the army were very short of options).

They went to America with the dream of serving the governors in the war against the natives and receiving a piece of land and vassals as reward.

Most of Cortez and Pizarro's generation had lived in La Española for some time, and had gotten their battle experience working as slave-hunters, attacking native villages, rounding the inhabitants and taking them to the colonies. Before they conquered the Aztec and Inca Empires, they tended to be seen as scum by the rest of the Spaniards.

The first wave of Conquistadores were adventurers. A powerful man would get a contract from the Crown or from a governor, getting permission to conquer a piece of territory in exchange for some reward (land, vassals, tittles...etc.), and then he would recruit his own army. Hernán and Pizarro were like that, but they bended the law quite a bit and acted on their own.

Later, Felipe II of Spain put his foot down and sent governors, judges, soldiers and administrators to America, ending the age of the adventurers. The conquest of America was completed by soldiers under command of the governors.

Most of Cortez' original band of 500 men were specifically rodeleros, meaning they had the rotella and the sword, and as much as armor as they could afford of course, but not much else in the way of other weapons. As I already mentioned, he only had about a dozen each of arquebusiers and crossbowmen, both of whom were specialists and paid more than rodoleros. Very few were carrying spears.

A proper rodelero was a soldier specialized in close combat. Cortez's Conquistadores were adventurers who carried whatever weapons and armor they could get their hands on. Swords and rodelas were just the basic equipment, their bread and butter. They didn't have more arquebusses because they couldn't afford or find them, and they didn't have more crossbows because they didn't find more men trained in their use.

As for armor, I think most of them were relatively well armoured, it is the only thing that explains their high survival rate against their spear-wielding and javelin-throwing foes.

Anyways, if you read my post, I said that ideally they would get armor (morrion, shield and breastplate), sword and dagger (their basic weapons) and something else on top of that. They couldn't always get all of that.

Agreed except leather armor isn't likely. Textile yes.

Spanish soldiers who couldn't get metal armor or prefered to not use it wore tough leather jerkins, not textile armor. They rediscovered textile armor again in America.

Not only were montante's still in use then, that exact period was actually the heyday of the montante, particularly in Spain. Most of the fencing manuals which teach the montante were written in the lae 15th and through the 16th Century. They also (after Cortez) established a fencing school in Mexico City which was still teaching montante in the late 16th Century. They would train elite soldiers from the Americas to use as muscle in their far flung Empire.

I don't however know for sure that anyone with Cortez had them. Some of the cavalry had longswords apparently but that's a different weapon. Some of Cortez's men did also have halberds or bills (roncha)

Nope. montante fencing kept existing for some time as a sport, the same way crossbow shooting kept existing as a very popular sport in Europe long after it was discarded as a war weapon.

The montante wasn't one of the weapons used by the Spanish army, and the Conquistadores used a sword and shield combination, not montantes.

Some people have claimed that Don Juan de Austria used a montante, but they are wrong; he used a jineta, an ancient medieval arabic one-handed sword; foreign scholars read that Don Juan used an antiquated medieval sword, and they assumed it was a montante, but they were wrong.

As I understand it, rather than a steel shield most of the rodeleros would have been using a wood or leather version, or at least adopted a leather version once they reached the Americas. Although I'm a bit unclear on on the concept of the "rodelero". According to Taylor's Art of War in Italy, de Cordoba's reforms just called for 1/3rd of the men to be armed with a sword and dagger, as opposed to those who needed to bring a pike, sword, and dagger or an arquebus, sword, and dagger and that the decision to bring a shield as well was one the soldiers themselves made. Does that mean that the presence of so many sword and shield men was more of a cultural result rather than a tactical decision made by higher ups? For instance how 16th century English armies kept finding themselves flooded with billmen?

As for Spears, Bernal Diaz does mention at one point that Cortes had some of his native allies manufacture a large number of copper-tipped spears to equip his men with.

The military-grade rodelas crafted in Europe were made of steel. Once those ceased to be produced in Europe, colonial armies kept using shields, making them with leather, which was lighter, easier to make, and tough enough to counter the crappy weapons of the Native Americans.

But I think Pizarro and Cortez's men used European steel shields. There is no way leather shield would endure the kind of punishment it is described in the texts.

Of course, some men may have been so poor they couldn't afford a steel shield and had to use a leather one...

[snowblizz]

1- If I had to make a fort to defend against both cannon fire and pre-firearm armies, what would be a good compromise in architectural design? I suppose it'd just be better to use anti-cannon structure and then use cannons yourself to repel armies without firearms... But what if cannons were rare and/or too expensive too have in significant numbers?

Designing it properly in the way a starfort is actually made.

Which protects against cannons and any pre-firearm army. Which they did were tested against (to a degree, eg in colonial wars). Even in the heyday of starforts some were stormed. The Swedes eg didn't take to formal siege much. Sometimes it worked, often it lead to huge casualities. Ironically the Charles XII died ina formal by the book siege when he went into the trenches. He was a lead from front guy. And the 1600s was still fought by and large hand to hand.

The whole "designed against cannon" *includes* adequate protection from being stormed. It's not like the trace italienne is only for/against cannon.
If cannon are rare the round bastion type could make sense. That was one reason it was used in the North, not a lot of cannon around when it all came down to it. However they are very expensive to build. Am not 100% but it seems to me they provide a larger arc of fire with less cannon emplaced, where a starfort's batteries very efficiently cover a smaller area. Oh, and something just struck me. It's not always possible to build a proper starfort due to terrain e.g., it's a fairly sprawling complex. The most impressive looking ones tend to be on low flat ground.

[rrgg]

The military-grade rodelas crafted in Europe were made of steel. Once those ceased to be produced in Europe, colonial armies kept using shields, making them with leather, which was lighter, easier to make, and tough enough to counter the crappy weapons of the Native Americans.

But I think Pizarro and Cortez's men used European steel shields. There is no way leather shield would endure the kind of punishment it is described in the texts.

Of course, some men may have been so poor they couldn't afford a steel shield and had to use a leather one...

Rawhide is surprisingly tough stuff. Multiple layers of it would probably be enough to stop arrows or javelins while still being lighter than a steel shield.

The Tlaxcala Codex shows some of the spaniards carrying steel rodelas and some of them carrying leather Adargas.

Spoiler

Show

http://www.mesolore.org/tutorials/le...rs-and-Shields

[Incanur]

By 1503 the soldiers were evenly divided among pikemen, shieldmen (rodeleros) and gunmen, but rodeleros soon dissapeared, being folded into the other categories (pikemen and gunmen would carry a shield and a sword in their back and would drop their pike or gun and take their shield and sword for close combat).

What's your source for wearing the shield on the back and slinging it down to use with the sword for close combat? That's exactly what Raimond de Fourquevaux recommended in his 1548, but haven't found any other evidence for it. One late-16th-century English military manual recommends equipping arqubusiers with Venetian-style leather shields on their backs but this was hypothetical rather than common practice.

At the beginning, the rodeleros would carry javelins too, and they would throw those before engaging the enemy in close combat, but those were soon regarded as too ineffective and ceased to be used.

I'm also curious about your source for this. I haven't been able to find much about the military use of javelins in the 16th century.

They had a lot of trouble getting good cavalry, or any cavalry at all.

My impression is that much Spanish medium/light cavalry was high-quality. The cavalry under Hernán Cortés certainly perform incredible feats. Spanish men-at-arms did tend to lose to their French counterparts in the 16th century. Near the end of the 16th century, Sir Roger Williams seemed to respect Spanish lancers.

Most of Cortez and Pizarro's generation had lived in La Española for some time, and had gotten their battle experience working as slave-hunters, attacking native villages, rounding the inhabitants and taking them to the colonies. Before they conquered the Aztec and Inca Empires, they tended to be seen as scum by the rest of the Spaniards.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo mentioned companions who'd served in the Italian Wars and against the Ottomans, so some of them apparently had formal military experience in Europe.

Nope. montante fencing kept existing for some time as a sport, the same way crossbow shooting kept existing as a very popular sport in Europe long after it was discarded as a war weapon.

The montante wasn't one of the weapons used by the Spanish army, and the Conquistadores used a sword and shield combination, not montantes.

I don't know of any evidence of the Spanish army using montantes at any point in time, but the same basic weapon (the large two-handed sword) saw military use by Italian and German forces into the late 16th century. Giacomo di Grassi mentioned using two-handed swords to guard ensigns. Humphrey Barwick mentioned large two-handed swords as the reason for the long points on halberds: "the cause that the French officers do vse them with such long staues and pykes, is to encounter with the Lance-knights, who do vse being Sargiants of foote-bandes, to carrie verie good long swordes or Slaugh swordes."

Edit: Also, montantes in Spain and Portugal weren't only used for sport, but for civilian self-defense, especially by bodyguards.

As far as crossbows go, Fourquevaux advocated for them in 1548, when they indeed had mostly fallen out of military use.

[Max_Killjoy]

On leather:

(can't find the original video right now, just the two follow-ups)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=472fNlfSQYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmdZYXu4zVw

[Clistenes]

What's your source for wearing the shield on the back and slinging it down to use with the sword for close combat? That's exactly what Raimond de Fourquevaux recommended in his 1548, but haven't found any other evidence for it. One late-16th-century English military manual recommends equipping arqubusiers with Venetian-style leather shields on their backs but this was hypothetical rather than common practice.

These soldiers are Scottish (from the garrison of Lieja), but they are carrying their shields that way:


According to Diego de Salazar, it seems that the first line of the Spanish pike bloc in the Battle of Ravena (1512), made up mostly of captains and alféreces dropped their pikes and attacked their foes with sword and rodela.

I'm also curious about your source for this. I haven't been able to find much about the military use of javelins in the 16th century.

Because they saw barely any use at all. It was an idea that was brought up periodically and dropped again, because it didn't work. Machiavello proposed their use, Don Gonzalo de Córdoba tried to use them, and Diego de Salazar wanted to do it again. All of them were inspired by the Romans.

My impression is that much Spanish medium/light cavalry was high-quality.

The problem wasn't so much average quality, but that their recruiting was haphazard and inefficient, so they never got enough cavalry and had to resort to a lot of mercenaries. Spain didn't have something like the french gendarmerie

The cavalry under Hernán Cortés certainly perform incredible feats.

Those were private adventurers, they weren't representative of standing armies.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo mentioned companions who'd served in the Italian Wars and against the Ottomans, so some of them apparently had formal military experience in Europe.

Yes, as I said: "The Conquistadores weren't, for the most part, professional soldiers, but adventurers (some of which had a military background, and some which didn't)."

[Incanur]

Great, thanks for for the image and information. It looks like it's from Tercios de Flandes, so I've probably seen it before but must have forgotten. That's evidence that Fourquevaux's recommendation wasn't just a commander's wishful thinking. Wearing a shield on one's back in way that you can sling it down quickly without it getting in the way seems challenging, both for arquebusiers and pikers, but I guess it was possible. Pikers under Maurice of Nassau carried shields on their back during march but slung them down before getting their pikes in position according illustrations in manuals.

I'll have to look at Diego de Salazar again. I remembered that he'd recommended the javelins for targetiers. Fourquevaux recommended fireworks/grenades instead of javelins. Writing in the late 16th century, Matthew Sutcliffe suggested half-pikes for targetiers, to help resist cavalry and to throw at infantry. I'm not sure this was completely misguided, but it seems it at least didn't much matter or wasn't worth the trouble and/or expense.

Edit: It looks like Spanish soldiers did make some marginal use of montantes (large two-handed swords). It seems like it was mainly German, Swiss, and perhaps Italian soldiers than used large two-handed swords in significant numbers.

[rrgg]

The Scottish pikemen at Pinkie Cleugh were also each wearing a wooden shield on their left arm. Although it doesn't seemed to have helped much against arquebus and cannon fire. Towards the end of the century, those who still wanted "roman infantry" in their army were recommending a pistol instead of a javelin.

In the English colonies during the early 17th century, targeteers with pistols were apparently more useful against the native americans than pikemen, halberders or billmen were.

[Mike_G]

In the English colonies during the early 17th century, targeteers with pistols were apparently more useful against the native americans than pikemen, halberders or billmen were.

That seems like it makes sense for fighting skirmish type warfare in wooded and broken ground. I can't see the Native Americans attacking a pike block. They'd probably just retreat, fade into the woods then come and attack the army when it camped for the night.

[Amaril]

I'm working on a setting with about a late 9th century CE Carolingian tech level, and I'm thinking about what equipment would be available. Would maces or other blunt weapons be an option? I haven't encountered any mention of them in any of my research on the period, but I see no reason why at least some people wouldn't use them, even if they're not favorites. If they exist, what forms would they take?

[Pauly]

I'm working on a setting with about a late 9th century CE Carolingian tech level, and I'm thinking about what equipment would be available. Would maces or other blunt weapons be an option? I haven't encountered any mention of them in any of my research on the period, but I see no reason why at least some people wouldn't use them, even if they're not favorites. If they exist, what forms would they take?

Macrs, warhammers, flailsand other blunt instruments were known of but extremely rare. Since there was mo plate armor there was no real need for blunt impact weapons and swords, axes and spears were more effective against the armor they were facing mail, shield, helmet.

[fusilier]

Because they saw barely any use at all. It was an idea that was brought up periodically and dropped again, because it didn't work. Machiavello proposed their use, Don Gonzalo de Córdoba tried to use them, and Diego de Salazar wanted to do it again. All of them were inspired by the Romans.

The Hesperis manuscript (1460s?) depicts javelinmen on both sides during the siege of Piombino (1448). They are shown with small shields and are deployed alongside crossbowmen and handgunners. I do not know how widespread they were or if they employed beyond the 15th century.

[Kiero]

Because they saw barely any use at all. It was an idea that was brought up periodically and dropped again, because it didn't work. Machiavello proposed their use, Don Gonzalo de Córdoba tried to use them, and Diego de Salazar wanted to do it again. All of them were inspired by the Romans.

For infantry maybe; the Spanish fielded thousands of jinetes (javelin-armed horsemen) in this period.

[Clistenes]

For infantry maybe; the Spanish fielded thousands of jinetes (javelin-armed horsemen) in this period.

Javelin-armed horsemen were dropped during that period; pistols made javelins obsolete at the beginning of the the XVI century.

[Kiero]

Javelin-armed horsemen were dropped during that period; pistols made javelins obsolete at the beginning of the the XVI century.

Sorry if I don't believe it was the appearance of crappy early firearms made a well-deployed panolpy "obsolete". A javelin has a longer range and better accuracy than a horse pistol, and is much faster to "reload". The jinete wasn't just deployed in large numbers, it was a significant proportion of Spanish cavalry used in the Italian Wars. According to this article:

Jinetes constituted 38% of the Spanish horse at Cerignola (550 of 1,450), and 8% of the entire army (550 of 6,950). In the force organized for the second Naples expedition (1500), they were 50% of the cavalry (300 of 600) and 8% of the total. At Seminara I the jinetes were approximately 40% of the Spanish horse (400 of 1,000). In the army that confronted the French in Perpignan in 1503 there were 4,500 jinetes among the 6,500 horse (69%). The total strength of the army was 19,500.

These data, adduced from various sources, all considered reliable, show that in the period under consideration jinetes could constitute from 38-69% of the cavalry in any typical Spanish army. They would be about 8-23% of all field forces. These data underscore their significance in the early Italian Wars Spanish army.

I think it rather more likely that there were other underlying factors.

[rrgg]

Sorry if I don't believe it was the appearance of crappy early firearms made a well-deployed panolpy "obsolete". A javelin has a longer range and better accuracy than a horse pistol, and is much faster to "reload". The jinete wasn't just deployed in large numbers, it was a significant proportion of Spanish cavalry used in the Italian Wars. According to this article:



I think it rather more likely that there were other underlying factors.

That is what eventually happened though. By the end of the 16th century, pistoliers and mounted harquebusiers had almost completely replaced all other sorts of cavalry in western europe. Under ideal conditions a wheellock pistol shouldn't have much trouble hitting a horse and rider at at least 30 meters. Aiming the pistol while on a moving horse with multiple people charging to kill you was much more difficult, but so was aiming a javelin, or a 12 foot lance for that matter. In addition the pistol could penetrate armor much better and "murders more" than the other weapons could.

That said though the wheellock pistol didn't start to take off as a cavalry weapon until around 1530-1540 or so. In the few decades prior to that, small hackbutts and arquebuses were steadily becoming more popular among light horsemen. But for most of the Italian wars the main weapons used by light cavalry were still spears, javelins, bows, or crossbows.

[Kiero]

That is what eventually happened though. By the end of the 16th century, pistoliers and mounted harquebusiers had almost completely replaced all other sorts of cavalry in western europe. Under ideal conditions a wheellock pistol shouldn't have much trouble hitting a horse and rider at at least 30 meters. Aiming the pistol while on a moving horse with multiple people charging to kill you was much more difficult, but so was aiming a javelin, or a 12 foot lance for that matter. In addition the pistol could penetrate armor much better and "murders more" than the other weapons could.

That said though the wheellock pistol didn't start to take off as a cavalry weapon until around 1530-1540 or so. In the few decades prior to that, small hackbutts and arquebuses were steadily becoming more popular among light horsemen. But for most of the Italian wars the main weapons used by light cavalry were still spears, javelins, bows, or crossbows.

None of which contradicts my point - where's the evidence in any of that, that it was the pistol itself that was the cause of the decline? As opposed to other factors, like the type of men being used, the drain on the traditional source of light cavalry, whether the climate or terrain of one conflict favoured one type over another, size of armies and professionalism, and so on?

I'd also note by the time you're into the 1540s, we're not at the beginning of the 16th century any more.