| Author |
Message |
Elling Polden
|
 Posted: Wed 07 Sep, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
As for who charges who with what, the most imoportant factor for determining who wins or dies is the moral of the troops.
Aztec warriors with clubs could overrun 1945 SS Panzergrenadiers, if their morale fails
The same goes for sword and buckler vs pikes or shot. You do not have to kill every man in a pike square to break it. All it takes is for them to scatter. Once they do, they will not attack until they have reformed, will probably drop their pikes, and so on.
Same goes for shot. They are not close combat troops, and they know it. Thus they will tend to bolt when the close combat experts come into range.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
    |
 |
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Sep, 2005 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: | Daniel,
Not to nitpick, but the fight outside Barletta was against Swiss, not Germans. |
Well since we are nitpicking  the term "swiss" was actualy an insult towards the Eidgenossen in the early 16th Century. The soldeirs of the Helvetic confedration certainly didn't call themselves "Swiss/Schwitzer" durign the eraly Italian wars. Later on the term was adopted as a name by the Eidgenossen themselves much like the term Dersert Rats began as an insult in WWII and in the end became a nick-name used by pride by the Brittish army even today. Early period Spanish sources tend to call all german speakers "Germans" regardless of wether they were German landsknechts or Swiss reislaufers.
| Quote: | But, there appears to be gaps in this suggestion. Surely, any Germans forced into close quarters would have resorted to their katzbalgers, daggers, and so forth--so what gave the Spanish such an advantage? Hand bucklers? Do we even have any evidence of Spanish picas equipped with hand bucklers?
In any event, it seems to make more sense that the large-scale demise of the rodelero was more a matter of simple timing--i.e., it had to do with a combination of the destruction of the Spanish army at Ravenna (where a good number of veteran rodeleros must have perished), and the growing importance of firearms.
And FWIW, Machiavelli is not the only writer of the time to mention the use of rodeleros by the Spanish at Ravenna--it is also mentioned by Francesco Guicciardini, in his Storia d'Italia of 1537. |
Giovio also mentions the events at Ravenna if I remember correctly. Regardless of the size of their bucklers/targets or wether they were specialised targeteers or pikemen sword armed Spaniards did a lot of damage to the Landsknechts at Ravenna, I'm not questionign that. But as you ask me below, was Ravenna the norm? I think I've already proven that the success of the targeteers at Ravenna was due to a whole series of factors of which their weaponry was only one.
A man using a sword is IMHO at a disadvantage agaisnt one armed with both sword and buckler or target. and given the other factors invovled such an advantage became the final straw which broke the Landsknechts.
Bucklers were quite common in use at the time and even if soldiers were armed with pikes most of the time the Spanish army had both targets and halbereds by the wagonload at Ravenna since such arms were considered usefull in siege operations.
FWIW I I'm still not decied about the exact composition and armament of the Spanish infantry units at Ravenna, the newly found spanish sources to me suggest a more complex picture of the events than that suggested by a casual reading of Machiavelli's and Guicciardini's accounts and a look at the paper organisation of the spanish infantry prior to 1534.
| Quote: | | Do you have any info on specific engagements? How many units of Venetian rotularii were actually involved? Did they have proper support from decent pikemen? |
Do you read German? The main battle was Creazzo 1513 but I've only some very general notes on it when I read up on Georg von Frundsberg several years ago. If you read german I could try to get scans of the relevant pages from the sources I used. But I'm not up to translating a lot of original German into English at the moment, some is ok, but I simply havn't the time to do.
| Quote: | | We appear to have different figures here. According to Ian Heath, a "typical" tercio under the Duke of Alva consisted of 10 companies of mixed pike-and-shot, and 2 companies exclusively of shot. It should also be noted that, of the mixed companies, 1/4 of the pike element were actually a mix of halberdiers and targetiers. The combination of mixed companies and shot companies would have resulted in a 50:50 pike to shot ratio. Heath also states that, by the 1580s, there were typically only 40 "armed men" (pikemen, halberdiers, & targetiers), for every 60 shot. |
I'm familar with Heath's work both it's many strengths and it's flaws. Both the Spanish and Dutch chapters of "Armies of the 16th Century" have weaknesses due to the limited use of Spanish and Dutch sources by the author.
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/organisationUK.html has more uptodate and better detailed data thanks to the use of Spanish sources. As you can see the percentages I quoted are partly based on the actual strenght of the units. As you can see the 50:50 claim is not supported by the offical organisation of the 12 company Tercios Alva brought to the Netherlands, nor do the muster lists support such a ration within the Tercio. As can be seen from the 1596 numbers ratio was still 40% shot to 49% pikes. The 1/4 of halberdiers and targeteers are based on Sir Roger Williams account, not on Spanish documentation. While I'm not questioning that sir Roger saw units with that proportion of oarms I'm wondering wether it was a local adaption to the nature of warfare in the Netherlands rather than official policy? After all the Spanish army that entered the 80-eyars war was prepapred to re-fight the Italian and Valois-Habsburg wars. Once there they ahd to engage in a very diffrent kind of warfare. And being the most adaptable and resourcefull soldiers of the age they probably adapted as needed.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The pike could do more than just protect the shot from cavalry, if that was the objective the colunella had the right ratio of pike to shot to begin with (1:1 as recomended by Monck and Gustavus amogn others). The pike was the weapon of decision in any open battle as far as the infantry fight was concerned, determined pikemen could often if by no means not always get the better of most shot as late as the early 18th Century when Swedish pikmen defeated the Danish Grenadier Corps (a very elite unit) in a hard fight at the battle of Gadebusch (1712). During the Swedish-Polish war of 1600-1629 German musketeers in Polish service promptly ran away on several occaisions rather than face the charge of the Swedish pikemen. |
But was this really the norm? |
My main point was that the pikes provided the most effective means of delivering the decisive shock action in open infantry warfare. Shot had a only a limited ability to do so, althoug with good cover or fortfied postions they coudl turn the tables on the pikes such as at La Bicocca.
Regards
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Sep, 2005 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
David, are you talking about sword-and-buckler men being good at killing pikemen on their own or only after the initial clash of pike on pike? I can agree with the latter but not the former. It'd take a great deal to convince me that sword-and-buckler men have the advantage over pikemen in the open.
Pike squres were used for more than just fending off cavalry. The were made to crush other infantry, and did so regularly. That's exactly what the Swiss did to Gansalvo de Cordova's sword-and-buckler men in an early encounter.
| Quote: | | The 1/4 of halberdiers and targeteers are based on Sir Roger Williams account |
Hmm. Where does Williams say that? He says "the Pike is the strength of all Battailes" and that "the experimented Spaniards commands all their chiefe men on foote to carrie the Pike." He does suggests 200 halberds or bills among 1000 pikes, but has very little for use for targets, at least targets of proof (200 per 10,000 men).
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Sep, 2005 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Benjamin,
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | David, are you talking about sword-and-buckler men being good at killing pikemen on their own or only after the initial clash of pike on pike? I can agree with the latter but not the former. It'd take a great deal to convince me that sword-and-buckler men have the advantage over pikemen in the open. |
I'm talking about targetiers properly supported by friendly pikemen, so that they have an opportunity to infiltrate the enemy pike-block and do their work.
| Quote: | | Pike squres were used for more than just fending off cavalry. The were made to crush other infantry, and did so regularly. That's exactly what the Swiss did to Gansalvo de Cordova's sword-and-buckler men in an early encounter. |
And again, that only happened once--at Seminara. That was the only battle that Cordoba ever lost. After that, he made a habit of regularly trouncing his opponents, pikemen included.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The 1/4 of halberdiers and targeteers are based on Sir Roger Williams account |
Hmm. Where does Williams say that? He says "the Pike is the strength of all Battailes" and that "the experimented Spaniards commands all their chiefe men on foote to carrie the Pike." He does suggests 200 halberds or bills among 1000 pikes, but has very little for use for targets, at least targets of proof (200 per 10,000 men). |
Heath notes that Williams mentions that the mixed pike-and-shot companies in the Army of Flanders were 3/4 pikemen and 1/4 halberdiers and targetiers.
Best,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Sep, 2005 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Daniel,
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: | Daniel,
Not to nitpick, but the fight outside Barletta was against Swiss, not Germans. |
Well since we are nitpicking the term "swiss" was actualy an insult towards the Eidgenossen in the early 16th Century. The soldeirs of the Helvetic confedration certainly didn't call themselves "Swiss/Schwitzer" durign the eraly Italian wars. Later on the term was adopted as a name by the Eidgenossen themselves much like the term Dersert Rats began as an insult in WWII and in the end became a nick-name used by pride by the Brittish army even today. Early period Spanish sources tend to call all german speakers "Germans" regardless of wether they were German landsknechts or Swiss reislaufers. |
I'm well aware of the derogatory nature of the term "Swiss"; I was simply indicating that the troops at Barletta were reislaufer, as opposed to landsknechte.
| Quote: | | Quote: | But, there appears to be gaps in this suggestion. Surely, any Germans forced into close quarters would have resorted to their katzbalgers, daggers, and so forth--so what gave the Spanish such an advantage? Hand bucklers? Do we even have any evidence of Spanish picas equipped with hand bucklers?
In any event, it seems to make more sense that the large-scale demise of the rodelero was more a matter of simple timing--i.e., it had to do with a combination of the destruction of the Spanish army at Ravenna (where a good number of veteran rodeleros must have perished), and the growing importance of firearms.
And FWIW, Machiavelli is not the only writer of the time to mention the use of rodeleros by the Spanish at Ravenna--it is also mentioned by Francesco Guicciardini, in his Storia d'Italia of 1537. |
Giovio also mentions the events at Ravenna if I remember correctly. Regardless of the size of their bucklers/targets or wether they were specialised targeteers or pikemen sword armed Spaniards did a lot of damage to the Landsknechts at Ravenna, I'm not questionign that. But as you ask me below, was Ravenna the norm? |
I never asked you if "Ravenna was the norm"--I asked you if pikemen dispersing musketeers was the norm.
| Quote: | I think I've already proven that the success of the targeteers at Ravenna was due to a whole series of factors of which their weaponry was only one.
A man using a sword is IMHO at a disadvantage agaisnt one armed with both sword and buckler or target. and given the other factors invovled such an advantage became the final straw which broke the Landsknechts. |
And likewise for the Swiss at Barletta, and the Macedonians in their various encounters with the Romans.
| Quote: | | Bucklers were quite common in use at the time and even if soldiers were armed with pikes most of the time the Spanish army had both targets and halbereds by the wagonload at Ravenna since such arms were considered usefull in siege operations. |
Not to mention that espada y rodela was a traditional form of swordsmanship in Spain--one which they excelled in.
| Quote: | | FWIW I I'm still not decied about the exact composition and armament of the Spanish infantry units at Ravenna, the newly found spanish sources to me suggest a more complex picture of the events than that suggested by a casual reading of Machiavelli's and Guicciardini's accounts and a look at the paper organisation of the spanish infantry prior to 1534. |
Fair enough.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Do you have any info on specific engagements? How many units of Venetian rotularii were actually involved? Did they have proper support from decent pikemen? |
Do you read German? The main battle was Creazzo 1513 but I've only some very general notes on it when I read up on Georg von Frundsberg several years ago. If you read german I could try to get scans of the relevant pages from the sources I used. But I'm not up to translating a lot of original German into English at the moment, some is ok, but I simply havn't the time to do. |
That's OK.
Unfortunately, I do not read German. I'll still see what I can find out about Creazzo. Douglas Miller in The Landsknechts doesn't give much on this action--he simply states that Frundsberg was reinforced with Spanish and Italian contingents, and the some 8,000 mercs in Venetian service perished. He mentions nothing about specific troop types, unfortunately.
In Italian Medieval Armies 1300-1500, David Nicolle mentions that in 1487, Venetian troops fought off Swiss infantry, but he likewise does not mention specific troop types on the Venetian side (rotularii, etc).
| Quote: | | Quote: | | We appear to have different figures here. According to Ian Heath, a "typical" tercio under the Duke of Alva consisted of 10 companies of mixed pike-and-shot, and 2 companies exclusively of shot. It should also be noted that, of the mixed companies, 1/4 of the pike element were actually a mix of halberdiers and targetiers. The combination of mixed companies and shot companies would have resulted in a 50:50 pike to shot ratio. Heath also states that, by the 1580s, there were typically only 40 "armed men" (pikemen, halberdiers, & targetiers), for every 60 shot. |
I'm familar with Heath's work both it's many strengths and it's flaws. Both the Spanish and Dutch chapters of "Armies of the 16th Century" have weaknesses due to the limited use of Spanish and Dutch sources by the author.
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/organisationUK.html has more uptodate and better detailed data thanks to the use of Spanish sources. As you can see the percentages I quoted are partly based on the actual strenght of the units. As you can see the 50:50 claim is not supported by the offical organisation of the 12 company Tercios Alva brought to the Netherlands, nor do the muster lists support such a ration within the Tercio. As can be seen from the 1596 numbers ratio was still 40% shot to 49% pikes. The 1/4 of halberdiers and targeteers are based on Sir Roger Williams account, not on Spanish documentation. While I'm not questioning that sir Roger saw units with that proportion of oarms I'm wondering wether it was a local adaption to the nature of warfare in the Netherlands rather than official policy? After all the Spanish army that entered the 80-eyars war was prepapred to re-fight the Italian and Valois-Habsburg wars. Once there they ahd to engage in a very diffrent kind of warfare. And being the most adaptable and resourcefull soldiers of the age they probably adapted as needed. |
Thanks for the link. I'll admit that I'm not sure what to say, as I've always been under the impression that firearms became increasingly important as the century wore on.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | The pike could do more than just protect the shot from cavalry, if that was the objective the colunella had the right ratio of pike to shot to begin with (1:1 as recomended by Monck and Gustavus amogn others). The pike was the weapon of decision in any open battle as far as the infantry fight was concerned, determined pikemen could often if by no means not always get the better of most shot as late as the early 18th Century when Swedish pikmen defeated the Danish Grenadier Corps (a very elite unit) in a hard fight at the battle of Gadebusch (1712). During the Swedish-Polish war of 1600-1629 German musketeers in Polish service promptly ran away on several occaisions rather than face the charge of the Swedish pikemen. |
But was this really the norm? |
My main point was that the pikes provided the most effective means of delivering the decisive shock action in open infantry warfare. Shot had a only a limited ability to do so, althoug with good cover or fortfied postions they coudl turn the tables on the pikes such as at La Bicocca. |
But what system was ultimately better--the Spanish one, where rodeleros were still employed to some degree, or the German, where such troops were not used?
Thanks,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Sep, 2005 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And again, that only happened once--at Seminara. That was the only battle that Cordoba ever lost. After that, he made a habit of regularly trouncing his opponents, pikemen included. |
Yes - once he got some pikemen of his own. There's no evidence that I've seen of sword-and-buckler men alone defeating pikemen.
But I have no problem with the idea that pikemen + sword-and-buckler men had the advantage against a group of a only pikemen. Halberds and greatsword were used in the same fashion after pike met pike, though perhaps with less success do to their greater length. A meter long sword and a small to medium sized shield do sound a bit easier to use in a tight press.
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Sep, 2005 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Um... Are we going to ever take this back to techniques of shortsword use?
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
  |
|
Randolph Howard
Location: Bath, England. Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Sep, 2005 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | As for who charges who with what, the most imoportant factor for determining who wins or dies is the moral of the troops.
Aztec warriors with clubs could overrun 1945 SS Panzergrenadiers, if their morale fails
The same goes for sword and buckler vs pikes or shot. You do not have to kill every man in a pike square to break it. All it takes is for them to scatter. Once they do, they will not attack until they have reformed, will probably drop their pikes, and so on.
Same goes for shot. They are not close combat troops, and they know it. Thus they will tend to bolt when the close combat experts come into range. |
Without your beard Elling, I'd chase you off with a baguette. 
George- no idea, I've got some reading material the guys have directed me too, so I'm happy! And, of course, the argument taking place is about the relevence of the short (as in Silver short) sword in reneissance warfare- I suppose technique comes into that somewhere.  I rather like the organic thread as it happens.
"A collision at sea can ruin your entire day."
-Thucydides.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Sep, 2005 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
It better be a short baguette, or we going OT agian.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Randolph Howard
Location: Bath, England. Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Sep, 2005 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back on short swords then...
I've ordered mine! The new Mainz from Albion. Hooray! It's going to take a while what with them not actually being in production yet, but Mike's a lovely chap, and says status reports will flow freely. And that truly was the best timed sale extension ever.
I'm chewing my toenails in anticipation- also a little bit worried that the ship carrying it over here will sink or something. 
"A collision at sea can ruin your entire day."
-Thucydides.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Sep, 2005 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| George Hill wrote: | | Um... Are we going to ever take this back to techniques of shortsword use? |
A note: Please allow the Moderators to do the moderating.
Evolving conversations are natural, expected, and even encouraged in some cases. If we feel a thread has wandered too far, we'll take care of it.
I can see where the original poster might re-iterate their question if they feel it hasn't been answered, but, generally, we ask the readers to allow us to do our job.
Thanks!
Now back to the thread...
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic