"Thirty Years War: deep/large cavalry formations?" Topic

I've seen in various pike and shot rulesets that they address "large" cavalry formations. I remember reading of instances (perhaps earlier in the war) where a cavalry formation was deployed in larger formation than normal (I think normally mounted arqbusiers).

Does anyone know of actual instances in battles where this phenomenon occurred? I plan on modelling some large bases of cavalry and curious which battles would make appropriate scenarios. Thank you for any information in advance.

To be able to answer that I'd need to ask – how large is 'large' ?

3-rank & 6 rank formations are both fairly common throughout the war but some reiters using caracole tactics early in the war were probably deeper.

TMP link

Here's a link to a previous discussion about cavalry formation depths in the Thirty Years' War (thanks for the info Daniel S)

TMP link

Daniel S also contributes here too and this post provides more context as to what the "Dutch" formation was

Thanks, I was searching for some information from Daniel S insights but my querying wasn't getting me what I was looking for. Those links are very helpful.

Perhaps my recollection was from a writer just referencing an imperial harqbusier formation as being deployed in deep ranks and I interpreted that as a special occurrence for the particular battle/commander (not sure why I thought it was Pappenheim or Piccomolini) as opposed to being the norm for the doctrine of the belligerent.

I will put together a few of the "large" base units of harqbusiers for Spanish/Imperial forces and just use them when I see appropriate. Huge blocks of cavalry are just too tempting not to deploy on the tabletop.

I would be interested in the tactical thought behind cavalry depth.

For instance, was the choice of a very deep formation to facilitate caracole tactics?

Was the transition in the 1630's to more shallow formations to facilitate charge / trot to contact tactics?

I assume that the deeper the formation, the looser it has to be. All you would need to disrupt a deep formation is a horse in the first couple of ranks to stumble or get hit and the next 6 or 8 ranks crashes or breaks up. A loose formation allows the rearward ranks to avoid the wounded horse.

Conversely, a shallow formation can be tighter. A front rank horse is hit and it just disrupts a couple of ranks to its rear and the remaining horses can close up and trot onwards.

@huevans011
In the first link I posted, Daniel S mentions that the deeper formations were used at least partially by arquebusiers because the shallower formations required better-trained officers than they had available.

As you know, during the Thirty Years' War arquebusiers would really be the only regular cavalry troops to use the caracole, so you may be right about it enhancing that ability.

Of course, this doesn't explain why the deeper formations stuck around for so long with cuirassiers, but Daniel S asserts in the same thread that practical experience on the battlefield probably provided further incentive to move away from such tactics.

My guess would be that with Germans generally fighting more abbreviated conflicts, either with few field battles as in the case of the succession conflicts over Montferrat and Julich, or against an enemy whose tactics didn't necessarily mirror their own as was the case with the Long Turkish War.

I wouldn't charge with arquebusiers in any event. They weren't properly equipped or horsed for it. So caracole would be an appropriate tactic.

With cuirassiers, you could trot to contact and fire pistols, but I don't really see the point in having more than 3 ranks. It's not as though all those horses are going to be useful if they all mash into 1 deep formation.

Not closely related to the issue in this thread, but nice photos of Black Fellows banging people with pistols.

link