"Cuirassier armour and shot?" Topic
61 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the English Civil War Message Board Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2
| Gustav A | 30 Jan 2008 7:21 p.m. PST |
Rich,
With regards to the question of the use of muskets in the French wars of Religion (this thread TMP link your written account was written no less than 14 years before the start of said wars. Not the best source to support a later image with IMO.
Still on that point I mostly agree with you, apart from the Spanish I have yet to see solid evidence for musket use in the FWOR. Though I have to recheck the muster rolls for Essex army at Rouen in the 1590's and the Dutch troops serving in the Rouen campaign may have used muskets as well. I didn't say that one should discount images, only that they are are hard sources to use and need to be carefully verified by other means. I use images as sources myself.
(Do note that I separate the images made for public use such as the prints of Dreux, Breitenfeld and Lutzen and those which are part of military texts such as Wallhausen and Fronsperger.) A print may indeed tell us that arquebusiers work with gendarmes but it doesn't tell us how they did it. Key details are left out or simply not possible to portray in an image.
Compare this print of a Swedish brigade
picture
With the detailed drawing made to scale for military use
picture
While the TE print certainly gets the shape right it gives an erronous impression of the depth and frontage of the brigade and leaves out key parts of the brigade formation such as the gaps between the musketeer corporalships and the fact that the musketeers of the centre squadron are not formed up as single mass of men with little space to spare And "perceptual reality" or not the Lutzen prints provide an erronous description of the Imperial deployment and formations. If used as a valid & accurate source the end result will be misleading. "I doubt most of this can be confirmed without a lot more research"
Well Rich since you don't know me nor have had acess to my research I doubt you are qualified to make such a statement. |
| 1stJaeger | 31 Jan 2008 3:50 a.m. PST |
Thanks a lot for the info CaptainGars! Your expertise is (as always) highly welcome!! Research is never an easy task, more like walking in a minefield IMHO, not always rewarding, but always full of risks :-)! |
| Rich Knapton | 01 Feb 2008 12:14 a.m. PST |
"your written account was written no less than 14 years before the start of said wars." Your right. I confused the English publication date with the first publication date, a definite no no. I'm am pleased you brought that up. It makes this work, for my purposes, even more important but that's another subject. "Well Rich since you don't know me nor have had access to my research I doubt you are qualified to make such a statement." It is not a matter of knowing you or your research. It is a matter of you presenting something to back up such a sweeping generality. In the absence of such material, the statement is well justified. OK, let talk about your pictures. You use one picture to expand upon the limitations of the another. I find that ironic. Especially since you argument is: "I didn't say that one should discount images, only that they are a hard sources to use and need to be carefully verified by OTHER MEANS." Nevertheless, if one wants to understand how the three battalions of pikes with their shot were formed by the Swedes, the first picture is quite adequate by itself. We don't need the second picture. And, we don't need it to be verified by any other means. The first picture doesn't tell us how these battalions worked together. Did the rear units move forward to come on line with the center battalion or did the center battalion fallback or did they remain in this position while being attacked? The second picture doesn't tell us either. I have copies of these pictures as well. With regards to the second picture, we must take care. This was an example of an older, out of date, diagram of how the Swedish brigade was formed. Please notice the fourth battalion of pikes at the bottom of the page. If you were to try use this picture to show how the Swedish brigade was formed during the TYW, then you would be quite wrong. It would be just as misleading as trying to show that an older formation was used at Leutzen. Now the question was whether or not shot was used in conjunction with cavalry, my picture shows not only the two working together but shows how the shot was used. link Notice that the shot is firing in support of the cavalry as it charged into the enemy cavalry unit. The print is of a portion of the battle of St. Denis painted by JJ Perrissin (16th century). We don't need any other verification "by other means" that in 1567 the idea of using shot in support of cavalry existed. The trick to using pictures is to only ask of it evidence which it can provide. Rich |
| Rich Knapton | 01 Feb 2008 12:24 a.m. PST |
"Though I have to recheck the muster rolls for Essex army at Rouen in the 1590's and the Dutch troops serving in the Rouen campaign may have used muskets as well." I don't think the muster rolls will tell you what you want. It may tell you that muskets were indeed present with the army. It will not tell you if they were used in open battle. The musket with rest had been around since at least 1525. Yet there is no indication they were used in open battle. In all likelihood, if they showed up at muster, their function was for siege work not battle. Rich |
| Gustav A | 01 Feb 2008 5:08 a.m. PST |
Rich,
What you have is the scan posted to the now gone Rempas Yahoo group from where it was copied to Renwars. It was originaly posted to the TYW yahoo group in 2002.
However I work with the original document. I used the scan in question since it was available and easy to link to. You seem to have missed the next part of my statement were I separate images into two groups. Those made for public usage in work such as Theatrum Eurpaeum and those made for actual military use such as the diagrams publlished in Wallhausen's works or the documents used by the various armies for their actual operations. Two diffrent kinds of sourcematerial even if they both can be described as images. All images are not created equal:-) Your are right that the diagrams& images I've posted doesn't tell us how the brigade worked in action. That is why one has to use other sources, both written & pictorial, to complete the picture.
So we don't need the 2nd diagram do we?! ;-)
After all the detailed informtion it provides about the frontage and depth of the formation (notice the little scale at the bottom of the scan), it's depciton of the spacing of the shot and the fact that it shows us were the brigade artillery was posted is of no use at all to the military historian. ;-))
An old, out of date diagram? The 4-squadron brigade not used during the TYW? Care to provide sources to back up those statements?
The historians employed by the General Staff, Bertil C:son Barkman and Richard Brzezinski all disagree with you. As does Gustavus himself since the 4 squadron brigade appears in at several of the diagrams of the deployement used by the Swedish army drawn by his own hand, all dated to the TYW period. Lord Reay (Col. Mackay)recorded it for posterity as well. The apperance of the "Swedish brigade" is directly linkedto the Swedish entry into the TYW on large scale in 1630. (Sweden had been involved in the war on small scale from 1628) Indeed there is no evidence for it's use prior to 1630. The document previously dated to 1628 which was used as evidence for the use of 4-squadron brigades can now be proven to belong firmly to 1630 due to the presence of units which either did not exist in 1628 or were not deployed to Prussia. Said units did however form a part of the Swedish army in 1630. Furthermore the the presence of two units which in late 1630 were reformed into a new regiment narrows the gap even further and firmly places the document in 1630.
picture
While brigades are mentioned during the Prussian war of 1626-1629 a study of the surviving order of battles show that these brigades were much larger formations made up of both horse and foot.
picture
picture
Nor do the deployments show the 'Swedish brigade' with typical shape. Instead you find infantry squadrons arranged in much larger, triangular formations inspired by Dutch tactics. (But adapted to the conditions of Swedish-Polish warfare)
picture
The 3-squadron brigade was merely a 4-squadron brigade without the 4th (reserve) squadron. It's presence or absence did not alter the formation of the 3 frontline squadrons. As is shown by the brigades deployed at Frankfurth in may 1631
picture
Do note the absence of the commanded shot which had been detached to act independently. The reserver units (4th squadron, commanded shot) of the brigade were used as needed. In at least one instance Gustavus detached not only the commanded shot from the brigade but also the shot belonging to the 4th squadron leaving a pike-only reserve.
picture So the diagram is neither old, nor out of date and the fact that it is drawn to scale and contains a wealth of additonal information makes it one of the most important sources for the study of the 3-squadron or 4-squadron brigade during the TYW. |
| Gustav A | 01 Feb 2008 5:32 a.m. PST |
"Now the question was whether or not shot was used in conjunction with cavalry, my picture shows not only the two working together but shows how the shot was used. link Notice that the shot is firing in support of the cavalry as it charged into the enemy cavalry unit. The print is of a portion of the battle of St. Denis painted by JJ Perrissin (16th century). We don't need any other verification "by other means" that in 1567 the idea of using shot in support of cavalry existed. The trick to using pictures is to only ask of it evidence which it can provide." Actualy the questions was not wether or not shot was used in support of cavalry. I never claimed otherwise, indeed I mentioned that Henri IV did so as well as the fact that such tactics are described by Italian military writer Bancacatio in a text published in 1582. What Perrissin's picture shows are the Huguenot arquebusiers entrenched and hidden on each flank of the Huguenot army. (As described by among others Oman and notice the trench in front of the arquebusiers in your picture)
Not exactly the same as Gustavus commanded musketeers who were interspersed. with the cavalry and moved with it on the battlefield.
This also why it s important to use written source to put an image in it's proper context. |
| Gustav A | 01 Feb 2008 6:18 a.m. PST |
If the Spanish&Dutch only used the musket in sieges as you claim why did they deploy musketeers in their battle formations? "The pikemen were on the centre (the first row was called the line of the captains) with the two garrisons of harquebusiers. The rest of harquebusiers were deployed in 4 mangas of 240 men. The musketeers were deployed in front or with the harquebusiers.
In total we have 1500 pikemen, 1230 Harquebusiers and 168 Musketeers."
picture
Dr. Pierre Picouet at
link "Circa 250 pikemen were stationed in the centre of each half regiment, flanked on each side by 80 musketeers each (…)"
J.P Puype in "Victory at Niuwpoort, 2 July 1600" printed "Exercise of Arms, Warfare in the Netherlands (1568-1648) "The battalions were initially drawn up about 12-deep, but by c. 1595 ten-deep had become the accepted norm, with the pikemen (who were occasionaly drawn up only six or five-deep) in the centre, the musketeers on their flanks, and the arquebusiers on their flanks in turn."
Ian Heath in "Armies of the Sizteenth Century And of course both Maurits van Nassau and Johann von Nassau-Siegen both write that musketeers are used in battleformations |
| Rich Knapton | 01 Feb 2008 1:58 p.m. PST |
"Actually the questions was not whether or not shot was used in support of cavalry." No the question was could I prove it by the use of pictorial representations. When I mentioned the prints I have showing shot supporting cavalry you said such evidence is frequently unreliable. In other words, I should not rely on the print to support my contention. I disagreed. Depending on the question being asked of it, prints can be quite reliable. What the print of St. Denis shows is that shot was used to support cavalry not in the 1590s with Henry IV, not in 1582 with Bancacatio but in 1567. This is not how Gustavus used them but then I never said they were used as Gustavus used them. I have other prints of this period showing shot marching with cavalry. I don't need a written description of this fact. Depending on the questions being asked of this type of evidence needs no other type of evidence to support it. As to the Swedish formation, I'll respond on the other topic of foot formations. Rich |
| Rich Knapton | 01 Feb 2008 2:00 p.m. PST |
"If the Spanish & Dutch only used the musket in sieges as you claim why did they deploy musketeers in their battle formations?" I never made any such claim. I said that while the musket with rest had been around since 1525, there is no indication that they were used in the open battle during the FWOR. The wars between Maurice and the Spanish are a bit later. And should not be used to try to show I'm incorrect. Rich |
| Gustav A | 01 Feb 2008 6:07 p.m. PST |
Rich,
With regards to the use of muskets in battle you wrote the following 31 Jan 2008 11:24 p.m. PST: "I don't think the muster rolls will tell you what you want. It may tell you that muskets were indeed present with the army. It will not tell you if they were used in open battle. The musket with rest had been around since at least 1525. Yet there is no indication they were used in open battle. In all likelihood, if they showed up at muster, their function was for siege work not battle." To me the following in particular sounds like a strong claim that muskets were not used in battle
"Yet there is no indication they were used in open battle. In all likelihood, if they showed up at muster, their function was for siege work not battle"
But perhaps I misread you? (Meant as an honest question) The above you posted as a reply to my post were I mentioned the English and Dutch troops who served around Rouen in the 1590-1592 during the 8th War of Religion (1585-1598)
Maurits was very much fighting the Spanish in the 1590 to 1592 period. The Spanish "Cuadro de Terreno" or "Field square" which I linked to is from 1570 and thus predates Maurits. |
| Rich Knapton | 03 Feb 2008 7:45 p.m. PST |
I was simply saying the presence of muskets will not show their use in battle. Especially since the action at Rouen was a siege. I read that just recently a musket used at Neupoort has been discovered. Thus Maurice did incorporate the musket into his battle formations but this was long after the French Wars of Religion. Rich |
Pages: 1 2
|
