"Armies of Ivan the Terrible" Topic

Thinking putting together a Muscovite army from my pile of 15mm Mike's Models.Should the streltsi be equipped with berdisch & arquebus? I am guessing the didn't really use a lot of pike & shot at this period? Thanks!

Yes, berdish and firearm. Regiments also carried some spears just like some 100 years war longbowmen had stakes. If cavalry was anticipated they would stick those in the ground at horse's chest level. Those were called "rogatki", but looked like ordinary spears. They hired Western regiments for pikes, but not a lot. At some point they had some of thier own regiments trained as pikemen, but I am not sure if it was done during Ivan the Terrible time, possibly much later. Historians, even in Russia, still debate that.

There is loads of debate on what Ivan the Terrible's army looked like. I have a friend who has been discussing the research on this period and this Russian professor stated that they don't have as many records or information on the armies or the composition of the troops and much of it is speculation. So, IGWARG1 is spot on – use what you are suggesting – infantry with the berdisch and arqubus/musket with some spearmen or hired pikemen.

Jovian, does your friend have any insight or ideas about the slightly later Muscovite army of the 1630's?

Well
Actually we can say about composition of Ivan IV's armed forces.
Main arm – noble horse consisted of boyars, gentleman and boyar sons. Unarmoured horses, armor quite similar to Polish pancerny. Armed with swords, bows, some firearms. Almost no spears. Of very high quality due to constant war.
Then tartars, some cossacks and 1-2-3 company of mercenary western horse
Then strelsy (musket+sword+hatchet and halfpike/berdysh though the latter were much more used in XVII c. – no spearmen). Also town cossacks (garrison troops), mercenary cossacks (can be used as cavalry and infanty both, but mostly infantry) and also levied foot used as auxiliary troops. All infantry was armed with firearms.
Then artillery – the best one in Europe.
And no pikes&shot – they first appeared in 1609.
After 1630s army started to change in western model based on Rusian soil.
The cause of little use of pikes in the East was simple.
1. There were mostly war of maneuver (with few battles) where pikes were obsolete.
2. In battle there was no men-at-arms like in Europe, so there were no need in pikes before Polish hussars become shock horse
3. Eastern horse are much more maneveurable than Western one, so pikes simple were not able to cover supporting shot adequately.
So shot were covered by fortifications, wagons, swine feathers and spanish reiters (rogatki)and relied mostly on firepower ans eastern horse were more vulnerable to it.

Hi Guys,

I agree with almost every Malcome said, save the quality of the Feudal cavalry. I think the evidence suggests they might of been OK versus Tartars but they were, on average and with many exceptions I am sure, quite inferior.

There was a decline from Medieval Russia to 'renaissance' Russia.

The latest Osprey has an interesting quote from an oberserver which suggests most had terrible equipment and did not want to fight.

I have a large 15mm Muscovite army. Actually my favourite but rate cavalry as militia with very bad command and control. Its great to win with them as you really have to play well.

The Osprey is not a bad source though misses any exploration of the new army the emerged in the 1634 campaign (drat – I was hoping it would have more).

Mark

If we'll state that noble feudal horse of Russia were so bad than we've got question – why Russia won so many wars against his enemies in 16-17th cent. And without superior numbers.
Quality of Russia gentry varied from elite Moscow gentry to poor gentlemen almost without lands/peasants. And all of them were professionals because of constant war on south frontier.
On field they fight according to rheir motivation that can be enough for repelling heavy attacks and so on. And organisation improved so greatly that we can say about Russian General Staff (Razryad) planning operation for whole theater of war. And commanders just as in other armies can be talented and respected in which case Russians were almost invincible (and vice versa).
So this army was efficient and cheap enough to be used widely. But since economical crisis destroyed this system in late 16th -early 17th government had to find another way to reconctruct army after Time of Troubles. And this resulted the creation of westernised regular army in 1650s.
P. S. This observer is Ivan Pososhkov who wrote this to Peter the Great and he much exagerrated poor quality of old type units. That was for political reasons.

I agree here with much of what Igwarg and Malcolm wrote.
Just to add- Russians used ( apparently) at that period what was called Guliay-Gorod ( walking fort) a temporary set up field fortifications vs Tatars and such. There is little info on those, but it has been suggested it looked like sections of wooden fence lashed together with ropes and belts on short notice. Also Berdysh was quite an effective weapon vs cavalry- mentioned as a serious problem since the times of Grunewald… Conpemporary sourses clearly state that quite a few provintial boyars came to the roster with state of thet art equipment and several well armed retainers- usually failure to do so resulted in monetary punishment. There was whole assesment sistem of boyar/dvor wealth, so according to the wealth they had to show up with certain arms/armor/retainers.
The decline of cavalry arm and eventually of the streltsy was due to their constant attempts to interfere in politics.
Mikhail and later Alexei Mikhailovich attempted several times to raise "foreign" regiments, which whould fall into decline also due to lack of funding. Only Peter the Great's
eventual drastic reforms brought the Western style army.
Please also remember that Russia at the time of Alexei Mikhailovich also actively supported Ukrainian cossacks and had a huge Stephan Razin uprising that was subdued after much struggle.

"Rebyata", are the TAG Russian cavalry suitable for use in the 1630's??

Privet, parnisha! :-)
TAG figs are very nice, I am not sure about lance armed cav- maybe very few, I wonder if the figs have pistols in saddle bags. I whould definitely mix guys with bows, pistols, drawn swords, MAYBE occasional arquibus and spaer…? I think OG figs with bows and pistol holsters are quite accurate. I do not see in TAG line any "foreign" troops, but one can use any western type pike and shot.
God forbid you paint any Rynda palace bodyguards as field troops- in their ermine tall hats, embroidered kaftans and ceremonial poleaxes- huzzar!

Hi All,

I don't feel the need to get into a debate but the eclectic and interesting organization and arms of the Muscovite aside, I think the evidence suggests that – again, with the exception of against tartars – the 17c army was not a great one and the feudal cavalry perhaps effective because of their sheer numbers.

I am not looking to get into a 'political discussion' about this. Despite my "old Polack" handle, for example, I see alot of email chatter claiming the Polish renaissance army was unbelievably effective. I disagree. I think it was pretty good in the very early 17c and then probably an average army until the 1650s against most everyone save the Tartars. It declined in quality rapidly after that.

Hey, my background is part Russian and I am OK with saying that the overall army in the first part of the 17c was not great, and the feudal cavalry not very good at all. Why would feudally organized cavalry – in Russia or Spain or England – be any different?

Mark