"Spanish Colunella & Tercio infantry" Topic

Spanish Colunella formations,a few questions;

1.)How exactly were they deployed and used on the battlefield, were they literally assembled in column or is that merely a reference to their 1:1:1 proportions of arquebus, pike and sword and bucklermen?

2.)Were colunellas an experiment exclusive to the Spanish Neapolitan army of Cordoba or were they replicated on other fronts?

3.)Why after such successes against the swiss did the use of swordsmen dwindle and, finally

4.)What time period were the colunellas employed before being replaced by tercio tactics, could one refer to colunellas as being of the Italian Wars and Tercios as being of the TYW?

Cheers guys. I can find plenty of reference to the tercios but little (other than conquistador) reference to Spanish armies of the Italian Wars.

sorry, I can find little other reference to earlier spanish armies other than conquistador

This site offers useful information. The introduction explains the "coronelía":

link

I think that you will find that both the collunella and the tercio are administrative units, the tercio followed on from the colunella. The term 'Tercio' was still used for Spanish foot units until the late 18th century and was equivalent to a regiment.

The exact composition & formation of either varied both in time and by situation. Early versions seem to have had relatively small proportions of pike at times and a mix of crossbows and firearms but they soon came to be all firearm and increased the proportion of pikes. As I understand it they were always more 'fire' oriented than the Swiss and more flexible in their deployment.

Hi

During the middle ages, Italian militia started as Byzantine thema consisting of bandas of 350-500 heavy infantry paired with bandas of similar strenght of bow or crossbow. By the 1400s some militias had a larger unit consisting of 2 banda heavy infantry, two of missile and 1 of sword. This is the first mention of a "coronella" command and the title.

Speculation is that 3 of these became the tercio. And I believe the first named tercio is "Tercio Lombardy", or in italy.

The loss of the sword and buckler are a little simpler. There are a couple issues involving why they came about (the italians and spanish sort of invented "fencing". The classic stance of having the left hand hooked behind and above the head was assumed so that one could fight at night while holding a latern!) Spanish sword and buckler, however, only became useful in the field now and again, and often didn't come to battle. Meanwhile, in the americas, these troops were able to really be effective against indians. The armor and sword and training making them super soldiers. Thus, by about 1525, all the sword bandas were being detached to the rest of the world.

Remember, in this era, the concept of a "spanish" or "italian" nation state wasn't really on the tables. Inside and out, people thought in terms of city state and nation as in "Castile" rather than "spanish". The king of spain was also commonly "king of the "two sicilies"(mostly italy south of naples and the island of sicily) and often owned other italian states. There was a conceit that Castillians were the born leaders and superior nationality, the rest of the "spanish" armies consisted of germans, walloons, and italians and others.

Rocky

The first Tercios were formed in 1534. The colunellas were simply a precursor attempt to organize the Spanish infantry in Italy.
The colunellas were only used in Italy because for the first three decades of the sixteenth century, the Spanish fought no where else.
Not sure of the battlefield deployment, but; the pike would have formed a central core with swordsmen intermingled or possibly supporting them some other way, they couldn't stand against cavalry so would need the support of the pikes.
The shot would probably have formed a loose cloud of skirmishers in front of and around the rest of the colunella. However, the shot could also have formed "sleeves" on either side of the pikes. However, again, there is no real documented evidence that the colunella was anything other than an administrative unit. The Tercio was both an administrative unit and a battlefield tactical unit capable of multiple convolutions of formation.

The swordsmen died out because their successes against other pike infantry were very limited. And of course, they couldn't stand in the open against cavalry.

Phil

Rocky, do you have a source for the below?

The classic stance of having the left hand hooked behind and above the head was assumed so that one could fight at night while holding a latern!)

David S.
(Renaissance fencing geek)

I believe the above-referenced information is generally correct that the Collunella was an administrative term which was essentially a bastardized and modified Byzantine/Roman Thema for purposes of keeping track of a body of soldiers. This was then again modified into the Tercio formation which was also an administrative body and a precursor to the "regiment" we know today. As for the phasing out of the swordsmen, the reason is not as implied by Rocky at least in my readings. The swordsman was phased out because there were no longer the protracted pike pushes of the later Italian Wars during the 30 years war. First and foremost, the firearm began to take preemience on the battlefield. Crossbows were phased out in favor of the arquebus. Swordsmen phased out in favor of more shot infantry and pike infantry to support them against cavalry charges. Cavalry charges are modified to incorporate the development of the vastly more effective pistols to such a great degree that by the latter period nearly all of the heavy cavalry are reduced to sword and pistols and the carracole is used.

The phasing out of swordsmen is directly attributable to the decline and ultimate failure of the Tercio as a tactical arm during the 30 years war. Tercios are large regiments, unwieldly in the face of smaller units, more difficult to break, yet the Swedes managed to do it time and again. The new "Swedish system" (not that it was invented by Swedes mind you) of simply Pike and Shot was the evolution of the Tercio into a more flexible unit with a smaller contingent of men which was easier to maneuver on the battlefield and track administratively after the battle. The swordsmen were no longer of use in this type of formation as the formation was not going to withstand a protracted "push of pikes" with a Tercio – but was designed to fire a massed volley and then break the Tercio. These development spelled the end of the swordsman in European fighting because a sword was not much use against a formed pike unit until after the two units closed, and was useless against a volley of fire from a massed line of arquebus – so they were done away with and those men were transformed into pike and shot over the course of several decades – a gradual change until Gustavus Adolphus tactics caused a virtual revolution in that everyone adopted his tactics.

As for the swordsmen being shipped to the new world – that may well be a fact, but it wasn't because of the way one held a lantern during a duel. The battlefield did not have any swordsmen fighting in a classical stance with arm raised behind their head – especially with a buckler on it! Sorry, but fencing is one thing – battlefield fighting against a massed enemy unit to break the push of pikes is another!

In the new world – the swordsmen with their heavy armor, shields and swords were very well used against natives with no armor wielding stone weapons.

Hi

David S, I came across that while reading a bit on the history of dueling laws!

Kingdom of the two sicilies was 1808, sort of. during the 16th century, the kingdom wasn't like the 1808 creation and merely referrd to as "the sicilies".

Old manuals. When I was an active college fencer, i was reading and learning some of the renaissance manuals. This was pre-electronc scoring, and I did, indeed get away the the occassional hand parry.

The point I was making was that in this period, "the gentlemen" were trained in sword a different way than in the medieval period. The concept was the effectiveness of a sword as a defensive weapon adding one more measure to it.

R

After Stuart M's original post had a flick through my copy of Oman's classic "Art of War in the 16 century". Think his description of the Battle of Ravenna 1512 is interesting. Here although the Spanish lose overall, Oman describes the Spanish Sword and Buckler men as really crippling the Landsknect Pike troops employed by the French.

Here I imagine the Landsknects being disorganised by crossing the Spanish defensive trench and from close range arquebus fire, then being hit by the Sword and Buckler. According to Oman, these proved so effective they apparently inspired Machiavelli to write about his ideal troops who would be Sword and Buckler armed, in a sort of throwback to Roman Legionaries.

In the Osprey book on the Battle of Pavia (1525), the Spanish are described as still having a mix of Pike and Sword and Buckler. However as noted above it seems by 1534 and the emergence of the Tercio that the Sword and Buckler has disappeared.

Perhaps we can more accurately narrow down the disappearance of the Sword and Buckler to between 1525-35?
Frustratingly Oman offers no exact reason for the decline. I wonder if the decline of the Spanish Sword and Buckler is abit like case of the English longbow? It was still effective on the battlefield but declined because the training was easier for arquebus. In the same way perhaps there simply more people using Pike and the Sword and Buckler became too niche?

Yes its fun wargaming the Renaissance period !

Great response guys

I too read the details of Ravenna and wondered, given that, why there was a decline as Swiss and Landsknecht adversaries were still on the battlefield for some time after this, but I think the point regarding the training has a lot of resonance, and earlier points by others in that the swordsman had a lot more use and were more effective as a conquistador but perhaps not in Europe.

I do wish there was a bit more reference material for Italian Wars Spanish, short of learning Spanish there just isn't much out there.

I've been painting some Spanish (yes I've started painting again!)using a few conquistador references for appearence but as for flags, appearance (did they look at all different to the conquistadores? )organisation and tactics there just isn't that much about to refer to,

and while I'm at it, there's plenty of decent figures about for swordsmen, crossbowmen, arquebusiers but no pike. I'm a bit of a purist so I'm not too keen on Old Glory and the nearest decent figures I can find are some of the Foundry Elizabethans but they're much too late. The other end of the scale is WOTR pike but – too early, any suggestions?

Hi

I wish I could help with the figs. I have painted 5 tercios in our game scale. All by accident, someone did a cool line and I got obsessive. In our circles, everyone had swiss and germans and such, and I did some, but the spanish were so cute…

About 20 years ago, someone did a line of "conquistadores" where the troops were ragged and bearded. torn knee britiches and the like. I sort of decided, again from some things mentioned by Oman about long marches in square after a defeat, that I wanted a "raggedy tercio". Dirty and ragged. My first tercio. So far when fighting they win. If part of a larger army, they always survive intact when the side looses (think about the above where the winning french lose their commander to a defeated square!)

But it was the figs I had to paint! The long way of saying that I avoid looking at period figs lest I find myself buying a 6th Tercio!

Rocky

The Spanish sword and buckler men were not developed for the battlefield. They were assault troops designed to help take Moorish castles in Grenada. Their shields were designed to be shot proof. As such they led the assaults. We find them at Ravenna because the action there started out as a Spanish siege. Later in the century, we find them being used in the French Wars of Religion in support of the arquebusiers as these shot would advance to take a assault a position on the battlefield. In the TYW we find them still in use assaulting different fortified positions. When armies stopped using them in sieges I don't know. My guess would be when the bayonet replaced the pike and musketeers became assault troops.

With regards to both the collunella and the tercio GildasFacit is correct. They were administrative units. At the time of the Italian Wars there were no fixed unit sizes for conducting battle. These were temporary formations put together for that conflict. The tactical unit was as Rocky says the bande or company. They would be assigned to an administrative unit (tercio) for clothing, replacement of weapons, pay, etc.

At the start of the campaign or beginning of a particular conflict, certain bands or companies of pike and shot would be brigaded together and assigned to a commander who would lead them in the coming conflict. At the end of the conflict, the brigaded bands would be disbanded and the bands would then report to their tercio commanders.

Rich

Italian Wars Spanish is not well served. I believe Eureka has a request under 100 club for Spanish infantry but that won't help no even if they get enough people to order.

What I've done is buy the Swashbuckler pikeman from Foundry:

link

Some of the figures have ruffles but the small ruffle came into popularity around 1520-1525. They have no morions which is a plus. The arquebusiers and sword and buckler men can be had, as conquistadors, from Eureka or Foundry. I've not found good command figures.

As for flags, you just have to wing it. The way I approached it for my landsknechts was to pick out a county from which my men were recruited. In my case that was Gelre. So now I have two flags: a French flag, which each unit carries (in your case this would be the Spanish flag), and the county flag being created out of the arms of Gelre. Then, because you can never have too many flags, I add two rear flags from the heraldry devise of two towns in Gelre. So I have a command stand of an officer and drummer flanked by the national flag and the county flag in the first rank. In the second rank I have two town flags flanked by halberdiers.

Rich

REDOUBT Miniatures offers a lot of Spanish-type figures in their Reniassance Range:
SWORD & BUCKLER MEN
Figures R1 to R14 come with separate shields. please specify which type you require
for each figure; either "A" ROUND STEEL BUCKLER SHIELD or "B" HEART SHAPED LEATHER ADARGA SHIELD.
R1- S&B advancing, bareheaded, slashed doublet.
R2- S&B advancing, shoulder gorget, burgonet, slashed breeches, breast & backplate
R3- S&B advancing, cabasset morion, face gorget, plackart.
R4- S&B running, morion, breast and backplate
R5- S&B running, cabasset, leather jerkin, slashed breeches.
R6- S&B advancing, burgonet, breastplate, slashed breaches.
R7- S&B officer defending, comb burgonet, chiseled breastplate, tassets.
R8- S&B man defending, burgonet, breastplate.
R9- S&B man defending, bareheaded, plackart.
R10- S&B man defending, comb burgonet, slashed jerkin.
R11- S&B Officer standing, burgonet, body armour, lames
R12- S&B man, sword raised, cabasset morion, face gorget, leather jerkin.
R13 – S&B man charging, cabasset morion, slashed doublet and breeches.
R14- S&B man charging, burgonet, leather jerkin.

These are just the Sword & Buckler types – see the listings at miniatureservicecenter.com for all the Spanish types (crossbows, arquebusiers, genitors cav, pikemen, etc). They are not all separated out as Spanish forces – but you can read the listings then maybe visit REDOUBT's site for more pictures…www.redoubtenterprises.com/

Good luck – Mike

75% off sale at Miniature Service Center until 9/1 when the Redoubt line will be discontinued in US. (Still available from UK).

Hi

As a gentleman, one might not get attention from the state while striding about with rapier and main gauche, but a buckler hanging from the belt might suggest that the gentleman was looking for trouble!

Grin.

R

Jovian1 states that

"…the decline and ultimate failure of the Tercio as a tactical arm during the 30 years war. Tercios are large regiments, unwieldly in the face of smaller units, more difficult to break, yet the Swedes managed to do it time and again.

Sorry Jovian1. I can't agree with this assertion. Unfortunately I am very critical of what traditional secondary sources have usually recorded on the conflict. Don't get me talking about the bias Wedgewood uses and the astonishing mistakes the otherwise admired Parker makes. Parker has Fleurus 1622 as a protestant victory!

The staggering Swedish defeat at Nördlingen 1634 is proof that the tercio was still more than capable as a military unit.

Still, we can always read and believe that Lützen 1632 deserves to be included in those typical books which abound and supposedly reproduce and analyse the Greatest Battles in History! The Battle of The Boyne being another favourite.

Does anyone here begin to see some sort of connection?

Stuart – If you are still looking for Spanish (early) figures try The Assault Group (TAG) web site and check out their 'greens' for the early Italian Wars.

Join the TAG Forum and see what other members have said on this issue.

Cheers

Garry

As has been said, the tercio was an administration unit not a tactical unit. The kind of tactical unit for the pikes and shot was determined by the commanding general. The fact that Tilly used large blocks of pikes with shot in the corners was because he found this tactical formation useful. He could have used smaller units but chose not to. Like the commander of the Spanish at Niewpoort. He was asked if they should break their units into smaller units. The impression was they could certainly do that. However, the commander said no. The infantry would fight in these larger block. And, he was right. His pikes steadily drove back Maurice's small units. Vere was screaming for reinforcements. But the Dutch infantry had done what Maurice wanted them to do. They had weakened the Spanish infantry. After driving off the Spanish cavalry, Maurice turned his cavalry against the Spanish and broke their infantry.

The point being there were no regulations on how to form infantry. That is to say there were no regulations which told a commanding general how he must form his army. It was up to him.

As to the decline of the Spanish infantry, this was a matter of finance. In the second half of the 16th Spain used places like Milan as training centers for new infantry. They would stay there for about a year before being assigned to a tercio. Once assigned to a tercio, they were further instructed by experienced soldiers. Around the turn of the 17th century Spanish troops began to rebel because of a lack of pay. The Spanish were in deep financial trouble. As a cost cutting measure they closed the training centers. New recruits were sent directly to the tercios. At Rocroi the Spanish lost a great number of these experienced soldiers. These two measure weakened the effectiveness of Spanish infantry. On occasion they rise to the challenge but they were never the quality they had been.

Rich

I need to make a correction. I had earlier stated it was the Spanish besieging Ravenna. Correction, it was the French. Warfare during the Italian Wars was typified by sieges not battles. There were some battles but there were vastly many more sieges. Therefore, siege not battle would determine the needs of an army. Given this, the use of sword and buckler men expanded during the 16th century. We find the armies of the French Wars of Religion using sword and buckler men extensively. And on the battlefield as well. They were also used in the Italian armies. Therefore there was no decline in the use of sword and buckler in the 16th century.

I know they were used by the French in siege work in the TYW but have no idea how extensive it was.

Rich

Rich

Can you post more details regarding the French Wars of Religion using sword and buckler men extensively, particularly the battlefield use? Were there examples of a separate unit of sword and buckler on the battlefield or can we imagine their use as part of a pike and shot block?

Regards

This information comes from copies I have of 16th century drawings. It seems the shield men were assigned to pike blocks.

link

Here is another drawing of shield men with another pike block.

link

I think they were used primarily to support the shot. Here we have shield men fighting enemy shield men and shot. Notice on the right of the picture shot are moving up under cover of the fighting going on to their left.

link

Here is a closeup

link

In this picture we have what is probably French pikes with accompanying shot and shield men. And landsknecht pikes accompanied by landsknecht shot and two-hand sword men. The landsknechts are to the right of the picture and in front of the French. The French are to the left. Again, the shield men seem to be assigned to the pike block.

link

Rich

Excellent links.

In this melee link, we clearly see shot, halberd and sword and shield in melee with their counterparts. No pikes in the scene. So one definite role of both sword and shield/halberds is detachment from the pike block to add a stronger melee capability to the shot.

link

PS: I noticed one cavalryman in the scene as well. Perhaps the cavalryman represents the beginning of a pursuit as the defending shot/sword and shield are defeated and begin to fall back.

A real mixture of forces but primarily shot/halberd/sword and shield.