"Charging at a Gallop during the TYW" Topic

Did any cavalry conduct a charge at the gallop as a matter of tactical doctrine during the TYW? Some things I have read indicate that the Finns did and maybe some French regiments. Did any of the Swedes or would we classify their attacks as at the trot?

Mark

I thought the Swedes did charge at a gallop.

Thanks,

John

There is no evidence at all that the Swedes (including the Finns) charged at the gallop during the TYW. The notion that they did so has it's origin in an unsupported claim by Swedish 19th Century historian Julius Mankell. Mankell belived that the Swedes of Gustavus Adolphus used the same tactics as the later Swedish cavalry of Charles XI & Charles XII.
However Swedish sources make it clear that Swedish cavalry still attacked at the trot until 1676 when charging at the gallop was introduced as charging "in the French manner".

Just to complicate matters the slower attack pace was probably mainly against other cavalry. Against infantry many writers such Dutch reformer Johann of Nassau recomended charging at the gallop as speed was more important than good order.

I've loved the Finns ever since watching Mary Lou Nutilla play the French horn in a Junior High band recital. My Hakkapells gallop!

"However Swedish sources make it clear that Swedish cavalry still attacked at the trot until 1676 when charging at the gallop was introduced as charging "in the French manner"."

Daniel, could you do a brief translation of a source here? Not the whole thing of course, but a useful short bit. I'm currently reading Nosworthy's book on battle tactics _The Anatomy of Victory_. He is quoting Michael Roberts (1958) and Jean Roemer (1863). Roemer's book is online but it doesn't give any sources. I don't have Roberts' book and don't know its sources.

What about the common idea that Prince Rupert learned the idea of charging at a gallop from the Swedes during the TYW? Again, I'm just repeating what I have read in secondary sources.

I have Michael Roberts' book on Sweden's age of greatness. Is that the one you are refering to? I will see if the chapter on the army mentions anything.

Mark

Daniel, as you know, I differ with you on this issue regarding cavalry and the charge. I can't speak to Swedish cavalry, but the military manuals I have recommend moving forward at the walk, moving into a trot and firing pistols, and ending their attack at the gallop with the front rank using swords. I suppose succeeding ranks would fire their pistols in the melee since they couldn't fire through their friends to their front.

Rich

The question is if there is any clear evidence that Rupert and his men did charge at the gallop? Much of this seems to rest on Rupert's supposed introduction of 'Swedish' tactics, and since 'Swedes' supposedly galloped then Rupert also galloped.

But since Swedish tactics did not involve galloping that particluar line of reasoing does not hold up to scrutiny.

Roberts' 1958 work would probably be "Gustavus Adolphus, a history of Sweden 1611-1632"
My guess is that Roberts relied a lot on "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632", Appendix volume II, page 120 were the Swedish cavalry is describe as using 'new' tactics which involved charging at the gallop. This is in turn based on Chemnitz and Mankell. The thing is that Chemnitz 1648 history of the Swedish war in Germany does not say anything about the pace of the Swedish charge. This leaves Mankell who does not provide a source for his claim (much like Roemer).

The key factor is that there seems to be no period source which describe the Swedes as attacking at the gallop. Writers like Monro, Montecuccoli and Cruso never mention the Swedish cavalry tactics as either 'new' nor as more effective than those of anyone else. If the Swedish style was so revolutionary why does not Montecuccoli say single word about them in his "Sulle battaglie"? Or why does not Monro mention them as one of the reasons why the Swedes won at Breitenfeld?

A key proof that the Swedes did not charge at the gallop, sword in hand, is to be found in a letter by Nils Bielke who was one of the foremost Swedish cavalry commanders in the Scanian war. After the battle of Halmstad he described how the Swedish cavalry had charge home at speed, sword in hand. A style which he called attacking in "the French manner" and in plain text he writes that it was tactic that had not previously been used by the Swedes.

Swedish historians of the late 19th and early 20th Century have tied themselves into knots in order to explain away this letter in order to mantain Mankell's unsupported claim that the Swedes charged at the gallop. As I mentioned before Mankell was making the unsupported assumption that the cavalry of Gustav Adolf was using the same tactics as the later cavalry of Karl XI and Karl XII.

Daniel,

You mention that Bielke describes that the Swedes later in the century charged at the gallop "in the French manner". Do you think or have evidence that any of their cavalry charged like this at the time of Rocroi?

Mark

I know that you do Rich, however the fact remains that your interpretation is contradicted by the clear descriptions left us by the men who actually commanded cavalry in action such as Johann von Nassau-Siegen, Lodovico Melzo and Giorgio Basta. All of whom clearly state that cuirassiers/pistoliers charged at the trot against other horse.

Galloping in the charge added nothing for a pistolier as it not only risked the cohesion and order of the formation but it also gave no advantage in combat. A sword won't penetrate a cuirassiers armour any better at the gallop than at the trot. Even lancers using much heavier lances held in lance restes had a hard time penetrating armour. (La Noue considered it a miracle if any one was killed with a lance).

And at the distances at which pistols were fired there would have been no time to get a good gallop going most of the time. Basta & Nassau-Siegen prefered for the pistols to be more or less touching the enemy before it was fired.
Even if firing at longer range such as the Swedes (maximum 5-6 paces) there would be very little time & space in which to put aside the pistol, grip the sword and increase the speed to an effective gallop while maintaing an orderly formation. At longer ranges than that the pistols would be fairly useless.

Had galloping the final few paces offered the pistolier an advantage against other cavalry we can be sure that the experienced soldiers I mentioned above would have not only noticed it but recorded it and adapted their tactics accordingly. Tactics vs enemy infantry is a diffrent matter altogether, there we do have experienced continental soldiers recomending the gallop.

Thanks Daniel. Much appreciated.

My interests are really a little later (WSS) but this background is really valuable.

BF Mark,
Not really, all the evidence I have points to Conde using the same charge at the trot/ as everyone else at the time.
Bielke and the Swedes in the 1670's were influenced by Turenne's "charge en sauvage" from the same time period so the galloping charge that inspired them is post-TYW

Daniel,

As I consider the paradigm shift that comes with your explanation of the original sources, I wonder if comparisons might my head stop spinning.

I can understand armored cavalry armed with pistols remaining at a trot to maintain their cohesion, but there are variations in tactics beyond that. Is there a difference between the minor tactics used by Swedish cavalry (Gustavus and post Gustavus) and Wallentstein (and post Wallenstein)? Did French and Spanish cavalry differ at Rocroi? Accepted understanding is that there was a difference between Royalist and Parliamentarian cavalry (at least early in the war) even if the former were not actually galloping. If so, what was it?

I'm actually working with Rich Hasenauer in converting Regimental Fire & Fire game mechanics to ECW and TYW, so I would like to get the important distinctions right. Thanks for bearing with me.

Mark

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread! This has been a gentlemanly discussion with differing points of view and both citing sources.

I'm painting TAG 28mm Germans and Swedes at the moment and had hit a bit of a wall, this thread has juiced me back up. It's great to see this sort of thing on TMP.

Thanks to all,
Donald~

Mark,
Can we sign up for releases, or advance notices, or even a trip over to you guys to play test, is there a yahoo group? I live in Frederick MD.

donald </dot/> hauser </at/> gmail </dot/> com

Donald,

It will be quite some time before we actually playtest TYW with F&F. We have done some ECW, and that has got us thinking along those lines. We just bought enough lead to do Breitenfeld, but now we have to get it painted, so it won't be until sometime next year before we start playing around with it. I'll remember to post a message here for folks in the area who are interested helping with the playtest when we get to that point.

Thanks,
Mark

"Bielke and the Swedes in the 1670's were influenced by Turenne's "charge en sauvage" from the same time period so the galloping charge that inspired them is post-TYW"

Depending when Turenne started to get his cavalry to do that – it is quite possible, even probable, that there was a gap between the French charging at the gallop and it being adopted by others.

I read in SWEDEN'S AGE OF GREATNESS, edited by Michael Roberts the last chapters states that Swedish cavalry were first trained to charge at a gallop under Charles XI under reglations published in the early 1680s. The idea was for the men to keep as tight a formation as possible – knee behind knee – and begin the gallop about 150 paces from the target. I forgot the chapter's author, but he was Swedish, and his foonotes were all Swedish sources.

Further evidence that is quite a reveltion for me.

Mark

Daniel, sorry for the lateness of this post. I haven't read your authors but when we last talked on this issue none of you gentlemen were writing a treatise on how to conduct a cavalry charge. My authors did. Charging at the gallop or charging at the trot is a misnomer. The charge is a three-phased maneuver. My authors broke the charge down into three steps: walk, trot, gallop.

Galloping in the charge added nothing for a pistolier as it not only risked the cohesion and order of the formation but it also gave no advantage in combat.

At the close range the gallop was initiated there was little chance of a risk of a lack of cohesion. The place to understand the charge is not the individual but rather the unit. Generally speaking, pistoleers formed in 6 ranks. Different ranks had different responsibilities. For example, the last two ranks had the responsibility to respond if the unit was attacked from flank or rear. It seems to me, the front rank (or first two ranks) had the responsibility of the disrupting the enemy unit with succeeding ranks finishing the enemy unit off. If you stop to think about it, only the front ranks (and maybe the second) could fire their pistols. The rear ranks would not be able to fire for fear of hitting their own men in front of them.

The cavalry training was not only to walk, trot, gallop but also to stop your horse as quickly as possible, as one author said, "with their haunches nearly touching the ground." I just now realized why. When the unit goes in at a gallop what happens? The front rank crashing into the enemy unit and that's the end of the gallop. The tight spacing of cavalry units precluded anyone galloping through them. If the rear ranks continue to gallop they will ride right up the butts of the horses in front of them. Ergo the speed stop. After the initial crash, the two opposing units fought their way through each other. The front rank is using their swords but the rear ranks still have their pistols. In all probability, they are firing their pistols at close-range in the melee. [As Basta & Nassau-Siegen suggested.]

The front rank does not necessarily need to get within pistol killing range of the enemy. They only need to get close enough where their firing will disrupt the front ranks of the enemy. The speed and mass of the front horses are to further disrupt the enemy when they crash together. This was standard thinking at this time, whether infantry or cavalry. First disrupt the enemy and then drive them from the field. The succeeding ranks fired at almost point blank range to finish off what the front rank had begun. At least this was the plan.

Because the front rank does not need to get within killing range they had a little more room in which to gallop. As for the horses being able to go that quickly into a gallop, they trained this tactic day after day, month after month. By this time the horses would expect the gallop command and would respond almost instantly.

As to the royalist cavalry at Edgehill, this is what I think happened. In the beginning both cavalry were trained in the continental method of walk-trot-gallop. The first battle of the war was a cavalry engagement. The royalists won but just. I think Rupert was having a hard time teaching these touchy nobles the discipline needed for these maneuvers. I think Rupert realized these nobles simply didn't have the discipline for the three-step tactic. At Edgehill, he told them to follow him and do what he did. The parliamentarian cavalry had begun the three-step tactic. They only got to the trot phase when the galloping royalists hit them. It caught the parliamentarian cavalry flat footed and they were overwhelmed.

As far as I know all continental cavalry used this three phased cavalry tactic. Edgehill showed what would happen if trotting cavalry were impacted by charging cavalry at the moment of impact. This doesn't mean cavalry charged clear across the battlefield at the gallop. They simply ended their charge at the gallop.

Rich

Rich, are you sure anyone galloped at Edgehill?? Using the relatively thick formations of the period, wouldn't you end up with absolute, unmanageable, horse-killing chaos if 2 regts wacked into each other at the gallop?

I always thought that they used the trot because they either used 6-deep formations, or else had just recently emerged from a period where 6-deep was normal and the formations were fairly robust.

Charging at the gallop only makes sense if both sides are using 3-deep or 2-deep and 1 of the formations will lose its nerve and turn tail.

Maybe I have a rather simple understanding of the issues, but I have assumed from my reading that the differences in cavalry tactics had to do with different ideas on the benefits of control vs. the benefits of shock. Cavalry earlier in the century used combinations of firepower followed by short controlled charges because that was what was thought to be most effective.

At some point, perhaps later than I previously realized, cavalry commanders began to believe they could get more from the use of shock, and force the enemy formation to come appart BEFORE contact was actually made through the use of intimidation. A massed, discipled formation of cavalry charging forward seems to have been the direction of its development during the later decades of the 17th century.

Mark

So Rich, you have not read my authors but yet you know that neither wrote an instruction on how to use cavalry. A bold claim.

In fact the information from Nassau-Siegen is taken from his detialed instructions on how to train and fight with cavalry.
He discusses_exactly_how to conduct a charge, which speeds to use depending on the target and why a slower charge was preferable against Horse while the gallop was used against cavalry.
Count Johann help developed the training and tactics of the Dutch cavalry in cooperation with his cousins Maurits and Willem Lodewijk. He later helped spread those tactics and training methods to the Protestant German armies as well as the Swedes and Danes.

Basta wrote an entire book on the handling of cavalry ("Il Governo Della Cavalleria Leggiera") which was based on his extensive experiences of cavalry warfare in the Netherlands, France and Hungary. His work was read not only by the Imperial & Spanish officers (like Wallenstein) who were his intended audience but also by men like Herman Wrangel, Gustavus Adolphus and Nils Brahe.
You admit to never having read "Il Governo Della Cavalleria Leggiera" yet you claim that it does not describe how to conduct a charge…
In fact Basta describes exactly how the cuirassiers fight, including the speed at which they charge.

I do note that you have not yet named any sources in your reply. Both I and probably the other readers as well would be be very gratefull if you did so. Makes it easier to further our knowledge on the subject. It also makes it possible to place said authors texts in their proper context and investigate the extent of their influence.

He discusses_exactly_how to conduct a charge, which speeds to use depending on the target and why a slower charge was preferable against Horse while the gallop was used against cavalry.

Cavalry? Do you mean infantry?

"Il Governo Della Cavalleria Leggiera"

Rules regarding light cavalry. Wouldn't these be different than cuirassiers?

That should indeed be infantry, always a risk to write posts late at night.

Despite it's name it covers all types of cavalry from lancers to mounted arquebusiers.
In the Spanish army of the 16th Century anyone who was not a man-at-arms of the bands of ordnnance was a "light horseman" and this shaped Basta's use of the term as he served for a long time in the army of Flanders.
The title of the German edition was expanded to explain the content as the Germans used the terms "heavy" & "light" cavalry diffrently.

"Gouverno della cavalleria: das ist Bericht von Anführung der leichte Pferde, dabey auch was die schweren belanget"

So Rich, you have not read my authors but yet you know that neither wrote an instruction on how to use cavalry. A bold claim.

Daniel you know that's not what I wrote. "I haven't read your authors but when we last talked on this issue none of your gentlemen were writing a treatise on how to conduct a cavalry charge."

I'm referencing our last discussion. I don't remember you saying much about explaining how a charge was conducted.

Rich

The parliamentarian cavalry had begun the three-step tactic. They only got to the trot phase when the galloping royalists hit them. It caught the parliamentarian cavalry flat footed and they were overwhelmed.

I don't think the Parliamentarian cavalry were trying to advance at Edgehill, rather they were to take the Royalist charge halted aiming to disrupt it with shooting. Lord Bernard Stuart related:

"Upon our approach they gave fire with their cannon lined amongst their horse, dragoneers, carabines and pistols, but finding that did nothing dismay the King's horse and that they came more roundly to them with all their fire reserved, just when our men charged they all began to turn head and we followed an execution upon them for 4 miles together…. A great many of them saved their lives by getting our word for God and King Charles."

The Parliamentarian cavalry also stood at the halt at Roundway Down.

Rich,

I not only named the titles of several treatise on the use of cavalry written by "my authors" in our exchange at Renwars. (Message 3896) I also describe in some detail the background and actual influence of "my" authors.

Since you have not read any of the treatise name in the post I'm surprised that you ventured to claim that "none of you gentlemen were writing a treatise on how to conduct a cavalry charge".
Did you you really think that men like Melzo & Basta wrote treatise on the organisation and use of cavalry without actually providing details on how cavalry was to charge?
Hence my reply in this thread.

Were did you think I was getting my information about the speed of the charge?

Here are some of the actual quotes.

Let's start with Melzo
"The Cuirassiers_trott_after the lancers and exploit the openings these have made in the enemies ranks."
"When the cuirassiers charge in their formation [the large squadrons] they should by no means gallop"

Basta
"They charge no faster than at the the trot and pursue at the gallop".

"In order to keep their formation closed [an alternate translation is "orderly"] they charge the enemy only at the trot, in gallop [only] when the enemy is in flight"

Johann von Nassau-Siegen
"When horse charges horse, that is best done slow, without galloping, in order to not break the formation.
However when horse charges foot, the faster and furiouser that is done, the better. That should cause terror among the foot, prevent reloading and ensure that one suffers only small damage [from the firing]

Quotes from "your" authors would be most welcome Not to mention their names and evidence that their works were used/read by commanders of the major nations of the TYW.

Nik: fully agree with the Parliament horse at Edgehill receiving the charge at the halt. They had prepared the position at the best of their abilities, with dragoons supplying more firepower, but they did not succeed in inflicting enough casualties to disrupt Rupert's charge. One of their units defecting to the enemy did not help either. They broke before contact and Rupert pursued this time at the gallop, hence his incapacity to easily regroup his units. This and the difficulties to keep your units in close formation during the attack would definitely not recommend a charge at the gallop (that you would have to slow down before impact anyway).

Cheers

Romain

I had no idea a full-blown treatise was called for. Lets see, Basta must have written around the late 1590s early 1600. The same for Johann von Nassau-Siegen. Lodovico Melzo, wrote in 1611. Twenty years later, Cruso is still coming up with tactics to deal with galloping cavalry. Evidently, not everyone got the message. Just because one is a famous general or a cousin of Maurice does not mean all their advise was taken. [By the way, Basta's book and Melzo's book can be downloaded from Google books inItalian. Now if I can only get John Holly to translate them for me.]

But their advice is significant. People don't make suggestions of things that everyone is already doing. The indication of the suggestion to attack at the trot is that cavalry at the time was probably using the gallop as part of their charge. We have examples of the French cavalry attacking at the gallop in the late 16th-century and it is hard to compete with success. The picture that emerges is a lot of cavalry were using the gallop as part of their charge. Our troika was probably writing in response to this standard way of attacking.

So how does the writing of Gervaise Markham and Robert Ward differ from the troika? To understand that you must first understand what a muster-master is. Under Charles I, experienced English soldiers were taken from the Dutch army and brought back to England to train the various training bands around the country. They were called muster-masters. This way the trained bands received the same training as was done in the Dutch army. A number of them also wrote training manuals. Ward was the muster-master for the Essex trained band. Markham wrote a manual for muster masters. He had the background to do it. He had served in the Dutch army and held a captaincy under Essex in Ireland.

On training cavalry, this is what Markham had to say.

This the Souldier shall doe by thrusting the horse violently forward both with his legs and bodie, and giving libertie to the Bridle. As soone as the Horse is started into his gallop, hee shall give him the even stroake of his Spurres, once or twice together, and make the Horse runne to the hight of his full speede, then being at the end of the Cariere (which will not bee above the sixe score or eight score) he shall then draw up his Bridle-hand very hard and constantly, and laying the calues of both his legges gently to the Horses sides, make the Horse stop close to the ground, with onely a comely Aduancement. And this serveth for all manner of `, wheth it bee Horse against Horse, of Horse against Foote.

In other words, while at the trot the soldier is to "violently" get his horse into a gallop. This should not exceed 120-160 paces. At this point the soldier is to quickly stop his horse "close to the ground" which I interpret the haunches of the horse are close to the ground. This is a position where the front legs of the horse are held stiff and the haunches near the ground. You can see this maneuver at rodeos when the roping horse halts suddenly at the command of the cowboy once the cowboy has roped the calf. Finally Markham points out this kind of attack is to be used against cavalry or infantry.

Ward provides this information:
When the enemie shall charge you with one of his Troopes, doe not you rush forth to meete them, but if your ground be of advantage keepe it; if not advance softly forwards; untill the enemy be within 100 paces of you, and then fall into your Careire, by this meanes your horse will be in breath and good order, when as the Enemie will be to seeke.

In other words, if you are in a good defensive position, don't rush out to meet a charging enemy. However, if you do attack him begin "softly" [trot]. When within 100 paces urge your mount into a gallop for the final phase of the attack.

Now let us proceede further, to the instructing of horses, and fitting them for the imployment of warre; wherein the Rider must use great diligence in making him tread loftily to keepe one path, and to trot cleane, which in one of the chiefest pointes ; then to goe softly, to runne or to gallop.

Here Ward is instructing them for employment in war. One begins "tread softly" [pace] then into a trot and finally into a gallop.

Fourthly when you pace, trot, and gallop, him too and fro in one path, the length of twenty or thirty paces,

Once again Ward lays out the approach to a charge: pace, trot, gallop.

At the end of the Carriere path, let your Horse stop and advance , and at the second bound; turne him fairly and softly upon the right hand, and to stay a little while then suddenly with a lively voyce, cry hay, hay, put him forwards with both Spuures at once, forcing him to runne all the path as swift as possibly may be, just up to the end, to the intent he may stop on his buttocks.

Here Ward give us a better idea of how to get a mount to quickly break into a gallop. He also teaches to quickly stop a horse by having it sit on it's haunches.

Here we have two soldiers having served in the Dutch wars instructing English cavalrymen how to attack as it was done on the continent. Both Markham and Ward agree about the three-phase approach to attacking enemy cavalry. First you moved forward at the pace [walk], go into the trot and about 25-30 yards break into the gallop. This is how they learned on the continent. And, this is how they taught it to the English trained bands. Unfortunately many of the trained bands were woefully undertrained but as Markham pointed out, this was due to a lack of practice not a lack of knowing how things were done on the continent.

So to return to the question of cavalry charges, it looks like not a lot of cavalrymen followed up on the suggestions of Daniel's troika. If we can project back to Maurice what our dynamic duo saw in the Dutch army in the 1630s, it looks like Maurice had his own ideas of how cavalry should fight and didn't need his cousin's suggestions.

What do we end up with. First, regardless of what Daniel's troika suggested, cavalry did not attack at the trot. Second, they used a three-phase approach of walk, trot, front rank fire pistols, and finishing at the gallop. In the melee the succeeding ranks moved in with loaded pistols to engage in close firing. That then was how cavalry charges were conducted on the continent. And, that was what trained band cavalry was taught in England.

And now the battle of Edgehill, I have admitted here and elsewhere that I am not an expert on the ECW. That I got it all screwed up with Edgehill doesn't come at a great surprise. I'm just glad that you guys do know that war and can kick me in the rear when I get it wrong. And yet I believe there is a kernel of truth here. Many like to describe ECW cavalry are gallopers and trotter. I believe trotters got their name either because the royalist caught the parliamentarian cavalry flat footed in the trotter phase of the attack; or, the name was a nick name for that cavalry which went through the three phases of a charge. So, what do you say guys, any ideas?

As to the WSS, if the cavalry were firing before engagement then in all likelihood they used this three-phased approach. But this is really not my area.

Rich

Rich, what would be the point of galloping and then reining in suddenly? No impetus would carry onto the melee. And you would very likely wreck your formation in the process.

Rich,
Basta wrote all of his works between his retirement in 1605 and death in 1607. Johann von Nassau-Siegen was writing contiusly from the 1590's to his death in 1623.

John Cruso actually fully agrees with my "troika".
Cruso's statment in Chapter XXIX 'Of excercising the Cuirassier' (page 42) is
the key part to his view on the pace at which the cuirassier charged
"He usually giveth his charge upon the trot ,and seldom gallopeth, unlesse it be
in pursuit of a flying enemie or such like occasion" and This takes clear precendence over his somewhat mangled translation of Wallhausen's manouver for
dividing a body of horse in two when faced with a a charge at the gallop. Since Wallhausen was writing based on his experiences in Poland it was quite natural for him to include tactics on how to counter charging lancers

"People don't make suggestions of things that everyone is already doing."
Yet somehow this only applies to the sources which don't support your view of history. Sources you have not read, indeed you can't read them because of the language barrier.
Yet you somehow know that they contain only "suggestions" and "advice".

Actually military organisations make "suggestions" of things everyone is already doing all the time. Military officers required regulations, manuals and instructions then just as much armies do nowadays. Which is why there was a market for authors like Cruso, Ward, Markham, Wallhausen, Basta and Melzo.

So when my authors write detailed treatise on the subject of how to use cavalry the very fact that they did so shows that those instructions were not followed. (And that they were really not instructions at all but mere "advice")
Yet when your authors write detailed treatise on the same subject this is actual proof men were trained and fought that way. I.e actual instructions.

When your authors write their instructions reflect what they supposedly saw used in use during their service. But somehow the instructions written by a Dutch General, a Lieutenant-General in the army of Flanders and an Imperial General of cavalry does not in any way reflect their experiences of decades of warfare. Nor are they writng actual instructions for the employment of cavalry. Only "suggestions" which no one bothered to follow.

Let's take a look at the men that Rich dismisses as military writers of no value.

Georgio Basta seen extensive service in the cavalry of the Army of Flanders and
led the cavalry as both commisary-general and lieutenant-general in the 1590's.
From 1598 he served in the Imperial army with the rank of general of the cavalry
and fought in the so called "Long Turkish war", from 1602 he was the Imperial
commander in chief and during his time in Imperial service he served as the
military mentor of both Wallenstein and Tilly. Basta's two most influential
military texts were "Il maestro di campo generale" (1606) and "Il governo della
cavalleria leggera" (1612) both of which were published in German and Spanish editons.

Ludovico Melzo was a milanse cavalryman who had commanded a cornet of cavalry in
the army of Flanders and rose to the rank of Lieutentant-General. He too had extensive combat experience againsthe Dtuch and French. His "Regole
militari sopra il governo e servitio particolare della cavalleria" (1611) was
translated into Spanish, French and German (two editions)

Count Johann von Nassau-Siegen worked closely with his brother Wilhelm Ludwig of Nassau and his cousin Maurice of Nassau on the reforms which changed and improved the Dutch army.
He served not only against the Spanish but saw action agains the Poles as well as he commanded the Swedish army in the Livonian war. Later on he was also highly active in trying to reform the German military system in order to improve the military capability of the German Protestant states.
He was a prolific writer and much of his military texts
have survived to this day. Rather than being published for sale most of them were shared with friends and select officers & rulers either as letters or in actual demonstrations and lectures.
Of the published works connected with him the most famous is De Gehyn's excercis manual.

If these men with vastly more experience of cavalry warfare than Rich's dynamic duo (neither of which held a significant command in war) saw fit to instruct cuirasser against the use the gallop by cuirassiers they did so with good reason based on hard earned practical experience. Cuirassiers derived their strenght from their massed formation, a fact which writers such as Wallhausen, Basta, Melzo and Montecuccoli all agree upon.
Galloping would risk the break up the formation which in turn would lead to disorder and defeat. Hence no gallop.

When intructing their readers on the use of pistol armed cavalry Basta's and Count Johann's were writing in response the use of the caracole, not the use of the gallop. German pistoliers were still using the caracole in the 1590's as can be seen from the Davila's description of Catholic Reiters at Ivry.

Both men patterned their solution on the French cavalry by stressing the use of the sword in combination with pistol rather than relying mainly on the pistol.

Basta
"They must entrust their cause to the sword, and only fire their pistols when close enough to hurt the enemy with flame or when actually touching the enemy."

Nassau-Siegen
"He who strikes first with the sword and then uses the pistol in the melee, he will have the advantage"

(For the French army's use of sword followed by the pistol, rather than the pistol followed by the sword see Ronald S Love's "All the King's Horsemen)

Yet both men prefered the cohesion and controll of the charge at trot to the speed of the charge at the gallop which the French supposedly used. A diffrent choice if the French did indeed gallop at the time Basta & Count johann were writing but one that worked well enough.

Rich, what would be the point of galloping and then reining in suddenly? No impetus would carry onto the melee. And you would very likely wreck your formation in the process.

Only the front rank would gallop into the enemy. At that point the impetus of the charge is over. The succeeding ranks need to be able to stop quickly.

Daniel calm down and quit attributing things to me that I never wrote. It's not like I'm challenging your honor. All we are doing here is disagreeing. As you mentioned, Basta's work was not widely disseminated. There is no evidence that Maurice trained his cavalry in the manner suggested by his cousin. And in fact, your troika and my duo agree on how to approach the enemy in an attack. All agree this is not done at the gallop. All agree that it is done at the trot. The only thing my duo adds is that the last 25 or 30 yards the charge is done at the gallop. They add that because this is what they saw in the wars on the continent while serving in the Dutch army. Charging over 25 or 30 yards is not going to materially affect the unit's cohesion or control. If you want, you can view this as an addition, not a correction, to what your troika said. This is certainly not worth getting worked up over.

Rich

Many like to describe ECW cavalry are gallopers and trotter. I believe trotters got their name either because the royalist caught the parliamentarian cavalry flat footed in the trotter phase of the attack; or, the name was a nick name for that cavalry which went through the three phases of a charge. So, what do you say guys, any ideas?

Are any of these "many" you refer to contemporary sources or just modern wargamers?

Only the front rank would gallop into the enemy. At that point the impetus of the charge is over. The succeeding ranks need to be able to stop quickly.

Can't say that any of the bits quoted suggest that only a single rank of a formation does something different, all the quotes (on both sides of the debate) appear to me to be talking about the whole body.

Not TYW but ECW but I'll throw this account from Runaway Down <g> in for consideration.

and immediately charged the whole body; the charge was so sudden that I had hardly time to put on my arms, we advanced a full trot 3 deep, and kept in order;All the horse on the left hand of Prince Maurice his regiment, had none to charge; we charging the very utmost man of their right wing: I cannot better compare the figure of both armies than to the map of the fight at sea, between the English and the Spanish Armadas, (only there was no half moon) for though they were above twice our numbers; they being six deep, in close order and we but three deep, and open (by reason of our sudden charge) we were without them at both ends: the cannoneers seeing our resolution, did not fire their cannon. No men ever charged better than ours did that day, especially the Oxford horse, for ours were tired and scattered, yet those that were there did their best.

The Royalists come on at a "full trot" and also make a "sudden charge" that means their formation is looser than the Parliamentarian which may well indicate a faster charge – although the Parliamentarian cavalry nearly all stood to receive the charge so had less chance for the formation to break up.

Rich,
I did exaggerage too far when I was pointing out the flaws in your dismissal of sources whose content disagreed without. I stand by my conclusion that your reasoning is flawed but the acerbic tone of the reply was uncalled for. My apologies for that.

Basta's work wasn't widely disseminated? "Il Governo Della Cavalleria Leggiera" was published in two editions in Italy in 1612, French and German editions in 1614 (French re-print in 1627) and a Spanish edition in 1624.

A carefull reading of the copy of Ward I recived today show that just as Curso did he supports the charge at the trot.

"..you are also to observe that the armes of the cuirassiers are Pistoll proofe; wherefore that Souldier that incounters against them must bee sure not to shot until he be within three or foure paces: the Hollanders use to discharge their Pistols at the nemies eare, as a place most certain to speede them them;others at the lower parts of the Belly , or his arme Pits or about the neck or throate; a cuirassiere usually giveth his charge upon the trot, and very seldom upon the gallop"
(…)
; the Sword is to be managed after you have done your indeavours with the Pistoll;
Animadversions of Warre, p.301

Not only do Ward say that the charge was done at the trot but he also states that against other cuirassiers one must must fire the pistols at no more than 4 paces. I.e a bit over 3 yards. This contradicts your interpretation that the cuirassiers fired at the trot and then charged the final 25-30 yards at the gallop.

Furthermore we do know from accounts from the TYW period that pistols were fired before entering the melee and that this took place at much closer ranges. (See Chemnitz description of the Swedish cavalry in action for one example)

It is simply not possible to reconcile a pre-contact pistol salvo the trot followed a 25-30 yard charge at the gallop with the period dewscritpions of the effective range of pistols.

Ward also writes that the Dutch fired at the enemies ear as the surest way to kill him. A shot that is only effective if the pistol is touching. I.e the very same tactic laid down by the instructions written by Johann von Nassau-Siegen. So Ward actually proves that those instructions were followed by the Dutch. Uncovering that piece of supporting evidence is alone worth the time of our discussion. My thanks for that as without it I would not have read Ward in such detail.

Tavannes who you referenced in the Renwars discussion actually argues in favour of a charge at the trot in many places due to the problems involved with the attack at the faster pace.

Delbrück (Dawn of modern warfare p.128) provides a fine summary of Tavannes.
""Tavannes raised the question (p. 116) as to whether it was better to go into combat at the trot or to await the enemy in place. Attacking would give horses and men more verve, but it would als o give more opportunity for holding back to those who did not want to be involved in the melee. Consequently, he felt, at least in the case of new recruits or questionably reliable soldiers, it was better to await the enemy in good order or at any rate to go in to the trot or gallop at a distance of only twenty paces, because the cowards would then hardly be able to abandon their posts and the captains would be able to force them to be brave, even against their wills. (43)

In several other passages (pp. 122, 123,203-205), Tavannes comes back to the warning, discussed in detail and mixed with other observations, against attacking at a fast pace, because then the less courageous soldiers held back. A captain who covered fifteen paces at the gallop without paying attention to his soldiers ran the risk of attacking alone and being buried in the enemy formation. The cowards would stop their horses six paces in front of the enerny. But if they moved at a walk or a slow trot, the opportunity to exercise that dodge would be removed and the rearmost ranks would push them forward. He who attacked at a gallop would enter the fight with but few men, and they would be in disorder. Consequently, a squadron should march slowly, halt frequently, and the captains in front of the formation and at the corners should call to their men by name, and the first sergeants in the rear should drive the cowards forward. A leader who could depend on his men could take up the gallop at a distance of fifteen paces. And he who moved forward slowly and took up a brisk trot or a slow gallop at a distance of only ten paces from the enemy would not go into the clash alone."

Tavannes reserved the charge at the gallop from 15 paces for leaders of trustworthy men. And he considered the brisk trot to be just as good as the slow gallop for the final part of the charge.

It is no surprise that Tavannes line of reasoning is the same as that of Nassau-Siegen & Basta. I.e that to gallop was to invite the risk of disorder and defeat. The slow approach at the walk and the charge at the trot was the solution. However as Tavannes experience was with Frenchmen rather than Germans he was still willing to allow for a short distance charge at gallop if the unit was well motivated and dependable.
As the French went in sword first rather than pistol first as the Germans and Dutch did this makes perfect sense.

Markham served with the Dutch army before serving with Essex. Essex campaigned in Ireland in 1599, hence Markhams experience in the Dutch army was pre-1599 i.e probably in the period before the lance was abolished by Maurits in 1597. (The English supplied lancers and infantry to the Dutch, before the reform pistoliers were for the most part supplied by the Germans)
So Markhams text would probably reflect his experience with 16th Century lancer tactics, not 17th Century Cuirassier tactics. Particularly as a reading of Basta, Wallhausen and Cruso shows that the walk-trot-gallop was an essential part of lancer tactics.

I have ordered a copy of Markham, it will be interesting to see if he too turns out to be in favour of a charge at the trot •

This contradicts your interpretation that the cuirassiers fired at the trot and then charged the final 25-30 yards at the gallop.

Not so. Your quote of Ward does not mention the gallop at all. My quote of Ward does mention the gallop.

Ward: "if not advance softly forwards; until the enemy be within 100 paces of you, and then fall into your Careire,"

When you get within 100 paces you go into a gallop, direct quote.

Markham: As soone as the Horse is started into his gallop, hee shall give him the even stroake of his Spurres, once or twice together, and make the Horse runne to the hight of his full speede, then being at the end of the Cariere (which will not bee above the sixe score or eight score) … And this serveth for all manner of `, wheth it bee Horse against Horse, of Horse against Foote.

He confirms Ward's statement that at the end of the advance you break into the gallop but only for about six or eight score. And he states this method of attack should be used against enemy cavalry or enemy infantry. By the way, Markham published his book in 1635 and died in 1637.

Tavannes (1550s) simply says, IF you are going to charge at the gallop do it when you are close enough to the enemy that it won't disrupt the unit. "A leader who could depend on his men could take up the gallop at a distance of fifteen paces." Ward and Markham are saying the same thing. Eighty-five years later that closeness was pretty much standardized to around 25-30 yards.

Your troika grew up in a period in which gendarmes/cuirassiers did attack for the whole charge at the gallop. It was this they objected to. It was better to charge at the trot. In other words, advance at the trot not at the gallop. This doesn't conflict with Ward and Markham. Both states one should advance on the enemy at the trot! The difference being, the duo says this advance ends in a short gallop. To which Tavannes gave his permission.

It is simply not possible to reconcile a pre-contact pistol salvo the trot followed a 25-30 yard charge at the gallop with the period descriptions of the effective range of pistols.

Sure you can. All you have to do is use some common sense. [I'm not inferring you are not using common sense.] This relates to Nik's comment:

all the quotes (on both sides of the debate) appear to me to be talking about the whole body.

1. Ward states you go from trot to gallop about 25-30 yards from the enemy.
2. Ward states you fire pistols at the trot
3. Ward states the Dutch fire at close range.
4. Ward states you fire your pistol first and then the sword.

If taken as a unit, this is impossible. 1&2 states firing at the trot must be done before the unit breaks into gallop. Common sense says this cannot mean the whole unit. The only thing the ranks behind the front rank have to fire at are their own men in front of them. So common sense says for 1&2 this could only apply to the front rank. This leaves subsequent ranks to fire at close range as suggested by the Dutch (#3). #4&1 says that once the front rank has fired their pistols they go into the enemy at the gallop with sword in hand. Subsequent ranks go in with loaded pistols to fire at close range.

As to the killing range of the pistol, the front rank has a different function from the succeeding ranks. We have precedence for different ranks having different functions. The last two ranks were charged with protecting the unit from attacks from the rear. The front rank's function is to disrupt the enemy unit. Firing at 25 yards and charging at the gallop are all part of disorganizing the enemy. It is the succeeding ranks that were to give the close-range killing fire.

Rich

OK guys, how did the royalist and parliamentarian horse came to be know as gallopers and trotters?

Rich

Rich,
Actually Ward does mention the gallop, it says so right there in my quote, it's the only part of my Ward quote that is in bold text so I'm surprised that you missed it while reading.
Here is a screenshot of my post with that part marked in red to makes it easier to spot.
picture

Here is a scan the original text with the part in questiosn once more marked in red.
picture

The text is part of Ward's instruction on how to use the pistols & cuirassiers in combat and as such takes precedence over the 100 paces charge at the gallop mentioned in the section on the duties of a captain of Cavalry. Do note that he never mentions the alledged 25 yard salvo which was supposed to disorganise the enemy.

More to follow tomorrow as it is far to late here in Sweden.

I hope you have had a good night's sleep. And now for the bad news. You are using the wrong definition of the word 'charge'. It can mean to attack, as you are using it. But it can also mean firing your gun. The quote you referenced meant the cuirassiers fired their pistols at the trot and seldom at the gallop. Ward goes on to say, "if you miss the speeding of the man, then you are to direct your next charge (fire) against the horse…. the sword is to managed after you have done your indeavours with the pistol; and the principle thing required is to disable your adversary by hacking a two the raynes of his bridle, or the buckles of his pouldron, whereby he shall be disabled from making any resistance."

In other words, you fire your pistols at the trot. The first shot is fired at the man. If you miss, the next fire is at the horse. If there is no effect you take your sword and cut his reigns to make sure the enemy can't control his horse. As I said, the job of the first rank is to disorganize the enemy troop.

Rich

A leader who could depend on his men could take up the gallop at a distance of fifteen paces

Just a little background to Tavannes' statement. He was charged by the King of France to raise local reiters so that France would not have to hire so many German reiters. I'm assuming that he planned to have all the troops well trained and be able to end the charge at a gallop. This was exactly what Markham and Ward were describing 80 years later. For all we know this was the standard method of attack by pistol-armed cavalry since the time of Tavannes and perhaps even earlier.

Rich

Rich,
Just a few quick question to ensure that I have understood your last post correctly. Nuances tend to get lost in translation which in turn.

1.Your interpretation of Ward, Markham and Tavannes describes the standard way in which all pistol armed cavalry fought in the 1568 to 1639 period?

2. I.e that Ward, Markham and Tavannes are the only accurate sources with regards to the tactics used by the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German and Swedish pistol armed cavalry in that period?

3. That essentialy all other sources from that period, be they military manuals, eyewitness accounts or histories which do not agree with those 3 are in error and can be disregarded as sources?

OK guys, how did the royalist and parliamentarian horse came to be know as gallopers and trotters?

As far as I can see they weren't in any contemporary sources – it is something some modern wargamers have coined. It may well not even be based on any real reading of contemporary sources but on later works :-0

Wonder if this account of a cavalry action at the Battle of Lens may be of interest?

The Prince of Salm advanced at a trot with his first line of Walloon and Lorraine soldiers against Conde's first line who advanced at a walk to receive them. The two lines met horse to horse, pistol to pistol, and remained in this position for a fairly long time, awaiting who would fire first, with neither side wavering.
The enemy was more impatient and opened fire: it was as though the gates of hell had opened! All our front line officers were killed, injured or unseated. Conde gave the signalto fire then, leading the Gassion regiment with his sword held high, he crushed the squadron facing him. His six other squadrons followed him, and on his example, charged the first enemy line so violently that it was overwhelmed …

What I am saying is that all six authors (in so far as you have presented your three) are in basic agreement. They simply are describing different aspects of a cavalry fight. If you break down the fight into three phases [a fourth would be recover but that's not relevant for our discussion], the three phases would be 1. Advance towards the enemy; 2. Initial contact; 3. Melee.

1. Advance toward the enemy. All six authors agree this should be done at the trot.
2. Initial contact. Tavannes, Ward, and Markham describe this phase. Ward supplies the most information.
3. Melee. Nassau-Siegen states the sword then the pistol as a melee tactic. He specifically mentions this is used in melee. I'm assuming Basta, as he is describing the same tactic, is also talking about melee.

As I see it, none are at odds with each other. They are pretty much in agreement. They are simply discussing different aspects or phases of a cavalry fight.

Rich

Nik that's terrific. Where did you get the quote?

As I interpret it the two advanced to about 25-30 yards away (maybe closer) and waited for the other to fire. I say 25-30 yards because there had to be enough room for Conde and his men to build up enough momentum to boll over the enemy.

Finally the enemy could wait no longer and fired at Conde's men. From this description it looks like the enemy made a tactical mistake in not charging. Conde's men, the front ranks, fired and all charged hitting the enemy who were at a stand still.

I'm impressed with Conde's men. After losing so many officers, the units performed as they had been instructed. Their ability combine first fire and then go in at what I'm assuming to be a gallop is what gave Conde the win.

Rich

From "Frenhc Armies of the nThirty Years War" by Stephane Thion.

I must say that to me "horse to horse, pistol to pistol" gives the impression of a hell of a lot closer together than 25-30 yards away, it gives the impression of almost touching. Even allowing for exageration of officer losses for effect I doubt that at 25-30 yards casulaties would have been anywhere near sufficiently high from pistols (which are often advised to be pressed against the enemy before firing) to justify saying that all the front line officers were incapaciated in some way.

IMO you are reading the account from a preconceived position.

That said it is a very odd description in many ways, but it is an eye witness.

Nik, you're right. I'm fitting the descriptions of Tavannes, Ward and Markham described impact. However, having herded cattle on horse back as a youngster, I know it takes a bit of space for a horse to get up enough speed to knock down another horse. So they could not have been almost touching.

As to the casualties we do not know the percentages of those killed versus the percentages of those wounded versus the percentages of those knocked from their horses. For all we know it could be a couple killed, a few knock from their horses and the rest wounded.

Thanks for the reference. Yet another reason to get the book.

I went to French Armies of the Thirty years War By Stéphane Thion, suggested by Nik, on Google and found this quote about Swedish cavalry charge:

Ever since it replaced the lance by the pistol, the German cavalry formed in 8-row deep masses which supported the infantry with firepower, without drawing swords. Gustavus Aldolphus used the Swedish cavalry for impact: it charged at a trot from 50 or 60 metres from the enemy formation, then, when a dozen metres, increased speed to charge at a gallop: the first rows fired their pistols at a very short range (less than 5 metres).

I have a couple of problems with the quote. It makes out as if the German cavalry was only existed for infantry support. The 5 meters mentioned seems awfully short. You would have to have a pistol in one hand, a sword in another and the reins in the mouth. We can call this the Rooster Cogburn attack.

Other than that this is very similar to what we have been talking about: approach at the trot, fire pistols, and gallop. It also indicates that the firing was done by the front ranks only. The difference here is the author states rather than firing at the end of the trot, the Swedes fired during the gallop phase.

Rich

Thion's description of "The Swedish influence" has more than a few errors.

He writes that in 1634 there were 12 "regional" infantry regiments and 5 "regional" cavalry regiments, here he probably means the native Swedish regiments. The actual number was 21 infantry regiments and 8 cavalry regiments.
He goes on to write that Swedish infantry was recruited by conscription ofr a 3 year period. There was no fixed limit on the conscription period, service was permanent until you died, were unfit for service due to age or injury or was released from service by the Crown.

He claims that infantry brigades were permanent, they were not. No to mention that they only had 2 squadrons until Lutzen (a brigade 3 or 4 squadrons).He goes on to repeat the old myths that Gustavus repalced the matchlock with flint, suppressed the use of the musket rest and introduced the use of paper cartridges.

The description of the cavalry is just as bad. He describes the Swedish cavalry company as 125 men, actually the company had 125 horses, these number of men was only 115 (native) or 111 (enlisted)

The German cavalry exists only for infantry support has no fundation in the sources as well. One only have to look at the actions of German Reiters in the wars of religion to see the error of that description

He describes Swedish cavalry squadrons as being 2 or 3 companies strong. In theory these were 4 companies strong on papper but up to 8 companies strong in practice due to units being understrenght.

He describes 50 to 200 man "platoons" supporting the Swedish cavalry. A Swedish platoon had a fixed size, 48 men and a sergeant and a lieutenantofficers. The detachments of mussketeers which provided support were 200 to 500 strong in Gustavus time, the use of 50 man detachments only appear after this death.

The description of the "Swedish charge" is also flawed as it adds parts which are not present in the actual source material. The "gallop" part of the "Swedish charge" is one such addition as is all the distances given except for the range at which pistols were fired. That is based on an experimental interpretation of a period source. (More about that later)
Even the secondary Swedish sources which started the "gallop myth" only places the galloping phase as somthing which occured after pistols were fired. Not a gallop which started withing a dozen meters.

Simply put Thion's description of all things Swedish can be disregarded due to the huge number of errors.

Nik, you're right. I'm fitting the descriptions of Tavannes, Ward and Markham described impact. However, having herded cattle on horse back as a youngster, I know it takes a bit of space for a horse to get up enough speed to knock down another horse. So they could not have been almost touching.

Since the quote I posted makes no mention of horses being knocked down your logic here is spurious.

If I didn't have spurious logic I wouldn't have any logic at all. . We both read into sources what we expect to find. When I read "overwhelmed" I took that as a physical overwhelming in which horses would be knocked down. I have read of accounts of just that thing happening.

A good way to understand what was wrote when there is vagueness is to relate what was said with the existing literature. Horse to horse, pistol to pistol doesn't really say how far apart they were. You may think they were x yards apart while the author meant y yards apart.

Rich