"Why Does Gaming In The Ren-Period Seem So Rare?" Topic

I have gradually started getting interested in historical gaming after a day trip to this year's Historicon and Cold Wars. One of the periods that interests me is the renaissance period, particularly the late 1400's up to the 30 Years War. Based on my limited research so far, there seems to be an interesting mix of changing technology, siege tactics, weaponry, and military strategy. Given all this interesting stuff, it surprises me that it seems that few people actually game in this period. So, my questions are: (1) is my impression accurate or am I looking in the wrong places; and (2) if my impression is accurate why is that the case?

Well, I do know that my Renaissance ranges in 15mm sell quite well. Not stars like Napoleonics, but they're not slow movers like Aztecs or Samurai.

firstly England was not involved in any major land wars for most of that time, so theres little in the way of info in English c/f the WotR and the ECW. (i notice that the italian author of Impetus is active in Renaissance scenrios).

secondly the impression I have of western warfare is of massive pike blocks and slow reiter cavalry. recreating this on a wargames table is v tricky.

thirdly i'd point out that there is a significant differnce between western europe and eastern. Eastern ren seems (to me at least) gaining in popularity far more than the western version.

its the lack of rules to attract new folk, that is the problem.

if you consider this to be a problem.

I think it's because of several reasons, some of which have been discussed above. First, it is difficult to get information about the period. Even the Ospreys for the era only cover parts of it and Oman's Art of War in the 16th Century(probably the best resource) isn't cheap or easy to get a hold of. Second, it is difficult to find a set of rules that accurately reflects the chaos, and I do stress chaos, of the Renaissance era battlefield. Units ran away for no reason, the artillery was suspect, poorly trained formations, and on and on. Most sets of rules try to apply an Ancients or Napoleonic format to the period and everything becomes too predictable, which if you read any of the battles it definitely was a rock, paper, scissors type of war!

It is not one of the more popular periods. I do not know exactly why this is, but my guess is that several factors and perceptions contribute to this:

(1) No rules satisfactorily "model" the rather complex and changing battlefield tactics. Some that attempt to do so are seen as overly complex.

(2) Many gamers probably "intimidated" by painting very ornate, complicated figures.

(3) Perceived as a very limited, narrow period of history, as compared to Ancients, for instance. Perhaps a misperception, since if the "Ancients" genre was broken down into more specific periods, rather than the big "glop" of history (e.g., 2000BC to 1487 AD), the availability of figures for each "period" and the number of gamers gaming each period would probably more closely resemble Renaissance gaming.

Just a few thoughts.

I have fallen in love with the look of Eastern Ren, but am planning it for fantasy games more than real historical games. That could change of course for historical.

It was a period of change in battlefield weapons, formations and tactics that makes it hard to model a particular period without being fairly exact.

'Warfare in the Age of Discovery' does a nice job of covering the period as a set of rules, as does 'Father Tilly'. Neither may be your cup of tea, but they do give a decent 'taste' for the period.

Keep in mind that the very description 'Renaissance period' is hard to define. The Italian Wars of the late 1400s are heavy lancers, pike, crossbow and early cannon (not that useful on a battlefield at that). A generation later, new formations and mounted and foot shot, pike, heavy cavalry, etc. changed the very complexion of the battlefield. Another generation and new formations, foot shot and pike with pistol cavalry come to the fore. It is hard to pin down an exact period to game, but it is fun.

Dan

Don't know if it's rare so much as it's non-tournament. I know lots of pike and shot gamers,myself included, who are very enthusiastic about the period but not into demo games or competitions.

I agree with a lot of what has been said.

Painting is a big deal for some. They would be showcase armies wouldn't they?…

Such a broad period somewhat defies encapsulation.
The ECW and Nappy wars (for example) have strong narratives IMHO. Where do you focus for Ren wars? (suggestions welcome!)

Lastly, I couldn't see building a Ren-army without thinking about castles, and seiges and fortifications… a lot of work to say the least…

Still on my short list of things to do when I find the time.

Lack of sources written in English is not the same as there being a lack of information about the period. Many wars and battles are covered in great detail in the non-english sources. (And often the quality is superior to Oman's more commonly available work.)

Plenty of renaissance wars have strong narratives, I think that the problem is rather the lack of said narratives in English or that the English narratives give a distorted view of the wars (For example the French Wars of Religion were Oman gives distorted view of events and participants.)

For example the various Swedish-Polish wars have dramatic narratives with plenty of colourfull armies, events and personalities.

Get ready for my 28mm Landsknechts line of figures. If anyone wants some free samples, just email me.

I should have figures ready by January.
(and then can mail free samples)

The guys I game with find the Renaissance to be a very interesting period, especially the Eastern European theater.

A couple of us will be playing a pick up game at Fall In this weekend. Ottoman Turks vs. Late Byzantium with Serbian, Hungarian and Wallachian allies.

You should really take a look at the eastern Europe possibilities here. Lots of interesting characters (Vlad Tepes, Janos Hunyadi, Mathias Corvinus) and interesting scenario possiblities (Ottoman "invasion" of Wallachia in the 1460's, etc.) Cool campaign potential as well with all the backstabbing politics and religious overtones.

I think that because the heavily armored cavalry are ornate with lots of banners, it gives the impression that the period is difficult to paint. However, most of the armies had no uniforms to speak of and were in clothing that is pretty simple to do on figures. I also second Age of Discovery as the morale and firing charts do a great job of creating the wild swings on the battlefield.

Is ECW renaissance?
It is a good period for skirmish, border reivers Drake's raids of Spanish ports.

England was fighting in Ireland during this period
Henry 8 fought the French I think.

Due to the huge variety, of colorful troops.

Painting an army appears a bit daunting to me, so haven't started yet.

Is ECW renaissance?

Many commonly (and in my view incorrectly) assign the period from 1494 (French invasion of Italy) through 1700 (introduction of bayonet) as the "Renaissance" for wargaming purposes.

I think the period of about 1400 to 1600 would be more aptly called "The Renaissance" for wargaming purposes. It should mirror the historical period. Save for one or two specific instances, there were no real tactical developments based on Ancient practices, so nothing particularly "renaissance-ish" about the conduct and practice of war, unlike the artists and philosophers of the period who often not only looked back on the Ancients for inspiration, but sought to mimic their art, etc. In short, there was no real "renaissance" of warfare. The developments were an outgrowth or continuation of Medieval warfare, not some "revolution" based on ancient practices. Since by the end of the 16th century, the "Renaissance" was essentially over, wargaming should reflect this.

For years, decades really, renaissance or early modern or whatever remained rather moribund around here. Many people had the interests, but we could not agree on rules. Actually, we could largely agree that we did not like any out there and none of us got around to writing a set.

Now we are play testing the Field of Glory: Renaissance and we have already played more games in the last six months than we had over the past 10 years. People in the play test group are building armies and really enjoying it. So here in Austin, it has been the lack of a unifying set of rules that has really impeded Renaissance gaming.

Rob

I really like the look of Eastern Ren armies. I have been somewhat put off by the lack of source material in English, but have happily wargamed other eras with little more info than a single Osprey.

The painting is a bit intimidating, again mostly due to teh lack of references.

I think the big thing is the lack of a "common denominator" ruleset. Ancients/Medivals have WAB, WMA/WMM, DBA, DBMM, FOG most of which have been played widely. I would guess that for any given pair of Ancients/Medival wargamers you could come up with at least one of the above that both have played.

DBX and WAB seem to be the two yard sticks currently used to measure Ancients wargames. Is it more/less complex, 28mm friendly, 15mm friendly, character driven, element based, etc than one or both of these two.

FoB Renaissance may well provide a common denominator system. It's not that there aren't other systems out there, they just don't have the breadth of market penetration yet.

That and I think at least in the USA there isn't the instant recognition of Greeks and Romans: Ancients, Knights: Medieval, Blue and Grey: ACW.

I am a huge fan of late Bronze Age gaming and I feel the same thing. Why doesn't anyone else game this great period?

I like the Renaissance gaming era almost as much as pie. Vive Gustavus Adolphus!

Narratives:

Religious Wars in France and Germany

Ottoman expansion and contraction West or East

Rise and fall of Rurik Russia

Italian Wars

The Dutch Revolt

Scandinavian Wars

I thought the Warhammer Fantasy Dogs of War line was pretty interesting… it seemed like it dipped into 'Renaissance' to me, with condottieri type leaders and DaVincian flying machines, Tilean mercs, etc. I didn't play the game but thought about acquiring some of the figures. I'm not sure how popular they were at the time but I think they're coveted now.

The reason I bring up Warhammer is simply to note that the Renaissance even showed up there.

Seems like there has been some recent releases for the period, so I suspect it will pick up.

Hi

If I had any clue on why people like one thing over another, I would make a lot better business choices!

I have no idea why.

When we started with the Art of War model a long time ago, initially, doug and I were looking at the crusade period for us to personally bash each other. About 3 minutes later, a very close friend was complaining that we didn't consider his landschknichts! He was a "dresser" with a lovely silken ldsknt suit and armor and so on. Sheesh. My personal interest was driven by sources like "Daoughter States of the Byzantine Empire" related in a way to Oman. I was facinated how armies evolve. And my first renaissance troops were italians and spanish as 'daughter states' of rome. None of my extended group has every shown any interest. Instead, the bulk of the battles over the years have been swiss and landschknits. then a jump to ECW. No idea why.

Rocky

Painting all that slashed clothing with the ribbons and bows!

England not involved in wars between 1400 and 1650 (excluding WOTR and BCW) ?

Pah !

Constant wars with the scots.

And the Irish.

And the spanish (armada anyone – no I'm 'arder – ok, that's not a land war, but there was plenty of military activity that is written about)

And the French (Henry VIII, the end of the hundred years war too).

I think it probably depends where you are and where you go as to how much gaming is done in this period – there werre oddles of games at Salute this year that fall into that time frame.

Painting can be tricky.

Rules were not very helpful – but now that's changed -great rules out there that I can re-base for the 4th time and not have to worry again.

Figures were always available but now seem to be expanding in quality and quantity in a variety of scales.

Perhaps, as has been pointed out, the US and UK have not been greatly involved in the European/Eastern battles of the renaisssance so this most interesting period is not the most compelling?
I would start the renaissance with the Italian city state wars, gets really rolling in the French Invasion of 1494 and ends pretty definitively at Ceresole in 1544 – Then we have the Age of Religious Wars -another pretty cool era but more 'standardized' than the colorful renaissance.
Seems that UK/US gaming jumps from the War of the Roses to the English Civil War and skips this great period.

All those pointy sticks in the miniatures boxes hurt my hands when I reach in.

Well the nerf pike, though lightweight, was difficult to manufacture without petroleum byproducts and wasn't very effective. The safety benefits of the Swiss Army Pike were outweighed by the sheer unweildiness of the thing. Besides they didn't have the technology for the plastic toothpick back then – see the petroleum byproduct reason above – so I guess, yes sharp pointy things are a drawback of gaming renaissance – pikes, lances, spears, honking big swords, halberds and all sorts of cleavey things make them an effective lean-your-hand-on-the-table deterrent and irritant. But doubt that's what contributed to the lack of popularity as sharp pointy bayonets are popular from the 17th century to the present.

That and I think at least in the USA there isn't the instant recognition of Greeks and Romans: Ancients, Knights: Medieval, Blue and Grey: ACW.

Considering this is the period in which the USA was founded this seems rather odd to me :-0

Lack of sources written in English is not the same as there being a lack of information about the period. Many wars and battles are covered in great detail in the non-english sources. (And often the quality is superior to Oman's more commonly available work.)

Fully agree with Daniel S. I have had to source and read material in private collections or major public libraries for both Ancient and Renaissance warfare – because the stuff is so rare they won't let it out of their sight – that blows away any of the pulp that gets regurgitated from Oman and like.

Malatesta, I agree with your questioning the time frame commonly used for 'Renaissance', but wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that there was no real attempt to "look back on the Ancients for inspiration".

Ruleswise I think The Prefect Captain has some magnificent Renaissance period rules that capture the real essence of warfare in the period they are trying to replicate.

Cheers
Mark

… but wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that there was no real attempt to "look back on the Ancients for inspiration".

I was talking about in practice, not theory. Outside of one or two specific instances, there was no real effort to organize, train, and fight in a manner inspired by Greeks and Romans. Machiavelli theorized about it, and Maurice of Nassau may have drawn some inspiration from Romans, etc., but for the vast majority of armies, nothing was truly drawn from Ancient examples in practice.

The Swiss pike formations and tactics were not inspired by the Macedonian Phalanx. French Gendarmes still fought in a very "Medieval" fashion. The list could go on and on.

The painting is that little bit harder but very rewarding and, for me it has actually improved my ability. As for the lack of immediately available information I do quite enjoy researching information myself and using this site.

The figure ranges currently available are somewhat limited but we are beginning to see renewed interest and with elements such as Eureka 100 / 500 we can also influence the development of this period.

So given the above, in the amount of time it will take to paint a few regiments of Landsknechts the light cavalry you've been waiting for might be released……by someone, hopefully :)

Hi

Actually, John, we disagree. It works this way, the states in italy that evolved out of Thema used a variant of phalanx derived from late roman practice that was influenced by Macedonian pike. ref. Vegitius.

These states had success in the open (milanese militia versus french) that inspired the lowlanders who inspired the Swiss.

Thus, you have an evolution from Macedonian through rome, through italy ultimately to Swiss Pike!

Rocky

Lots of things to think about (and laugh about courtesy of a few posts). Thanks for the input.

I can see where suitable rule sets could be an issue. However, wouldn't some of the issues identified in the responses (e.g., the chaos on the field, generational changes in weapons and tactics, etc.) be equally applicable to rule sets covering other periods as well? In other words, is the renaissance period that unique compared to other periods of historical gaming?

I can also see where painting might be an issue (and the pointy pikes). I am not much of a painter and that has caused me to hesitate a little -- especially after seeing some of the painted stuff that is out there (e.g., the Venexia Italian Wars figures).

I can also see where the period may not be of interest to some because of a lack of a direct historical connection (e.g., UK and States not being involved in the Italian Wars). However, for me, I tend to be more interested in periods that did not involve the States such as the Dark Ages, HYW, WOTR and Renaissance. Maybe that is because I grew up learning about the various wars involving the US and these other periods are new areas to research.

Assuming there are no scheduling issues or cancellation, I will get a chance to try this out at Fall In during an Impetus demo game from 1512.

Rocky wrote:

These states had success in the open (milanese militia versus french) that inspired the lowlanders who inspired the Swiss.

Thus, you have an evolution from Macedonian through rome, through italy ultimately to Swiss Pike!

"Evolution" yes perhaps, but your analysis ignores the simple fact that the "Renaissance" period was marked by a conscious effort to look back on the Ancients for inspiration in the arts, philosophy (science), etc.--examining their art, literature, philosophy for "guidance"--the wisdom of the ancients so to speak. Even assuming arguendo that your analysis is correct (which I am not conceding), you have not demonstrated the that this was actually done by 15th and 16th century military practitioners. Did Swiss commanders in 1476 read and apply Vegetius' writings to their military practices? Did de Cordoba?

Sigismondo you should know better than that.

1. I think the period of about 1400 to 1600 would be more aptly called "The Renaissance" for wargaming purposes. It should mirror the historical period.

In 1400, men-at-arms and bowmen dominated battle. Men-at-arms fought mounted and on foot. By 1500, on the battlefield were now were heavy and light cavalry, heavy and light infantry and field artillery. That's a major change. It did not come about through study of classical studies. It also did not come about by recognition of the efficacy of the Swiss. It came about because Charles VIII's father, Louis XI (the spider king) had the Swiss under contract to the French crown. Louis hated the Swiss, never used them but didn't want his enemies using them either. So Charles was stuck paying for all these Swiss and decided to use them. Philippe de Comines wrote the Swiss did surprisingly well.

Nevertheless armies had now gone from mounted and dismounted men-at-arms and bowmen to heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy infantry and light infantry. This was a major change.

2. Save for one or two specific instances, there were no real tactical developments based on Ancient practices, so nothing particularly "renaissance-ish" about the conduct and practice of war,

If you are expecting someone to write "we made this change because of the Greeks " forget it. Not even the artists did that. But we can see changes that reflected Greek thought. In 1500, the Swiss and others fought in large pike blocks with clouds of skirmishing shot (crossbow and arquebus). They were successful therefore there was no need to change. And yet they changed. After around 1550 pike blocks averaged around 1,500 pikes and shot was organized by rank and file and assigned as formed units to the pike blocks. Shot could be placed in front of the pikes, on the flanks and or in the rear.

The Tactics of Aelian was written in the 2nd century AD. It was a work describing the Macedonian infantry and Roman cavalry. It was first translated into Latin in 1487. It was then translated into German 1525 and again into Latin in 1527. It was very popular in Europe. The book not only gave description of the infantry but also diagrams showing how the infantry was organized and how it maneuvered. Aelian described the Phalanx as making up 10 pike blocks with each separated from the others by a open space. Since the Phalanx totaled 1600 (this was not a fixed amount) each pike block equaled around 1,600 men. In addition, light infantry was formed up into rank and file with specific measurements for each. They could be placed in front, on the flanks, and or in the rear. Strangely enough, pike and shot units after around 1550, pretty closely matched Aelian's Macedonian pike block and the order of the light infantry. They no longer reflected the older huge pike blocks and swarming shot of the 1500s.

3. Since by the end of the 16th century, the "Renaissance" was essentially over, wargaming should reflect this.

What are you basing this on other than Papal authority. You did fight for the Pope didn't you?

Anyway there is no reason to suppose the military Renaissance ended by 1600. Raimondo Montecuccoli, one of the greatest commanders of the 17th century and the best military theorist of the 17th century was still referencing the Greek and Roman experience. Sir James Turner, an experienced military man having served in the ECW and in armies prior to and after the ECW, was still using the Greek and Roman experience to explain the battlefield in 1668.

To repeat, the 16th century infantry organization reflected much of what the ancients explained about Greek infantry. By 1600 Maurice took as his example Roman military art. The Greeks and Romans still had the power to be relevant on the late 17th century battlefield.

Rich

I've always thot of "the Renaissance" as applied to warfare to be the "period" between medieval and "musket and pike": that's actually a fairly short transition; say from late 15th century to late 16th century. Then M&P lasts till the late 17th century. After that it's just linear warfare until the end of the 19th century, with lines getting thinner all the while….

I don't do them because the men dress like women with all the lace. It creeps me out. Also, it reminds me of Catholic school and inquisitions.

Why don't more game in the Renaissance period? There are a number of good reasons. Some of which have been mentioned. I think we can over focus on the English connection. After all, they were heavily involved with warfare in the Northwest territories of India/Afganistan but I don't see a lot of gaming this period. There are some but not nearly the number who play Napoleonics. The Seven Years War is moderately successful in spite of a lack of British participation except against the French.

Unlike the SYW, Napoleonic wars, ACW, etc., Renaissance warfare is not "a period." It is simply a collection of wars listed under the rubric of Renaissance. There is not a lot of commonality between the early wars of Louis XIV and the Italian Wars. The period can be broken up into four wars: Italian Wars, French Religious Wars, the Thirty Years War, and the early wars of Louis XIV. There were significant changes in formations and weapons so that all of these wars have significant differences. Yet, they are bundled together under rules that cover the whole period.

I think it is quite clear that Gush's inspiration was the ancient rules put out by WRG. Like WRG ancients, Gush's rules was developed so a variety of different armies from different time periods could fight one another. Major commercial rules systems like Renaissance Warfare, Warfare in the Age of Discovery, DBR, etc., all followed suit. In order to get enough rules sold to recompense the effort and cost of printing rules they had to cater to all these wars in a single rulebook. The problem is, in order to cover these period, the differences in these wars had to be glossed over and had to be made as generic as possible. The common complaint with these rules is that lack a sense of feel of the individual wars.

The answer is to come out with a commercial set of rules for each of the four major periods of warfare. The problem is, other than the TYW, most people know nothing of these wars. Wars like the Italian Wars and the French Wars of Relgion were not dominated by a single over-mighty character such as Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great or Napoleon. The Italian Wars were not fought for any great ideals such as were fought in the American war of Independence or the ACW. Both of these wars were small in comparison to 18th and 19th century wars. So little is know about the Italian Wars that those who have heard of it place it in the medieval period.

Up until now quality figures for fighting the IW and FWR simply were not there.. Little was know of these periods therefore interest in this period simply wasn't there for figure manufacturers to invest much time, money, and effort for these wars.

In order to turn things around we need quality figures to entice people into these wars. These are now coming on line. We need quality rules to address each of these periods of war. They need to be written by people who really know these periods and can write rules that reflect the period under study. And the rules need to be clear, fun, and fast. Looking at comments about rules for the Renaissance, I find it interesting that so many are considering going back to Gush's 1979 rules. I think that says something about the state of rule writing for this period.

And, we need to produce more information concerning these different periods. We need booklets like what GW has done for their fantasy armies and what WAB has done. We need an Introduction to the Italian Wars Wargaming; and Introduction to Wargame the French Wars of Religion; an Introduction to Wargaming the TYW; and Introduction to Wargaming the Early Wars of Louis XIV. People need to be able to purchase their figures and then have a booklet which helps to organize, paint, and play battles for these periods.

Rich

Hi

So, john, did the posts following yours about when things were translated answer your questions?

I sort of disagree in that, parallel to CWC Oman and the Dupuys(who I have worked for) see all warfare as a matter of evolving. It doesn't really matter if YOU know the name of your great grand parents when i am discussing that you descended from them.

I think that the unusual event is some military tradtion that seemingly sprang fully formed out of Zeus's forehead. It is one of the artificiality to me that rules are written as if the conditions of each war, battle or whatever are so original that a whole specified set of rules are necessary!

The sole purpose of periods is discussing them!

Grin, as for liking the period. I have no idea why some subjects interest people and others do not. Lets start with the basic concept of wargaming itself. Who has more adherenets, Monopoly, or wargaming?

rocky

So, john, did the posts following yours about when things were translated answer your questions?

Yes. It confirms what I was saying and the point you continue to miss.

"It did not come about through study of classical studies. It also did not come about by recognition of the efficacy of the Swiss. It came about because Charles VIII's father, Louis XI (the spider king) had the Swiss under contract to the French crown."

As I said: except for a couple of instances, there really was no looking back on the practices to form new "Renaissance" military tactics.

And Rich is wrong. The artists did consciously look back for inspiration.

I stick to my time frame of wargaming warfare in the Renaissance period (the term "Renaissance" not being coined until much later). After 1600 or so, it's called the Baroque Period.

Hi

And you see a disagreement here where I did not. Most of the "looking back" were fanciful writings by non-commanders. But each of these changes started with a base material that had a history. No one was nnalyzing war in the past, but the materials at hand were derived from the past.

Rocky

OK John, you want to say I'm wrong, give us your definition of what Renaissance warfare means? While you're at it, please provide a definition of what Barogue warfare is since you say it followed Renaissance warfare.

Rich

"If it ain't Baroque, don't mess with it." There it's been said….

Isn't there a doghouse for terrible puns?

I stick to my time frame of wargaming warfare in the Renaissance period (the term "Renaissance" not being coined until much later). After 1600 or so, it's called the Baroque Period.

This is one of the reasons this period is not played as much as other more popular periods. Even we don't understand the period that well. John writes "warfare in the Renaissance period". High Renaissance art starts to get replaced by Mannerism around 1500. High Renaissance art is typified by immediacy, balance and perspective learned from the Greek art. Mannerist paintings, on the other hand, "contained artificial color and unrealistic spatial proportions. Figures were often elongated and exaggerated, positioned in imaginative and complex poses. Works of the movement are often unsettling and strange." Where Renaissance art was considered "classical". Mannerism was considered "anti-classical." Thus Renaissance art was replaced by Mannerism around 1520.

Warfare in the 16th century was not even warfare in the Renaissance period. It was warfare in the Mannerist period. So where did John go wrong? He defined the period of warfare in relation to the artistic period know as the Renaissance. Warfare conducted in the period of the Renaissance was typified by the use of mounted and dismounted men-at-arms and bowmen, primarily crossbowmen (except for England). By the time Renaissance armies were showing up in Europe, Renaissance art had run its course.

Why then was warfare after 1500 called Renaissance warfare? Renaissance art was named Renaissance art because they looked back to classical art and not medieval art for their inspiration. Renaissance means rebirth. This was the rebirth of classical immediacy, balance and perspective. In fact, the term ‘middle ages' was invented in the Renaissance to distinguish that period which existed between the classical periods and the modern period, which is what they called their own period. Renaissance warfare was a period of warfare in which people looked back to the classical period for inspiration for their period. It is this looking back to the classical period for inspiration that defines the period known as Renaissance art and the period known as Renaissance warfare.

Malatesta: (after quoting me about how Swiss pikes came to be first used by a major European) As I said: except for a couple of instances, there really was no looking back on the practices to form new "Renaissance" military tactics.

This is not the meaning of what I said. I said that while the French use of Swiss pikes didn't come about because of classical writings, I also said that it did not arise as you asserted, "outgrowth or continuation of medieval warfare." No major state during the medieval period used Swiss pikemen. Charles' use of them was an accident of history. If his father hadn't had them under contract (although he hated them and never used them) there is no reason to suppose he would have taken them with him

Malatesta: As I said: except for a couple of instances, there really was no looking back on the practices to form new "Renaissance" military tactics.

While the use of the Swiss was an accident of history, later developments were not. Using 3,000 pikes assisted by clouds of shot can be called the medieval form of pike and shot usage. In the 16th century all that changed. The size of pike units came into line with Hellenistic parameters. The clouds of shot became organized and formed along the lines of Hellenistic parameters. This was a major reorganization of medieval pikes and support. I could go on but that is enough to show how classical military thought influenced the nature of 16th century warfare.

Rocky: Most of the "looking back" were fanciful writings by non-commanders.

I'm sorry Rocky but you statement cannot be taken serious. You have no way of knowing if that statement is true or not. Therefore it is pure fantasy.

Lieutenant -colonel Richard Elton described three counter marches based on classical counter-marches: Macedonian, Lacedemonian and Chorean. James Turner who had served as an officer under Gustavus Adolphus, wrote a military book, in 1683, entitled "Military Essayes of the Ancient Grecian, Roman, and Modern Art of War." Then there is Captain John Bingham who wrote "The Art of Embattailing an Army or The Second Part of Aelians Tacticks (1629)." This book compares, favorably, warfare of his day with warfare as described the Greek Aelian.

Then of course there is one of the greatest military commanders of the 17th century, Raimondo Montecuccoli who consistently referenced Greek military practice.

Rich

Hi

Why rich, you are right again!

I bow at your expertise, but we were actually talking about the concept of someone looking back and then designing an army. Thus, we have the someone less obscure authors of things like "the prince" hoping for a legion.

And being right about captains and "great" commanders that the usual renaissance gamer hasn't heard of dodges the point. And dodges mine.

R

Rich is obviously on one of his devil's advocate rants.

Rocky: Most of the "looking back" were fanciful writings by non-commanders. … And being right about captains and "great" commanders that the usual renaissance gamer hasn't heard of dodges the point. And dodges mine.

As far as I can see, I addressed your assertion. I found it wrong. It doesn't matter what gamers have heard or haven't heard. You are the one making the assertion and thus are responsible for its accuracy.

But each of these changes started with a base material that had a history. No one was nnalyzing war in the past, but the materials at hand were derived from the past.

That's like saying Renaissance painters used paint material that had a history. It's not the material but how you use the material that maters.

Rich is obviously on one of his devil's advocate rants.

Ah Sigismondo un mio ottimo amico, if you would only get these things right I wouldn't have to correct your grievous errors.

Rich

Rich, good to see you know how to use Google translations.

Hey no mention of the conquests in South, Central, Northern America or the Caribbean are they not Rennaisance ? they certainly helped fund a great deal of the wars in Europe ;))