"Osprey Imperial Armies of the TYW (1) by Vladimir Brnardic" Topic

I used to have the Ospreys on the Swedish army in the TYW. I kept hoping they would add the Imperial army, but I gave up on the books and got rid of my Revell TYW plastic armies. I should have just waited 5 years longer.

Been waiting for an Imperial book for many years now. Need to get a copy.

Thanks,

John

Condottiere,
Are we reading the same book? My copy contradicts it self as it in one place describes 1000 man battalions, then turns around and turns the clock back over 100 years by ignoring all modern research and returning to Optiz version of Tilly using 4 gigantic "Tercios" at Breitenfeld. Not to mention that the resulting 5000 man "Tercios" contradicts the authors description of the "Tercio" as a 2000-3000 unit, 30-50! ranks deep.

There is a large number of problems with the book, perhaps cause by surprising fact that important & well known sources does not seem to have been been used. (The bibliography is a mere 9 books) Modern works by noted TYW scholars such as Pavel Hrncirik & Marcus Junkelmann are curiously absent. As is classic works on the subject such as Wertheim. Given the authors tercio theories it's interesting to note that no Spanish sources are listed.

The section on military clothing not only suffers from the narrow definition of 'uniforms', there is also very little doen to explore the changing shape and fashions in the military dress which occured during 30 years fo warfare. The are claims that there was a switch to doublets(!) in the the 1630's. No sign of the actual coats worn by the men…

Odd errors include the massive collection of mostly 16th Century and pre-TYW 17th Century arms & armour in the Graz armoury being described as the result of "post-war war advances in mass production".

Over all this was a real disapointment compared to the earlier volumes on the Swedish army.

i was afraid something like this would happen when they did not get richard brzezinski to write the book

he was the natural choice id think :(

i guess the author will have imperial kurassier all "ponderously caracoling" :( :(

nothing like perpetuating 17th-18th century propaganda

Due to the length of the TYW, different styles of arms and armor appeared throughout the conflict. The samples shown in the book are apt for rank and file infantry.

I'm not trying to be offensive but this does not make any sense as I was discussing something else entirely.

On page 38 the author claimst that
"The result of the post-war advances in the mass production of weapons can be seen on display in the vast collections in the almost intact 17th Century arsenal (Landeszeughaus) at Graz, Austria."
The problem with this is that although the building is 17th Century the truly vast collection of arms & armour held there is for the most part pre-1648, the post-1648 part is rather small in comparison. Indeed by a small margin the majority of items are 16th century. Hence to point the Graz collection as an example of improvements made in mass production of weapons after 1648 is erronous and shows a fairly limited knowledge of history and content of the collection. Mass production of arms existed well before the post-1648 period. (As the pre-1648 deliveries and inventories of the Landeszeughaus shows for example)

Doublets
Doublets were actually in use from the start of the period, in period terms a jacket is a diffrent piece of clothing. (See Johnsson's "The King's servants")One of the key findings of modern research is that doublets do not seem to have been made of wool. For example English soldiers in the in 1590's were issued with canvas doublets to be worn underneath their wool coats. Wealthier men would wear doublets of silk or velvet (lined with linnen and or fustian)

The main job of the doublet was to hold up the hose or breeches, the two are either laced together with points or in the later periods attacked with hooks. For this to work well the doublet needs to be as tight fitting and well tailored as possible. The doublet was worn over the shirt but under the outer gown or jacket.

As doublets of the upper classes became increasignly decorated it became customary to wear them without the outer layer to show of the wealth of the bearer. Hence their common apperance in officer portraits. In the field the doublet would be covered with an outer layer, usually a buffcoat or a cassock or coat. (In winter time both)

Doublets with "long front skirts" (p37) are actually typical of the_early_parts of the TYW, this fashion was popular in the 1610's and 1620's. (See J Arnold's Patterns of Fashion) Further evidence comes for Gustavus Adolphus wardrobe.
picture
The upper row of clothing and the white doublet in the middle of the lower row are all from the 1610's and 1620's, the longer front skirts are easily seen.
picture shows the rear skirts of the costume marke "4"
The black doublet marked "8" is typical of Gustavus doublets in the 1630's, the skirts are of equal lenght. The slashed upper sleeves are looser than those of the earlier doublets but tight fitting sleeves were common as well.
FWIW here is some of clothing historians Kass McGann patterns based in preserved period clothing, documets and images:
link
link
Do note the dates…

The "doublets" worn by the soldiers in the pcitures and reconstructions are called coats or jackets in period documents,, not doublets. As mentioned earlier research indicates that doublets were not made of wool.

Tercios & formations
The 5000 man 'tercios' is the effect of the notion that Tilly used "four deep massive tercios formed in a single line". Tilly had some 21.000 Infantry at Breitenfeld, giving a 'tercio' strenght of a bit more than 5000 men each.

With regards to the linked photo I'm quite familiar with it as the original is in a book next to me and I'm the one that shared it with Captain Gars in the first place. It shows a unreformed German regiment about 1600 and thus is no evidence of a 30 deep formation in the TYW, not to mention that the author, Johann von Nassau-Siegen never once mentions any formation deep than that.

The two sections do indeed contradict each other, first the authors writes that "In battle, the companies were supposed to form up in 1000-strong tactical battalions"
He does not limit this to a particular period or commander. In the Tactics section the author then describe the 'tercio' as "The most popular and well known tactial formation of the Imperial infantry during the Thirty Years War". No mention of the battalion which was the supposed formation mentioned earlier. And if the Tercio was so popular why was it not mentioned in that part?
And of course there is the fact that there never existed a tactical formation called a tercio at all. The tercio was an administrative unit used by the Spanish, the tactical formation was the Escaudron.

The author then goes on to make several erronous claims about the 'tercio':
"30-50" ranks deep
"Could not deploy it's musketeers and firepowe at once as a line formation"
to mention two.

And somehow a 10 rank deep dutch formation is both "linear" and "innovative" but a Spanish or imperial formation formed in the same depth (or slithly thinner or thicker, "9-12" ranks) is "semi-linear" and "obsolete".

The author goes on to claim that "brigades" which were adopted as the 'tercio' was abandoned formed their pikes 10 ranks deep, yet just a few sentences earlier he wrote that Wallenstein abandoned this formation depth in 1632.
Next he says that the Imperial pikemen were deployed twice as wide as their depth. With a 10 rank depth that would limit the Imperial army to 20 files/200 pikemen. Yet Montecuccoli describes in detail how the Imperial army used a 7 rank formations and massed 300-400 men in each "battalion" of pikemen (a formation introduced by Wallenstein)That's 42 to 57 files of pikemen formed up much wider than than twice their depth.
Montecuccoli is a very well known and importan source on the Imperial army yet Brnardic has either not read him or disregarded the information for unknown reasons.

Further reading vs Select Bibliogrpahy
Even if the Further Reading is not a bibliography under another name (as I assume) don't you think it is strange that the author lists mostly older works, some of which are rather hard to find, but not one of the modern works touching the subject published the last 10 years? (Apart from "IN HOC…" which only touches the subject of flags)

Aside from the Breitenfeld error, where does Vladimir Brnardic perpetuate 17th-18th century propaganda?

Actually the Breitenfeld error is 19th century history as is the Caracole myth. 17th Century propaganda is behind several lingering misconceptions about the TYW but in those cases it is blameless.

Condottiere,
How does that quote from "Imperial treasures" in any way support the notion that the arms stored at Graz is the result of "post-war" advances. It only mentions pre-war developments (Maurice & De Gheyn) or threats during the war (Gabor). The Ottomans were an ever greater threat in the pre-TYW period which is why the Styrian armouries got started to begin with. Not to mention why it has such a rich collection of 16th century arms & armour.

My point is if an author states that a collection of mostly pre-1648 is proof of post-1648 advances then there are obvious flaws/gaps in his knowledge. Do note that the author did not refere to the inventories from from example 1699 but rather refered to the existing collection in the LZH.

Together with the other errors this creates so many flaws that the end result misleads the reader about the Imperial Army in the TYW IMO. I don't think that buyers should have to settle for sub-standard products as far as the factual content is concerned just because it's an Osprey MAA volume. Brzezinski has his flaws and I disagree with on some points regarding tactics and efficency of certain troops but for the most part his MAA volumes were well researched. I'm quite happy to recomend them to those interested in Gustavu's army. I won't be recomended the MAA on the Imperial army to anyone. Which is sad as I was looking forward to this work for some time and actually pre-ordered it. It's a missed opportunity.

It can't be that close impossible to produce a good book on a TYW subject. Engerisser and Hrncirik just released a superb book about Nördlingen for example. Marcus Junkelmann edited and partly wrote an excellent collection of essays about Tilly and so on.

Daniel,

Is there a book review of the Hrncirik book anywhere?

link

Is there a thesis or PoV to the book?

I was very disappointed in this book.

Here is a review of Hrncirik's earlier work on the defence of the Albuch which forms the starting point for his part of the new work. link

Hrncirik & Engerisser have both used the the best parts of their previous works which have been forged together with new material to form the just published work. So far no online reviews, it's only been out a month and it takes a while for a book to even get on the review lists of the academic journals.

Their thesis is that Nördlingen was one of the decisive battles of the TYW, similar to Breitenfeld in it's effects.

Thanks.

Shagnasty, are you referring to the Osprey or the Hrncirik book? If the latter, why were you disappointed?

Daniel,

Thank you for posting this information about the new book by Engerisser and Hrncirík. To my regret I passed up on Engerisser's Von Kronach nach Nördlingen, but fortunately I obtained a PDF version of Hrncirík's Spanier auf dem Albuch.

Can you provide a few more details on the new book? Does it concentrate primarily on the battle of Nordlingen itself or does it also go into the details of the campaign?

I have to admit that my reading ability in German is not everything it could be. I understand Hrncirík's contention about the Spanish tactics that the Mangas could each act independently from the centre body of pike, but am I correct to assume that the Arcabuceros forming the two Guarniciones were to remain attached on either side of the pikes?

Ryan

As much as I like Vlado, I have to admit that I was quite disappointed too! I raised some of Daniel's points myself on the TAG forum as they struck me (like the strange limitation to 200 pikemen f.ex).

The sharpshooters and croat infantry being another. As I said, I would love to see his references for those.

I would also like to know more details about the bucklers!!

Compared to other valuable Ospreys, I'm afraid this one will not count amongst their best!

Curious to read the second part on cavalry!!

Cheers

Romain

Ryan,

You are quite right in you rassumption, the two Guarniciones did remain with the Pikes at all times. They were an essential part of the protection against cavalry using firearms at will against the pikes.

Pages 19-96 cover the history of the period leading up to the battle. Starting in late 1632 it covers the campaign in a fair amount of detail.
Page 97-160 covers the battle and it's effects, you recognise much of this as it's based on the study of the battle in Spanier….
Page 161-176 are the colour plates, basicly the same as in Spanier… but in larger size and higher quality.
You get the fine maps together with a new one covering the entire battlefield as well as 1 or 2 page versions of those wonderfull paintings by Snayers.
177-184 is P.H details study of the fortifications on the Albuch, seems to be indentical to the one in Spanier…
Page 185-199 is the chapter on formations and deployments, also seems to be indentical to the one in Spanier…
Page 201-250 is a history of the troops involved in the battle, mainly focused on the Spanish and Imperial troops, the coverage of the Bavarians and especially the "Swedes" is less complete. The section on the Swedes is essentialy a history of the Scottish brigade and one of the Würtemberg militia.

Page 251-292 contains the extensive order of battles for both sides.
The remaining 50 pages is the extensive bibliography and the index.

While I do interpret somethings diffrently than the authors this is an excellent work and a good example of how military history should be written. I can only hope than an English publisher would aquire the rights for an English edition.

Oh well, I think I need to buy German version anyway, book seems to good to be missed or wait God knows how long for English version :)

"Even Brzezinski isn't infallible…"

yes, because after all, only infallible people are correctly described as "natural choices"

"Based on what?"

based on … the other errors described in the book, esp by Daniel S, maybe?

Hello Daniel,

Thank you for your summary of the new Nordlingen book. The addition of the detailed orders of battle and the section on the campaign make it look like the book will be a good addition to Spanier. Besides, a book is always more enjoyable then reading a PDF file on the computer.

It would be wonderful if an English translation would be published, but I fear that is not going to happen very soon, if ever.

Ryan

A look at one of the books listed in the "Further reading" section reveal several very interesting details about the text in the chapter on tactics

I've been wondering about by the odd constriction of parts fo teh tactics section and the fact that the author seems to contradict himself. The reason for the oddnes seems to be that the tex is more or less taken directly from Delbrück's chapters on Breitenfeld & Lützen but some parts have been lost or removed as the sentences were slightly rewritten for the Osprey.

Compare Delbrück's
"Wallenstein had already given up the rectangular formation and had ordered the formation with a depth of 10 ranks for the infantry."
With the Osprey's
"Wallenstein had given up this rectangular formation ten ranks deep"

There is IMO an obvious connection between the two, it's just that part of the rewritten sentence has been lost. (The details given about the 'new' formation further down the page shows that the authort belived that 10 ranks was the formation depth the Imperials adopted.)

The next sentences shows even more resemblance between the two works.

Delbrück:
"He had also incorporated the light regimental cannon and had assigned marksmen to the cavalry"

Osprey's IMP
"…while incorporating light regimental cannons into the formations and assigning marksmen to serve alongside the cavalry."

Delbrück describing Tilly's infantry at Breitenfeld:
"…the four deep, massive infantry terzios, which were formed in a line"

The Osprey describing Tilly's infantry at Breitenfeld:
"…where four deep massive tercios were formed in a single line"

I can't help but wonder what will turn up once I start looking through the other books listed as "further reading".

Ryan,
Even though some parts are the same as in Spanier..</> I think that the new material is well worth getting. The new book is much better value for money than the print version of Spanier..</> (which was overpriced while the PDF was underpriced)
As you say a book is much more enjoyable than a PDF, even though I have the PDF, I've prefered to borrow the University's copy of Spanier..</> when ever I had the chance.

Yes, I suspect right after Christmas I'll be putting in an order for a number of books, including both Hrncirik and Engerisser as well as Peter Wilson's general history of the war. I've found it's always a dangerous thing to order any books just before Christmas as one can end up with duplicate copies.

Ryan

erf .. a stupid question :

is it easy to get compurised translation in a pdf ?

afraid my german and sweedish is far toooooooo ugly for I to enjoy the picking up of those appetisings books daniel mentionned …

ravachol: it might be possible technically, but you cannot use such a translation to retrieve valuable info!

Such programs may be good enough to translate a birthday card, but texts full of special vocabulary is far beyond their abilities!

Cheers

Romain