"Cavalry depths in the TYW" Topic

What cavalry depths, in number of horses, did the different forces in the TYW use during the different stages of the war?

I think I read somewhere that the swedes used a depth of 6 horses in the early stages. If my memory serves me right they switched to three horse depth later on but I'm not sure about that and if they did I'm not sure about when.

I'm not just curious about the Swedes here. Please help me out.

This one of those subjects were as with most TYW subjects hard facts from the primary sources are elusive at best, almost impossible to find at worst.

The Dutch started out 10 ranks deep at the start of the century but soon adapted a thinner formation 5 ranks deep.

As always the Imperial & Leaugist army is the great enigma, secondary sources suggest everything from 6 to 12 ranks deep (or more in the most poorly research works)

The various German Protestant states most likely kept to the 10 ranks deep formations adopted in the early part of the Century from the Dutch.

The Swedes did indeed start out using a 6 ranks deep formation, at Lutzen they deployed in 3 ranks, for the next few years we simply don't know. By 1636 the 3 ranks deep formation was standard.
It should be noted that as with the Dutch the Swedes retained the deeper formantion for a lot of their movement on the battlefield. The 6 ranks deep formation was still used in the Scanian war of the 1670's for this very reason.

The offical Danish regulations laid down a depth of 5 ranks for the cuirassiers. This was based on Dutch practice.
Many, perhaps all of the Arkebusier regiments retained the 'North German' habit of deploying 10 ranks deep. (The Arkebusiers were recruited in much larger companies and lacked the officers necessary to use Dutch style formations)

For the later period of the war we have Montecuccoli's summary written 1639-1641 while he was held prisoner by the Swedes.
According to him the following depths were used
Swedes: 3 ranks
Imperials: 4 or 5 ranks
Dutch: 5 ranks
French 8 ranks

Thanks for that Daniel, I appreciate your well informed answers very much.

Your expertise is always welcome Daniel!

As you say, the Imperialist side is unfortunately not too clear!

The question also is why depths were reduced!
Whether it was done because new tactics were introduced ..or quite often also because of unsufficient numbers for the areas to cover!!??!

Cheers

Romain

Switching to smaller and thinner units was the trend at the time. Practical experience then probably provided added impetuous to reducing the depth.

Given that in general the number of cavalry increased rather than decreased I don't think that a lack of numbers was a problem most of the time. At 2nd Breitenfeld the Imperial amry had up to 16.000 Horse facing perhaps as much as 10.000 Swedish Horse. (And the Napoleonic gamers make a big deal out of the charge of 5000 at Eylau )
Of course a lack of numbers did affect some battles such as Hessich-Oldendorf and Lützen were commanders chose to fight 3 deep in order to cover more frontage.

It is strange that there was such an increased "need" for cavalry, as obviously the infantry was at the same time gaining strongly in importance!

Actually I'd say that infantry declined in importance in this period and only fully regained it's importance in the later wars in the century.
Of course infantry was always important in siege warfare and hence we see much less decline in the Dutch theatre of war. But in Germany and further east as well as in the north it was cavalry that was the dominant force on and off the battlefield.

Cavalry & dragoons had a superior ability to sustain themselves and exploit & controll resources thanks to their mobility and power. The suffered less attrition and desertion and provided the decisive combat power in the battles. If we look at the ECW we see that even in difficult terrain and inside towns much of the focus was to use the infantry to clear the way an enable the effective use of the Horse.

Daniel: while there is (much :-)) truth in what you write, I rather stick to the position that no battle was won/lost as long as the infantry remained intact.
In the ECW cavalry forces most of the time put each other out of the action with little importance who actually had the upper hand, and even in battles as cavalry famous as Lützen, it was the infantry that won the day.
If cavalry often had an advantage in getting to supplies due to their higher mobility, they were also prone to specific problems. i.e. f.ex. feeding the horses. While men can eat almost anything, horses can't.
Higher mobility for mounted troops depends much on the distances involved IMHO. The longer the distance, the smaller the difference (if any).
To generally believe in higher speed for horse, no matter when and how is a mistake in my eyes.

The battles where cavalry actually defeated/annihilated the whole opposing army single-handed were decreasing in number.

Cheers

Romain