"Cornets of cavalry (formations)" Topic

Was reading an article on Nieuwpoort,

link

Reference 'Cornets of Horse, Lancers, Cuirassiers,etc' was a cornet a troop/Sqn or regiment size formation?

Did this term still apply during the TYW or the later Franco-Spanish War?

Thanks

Given the practice of counting cavalry by squadron in similar battlefield accounts of the period I would guess a squadron, but its just a guess. I've never heard cornet defined that way before. Perhaps its one of those terms that very briefly held sway in military literature before going extinct. I'll be interested to hear a more compelling explanation from someone better informed.

Essentially a troop of cavalry lead by a "cornet", the modern equivalent of a second lieutenant.

In french sources " cornet " (cornette ) often refer to a compagny of horses (mostly cavalery légère ones , dragoon didn't have any and carabin were counted only at the time they were an attached troop within horse compagnies ). It was the name of the standard itself.

The "cornette blanche" (white cornet ) was the first compagny in rank of all the french cavalery the one in charge of the "colonel-général de la cavalerie légère". As regimented cavalery developed it came to refer at the first regiment of french line cavalery : the regiment of the colonel général de la cavalery .

An 18th century french historian wrote that when the french kings were on the battlefield , it refered to his own standard and served as assembly point for the royal houseguards ( maison militaire du roy)

The cornet was also the officer in charge of the compagny standard but never appear to be refering to him as leading the troop by himself.

At the beguining of TYW it does appear quite often but by the end of it and the franco-spanish prolongation , it became more unusual as regimented cavalery was becoming a custom .

French kept the cornet rank name until Louis XIV personal rule and the reorganisation of his armies .

The "cornet" is a reference to the standard carried, not the man carrying it. (The commander of a cornet of Horse was the captain or Rittmeister)
It's another name for a company of cavalry, in the 16th Century and into the first quarter of the 17th it was common in many armies to name the basic units (i.e companies) after the standard/banner carried by said unit. I.e landsknechts were organised in "fähnleins", not companies, Swedish cavalry organised as "fanor" Polish cavalry being organised in "banners" and so on. Quite often the usage of these terms are lost in translation as "fanor"/"fähnleins"/"banners" are translated into "companies" which is the common modern day term for that level of unit in English.

Just to complicate matters a "cornet" does not denote a fixed size, it could be a Dutch 75 man cornet of Cuirassiers or a German 300 man cornet of Reiters.

Depending on the period and the unit strenght a squadron would be made up of one or more companies. Indeed in some parts of the period the word"squadron" were not used at all.

The "cornet" is a reference to the standard carried, not the man carrying it. (The commander of a cornet of Horse was the captain or Rittmeister)

Strange, the British Household Cavalry to this day has the rank of cornet, which dates back hundreds of years. "Second Lieutenants in The Blues and Royals are known as Cornets." The Cornet was the lowest ranking officer in British service; in the 1700's (for example): "Each troop was to consist of a captain, a lieutenant, a cornet, a quartermaster, 2 sergeants, 2 corporals, a trumpeter, a farrier, and 34 privates."

It probably was a rank designation based on the level of command , much like the term colonel originated from the "formation" he commanded (i.e., colunella).

Both the rank (office originaly) and the unit are named after the standard carried by the unit. As a rank it evolved fromthe office of standard bearer, the initial command responsibilities of cornets were very limited.

probably was a rank designation based on the level of command , much like the term colonel originated from the "formation" he commanded (i.e., colunella).

Only a problem with that theory, the commander of that level of comand, (the company level) was the captain or in countries following German usage the Rittmeister.
Period military manuals like Cruso, Wallhausen and Frondsberger to name a few have all the details in the subject.

Well, given that the original question asked about the TYW, I would defer to Daniel's explanation concerning "cornets" in those armies.

From the article given:

By June 21 Maurice had collected an army for the operation of 12 infantry regiments and 25 cavalry cornets, some 12.000 Foot and 2.000 Horse

This would suggest that the cornets participating were on average 80 cavalrymen strong.

If I remember, I will check later on what Ian Heath lists as the structure of a Dutch cavalry cornet in this time period.

Lots of interesting answers.

So depending on the nation/service a 'Cornet' could be a a large troop or company.

Ian Heath lists as the structure of a Dutch cavalry cornet in this time period.

Heath's Armies of the 16th Century, p. 108 says Dutch Cornet is a troop of about 80 men and lists a cornet as an officer rank as well.

Except of course that Heath never uses the word "troop" nor states that the strenght was about "80 men".

And a look at the actual Dutch titles listed by Heath shows that the "Cornet" confusion only exists in English translations. The unit was called a "Vanen" after the standard carried while the man carrying it was the "Vaandrig" I.e the Dutch followed the German pattern when it came to terminology

Heath's Armies of the 16th Century, p. 108 says Dutch Cornet is a troop of about 80 men

Actually, checking the said page, it mentions that the official size of a "Vanen" was 100 men (not sure if that is counting the officers or not), though that in practice they largely served understrenght.

Also it is mentioned that 3-6 Vanen formed a regiment.

Except of course that Heath never uses the word "troop" nor states that the strenght was about "80 men".

You're being awfully picayune here. "Troop" being the more modern term in English meaning essentially the same thing as "cornet." And actually, Heath says in 1598 a cornet consisted of either "100 cuirassiers, 75 lancers or 60 mounted arquebusiers …" Heath, p. 108. Despite going from memory (having read the passage hours before posting) I got it essentially correct. 100 + 75 + 60 divided by three, means that the average "cornet" (regardless as to troop type) was 78.3 men.

Actually, checking the said page, it mentions that the official size of a "Vanen" was 100 men (not sure if that is counting the officers or not), though that in practice they largely served understrenght.

The official size was set at 120 men ("standardized" is the word he uses--trying to avoid more nitpicking), but "by 1595 the majority were in reality only about 100-strong resulted in this figure being adopted as official cornet strength in 1596/7."

Heath's translation of the officer rank of "Vaandrig" to "Cornet" (in Dutch service) seems consistent. According to the Dutch to English dictionary I consulted, it literally translates into "Ensign", "Cornet" being an older term (still used by the British Household Cavalry).

Actually "Troop" has diffrent meanings in modern day armed forces. In the U.S army a troop is a company sized unit, part of an squadron. In the Brittish army a troop is a platoon sized unit.
So the term has diffrent meaning depending on the context. Translating "Cornet" to "Troop" only makes sense in a U.S context. Which is why better to retain the original period term or to translate it into "company" which lacks the ambiguity of "troop".

The confusion I was refering to was the claim that the unit derived it's name from the officer commanding it, as Heath shows the commander of the Vanen was the Ritmeester, not the Vaandrig. The original Dutch also shows that the term for the unit ("Vanen")is the same as the term for the standard carried, while the title/rank of man carrying it is diffrent.

a look at the actual Dutch titles listed by Heath shows that the "Cornet" confusion only exists in English translations .

And in french translations aswell . Even worse and worth to notice , in french primary sources this kind of "confusion" abund .

"Troop" being the more modern term in English meaning essentially the same thing as "cornet."

Fact is that "troop" was already in use by that time period , but most use in french sources refeer to "carabin" support inside horse compagnies . Those had an additional lieutnant leading them but no standards on their own .

Some compagnies of dragoon also tokk on this name later on but only because some were "carabin" continuation and also because at that time they were still part of infantery .

thus I do agree that no translations beside compagny better translate cornet into actual terms and organisation. ( It would be hard to find a platoon with at least 3 officers not to mention the nco )

Also checking the Heath, the unit having 3 officers and 3 corporals sounds to me that the cornet might be able to split into 3 corporalships if necessary.

… translate it into "company" which lacks the ambiguity of "troop".

Not sure that "company" is any less ambiguous, especially during the period under discussion. Besides, I was using the term "troop" in a more general manner to mean a small unit of cavalry, less than a squadron--its original meaning.

Cheers.

Any attempt to turn to a single reference work such as Heath's to determine standard formation terminology is doomed to failure. There was very little standardization. To the Spanish, the term ‘tercio' referenced a support organization. For the English and Dutch it referenced a tactical unit. Infantry regiments were support units not tactical units. Cavalry regiments were tactical units. Cornets could reference a standard cavalry unit or it could reference a special type of unit. The reason being, there was no overriding authority to provide authoritative meaning. The only thing writers had was common usage. Common usage changed from place to place.

However, there is one thing you could count on: the cornets always followed the big trombones.

Rich

By the way, I cross-compared the structure of the Dutch "Vanen" as given by Ian Heath, with that of the TYW era Swedish cavalry company ("Fana"), and the structure and strength of the Swedish unit seems to be almost identical to the Dutch.

That said, it is not exactly news that Gustav Adolf II liked to copy a lot of military ideas from the Dutch.

Dutch style organisation was introduced by Johann von Nassau-Siegen during his time as commander of the Swedish army in Livonia in the first years of the 17th Century.
It replaced the older German style organisation used previously. However there was insufficent trained officers and NCO's to make it work properly, particularly as the cadre of trained officers and men were decimated repeatedly by the Lithuanians so there was a switch back to the older German organisation with 300 man "fanor". It was only after the end of the war with Russia in 1617 that a modified version of the Dutch organisation was introduced.