"Swedish infantry ga pa tactics" Topic

Wondering when these became prevalent. They always seem to be referred to in relation to Karl XII, but did he actually introduce them?

I seem to remember reading an article in The Arquebusier many years ago, which credited these tactics to Karl X (or was it XI?). Karl XII inherited them though.

Nik, I'm assuming that you are refering to the infantry tactics? The (in)famous Ga Pa tactics were simply Gustavus agressive infantry tactics established as the main doctrine and then drilled into officers and men with regular peacetime training. The reforms that accomplished this took place in the 1680's as Karl XI set about to reform the army based on there experiences of the Scanian War.

The main difference is that Gustavus always focused on the use of firepower to soften up the enemy for the charge, hence the extensive use of regimental cannon. The Carolean version focused on speed and agression.

Post Gustavus the use of agressive infantry tactics declined, particularly post-Nördlingen, while the infantry still could and would close to push of pike the infantry combat would often be dominated by firefights with both sides locked in place in an atritional struggle unless one side was able to break the deadlock by gaining a flank or getting cavalry into action against the infantry to name two methods.

The return to agressive infantry tactics is a difficult subject because there is a ton or two of national mythology obscuring the subject. Earlier historians have had a great tendency to backdate the tactics of the 1680s and the GNW to the Scanian War. AFAIK there has never been a serious attempt at an indepth study of Swedish tactics in the 1670's even though the source material available is probably better than that for the TYW.
The few primary source quotes I have at hand together with the flow of the battles suggest to me that the firefight rather than the charge was the common method of fighting early in the war. (Ga Pa tactics tend to lead to quick victory or quick defeat rather than the prolonged struggle seen at for example Lund 1676) But there may be a case for increasingly agressive tactics post-Lund though the sources for that battle tend to focus on the cavalry wings rather than the infantry center.

Daniel, yes it is the infantry I was wondering about so many thanks for your post.

However, on the cavalry I seem to recall you posted something a while back (could easily be a year or so) which suggested that the cavalry changed from "Gustavan" tactics to a more direct sword only tactic around the mid-1670's. This may suggest, based on what you write here, that the cavalry changed a bit before the infantry in terms of getting more aggressive. Do I recall correctly or have I got it wrong there?

Well the first indication of change is battle of Fyllebro 1676 (aka battle of Halmstad) where Nils Bielke led Livregementet till Häst in attacking "sword in hand", a method he called to fight "in the French Manner" and also remarked that it was previously unknown in the 'North' but soon gained acceptance as it proved it's utility in the great battle of Lund.

But to know for sure how and when change occured one has to look at the 1676 fighting instructions for the cavalry which seem to survive though I've never read them.
As I mentioned previously it is not sure if the changed was driven by the effectiveness of the charge with sword in hand or the fact that the Swedish army had serious shortages of equipment like pistols in the Scanian War. The post-war regulations returned to the 'Gustavian' tactics of a charge with pistol in hand and a pre-contact salvo and those tactics were used in battle as late as Fraustadt 1706 by some units.

I was able to turn up a eyewitness description of the tactics used by the 3 'brigades' of the Royal Guard at Lund 1676. (By 1676 the Swedes were calling the unit made up of 4 companies of infantry for 'brigade', the former name used, squadron, had falled out of use in the 1650's probably due to the confusion it cause with the cavalry's use of squadrons)

Each brigade was formed 3 ranks deep, probably due to the brigades being severly understrenght. (The average brigade strenght at Lund was 175 men plus officers)
At 80 paces from the enemy the brigade halted and commenced fire by rank. Each rank fired only once and reloaded, when the last rank had reloaded the brigade resumed the advance to a range of 10-12 paces where all 3 ranks fired together in a single salvo before charging alongside the pikemen with clubbed muskets.

The sources does not tell if this method was only used by the Guards. Swedish historian Wernstedt belives it was the common method of fighting but I not so sure about that.

Nothing more about the infantry I'm afraid but I've been able to find more information about the cavalry.

The Swedish fighting instructions are clearly meant to given the best possible performance in a "Gustavian" charge, pistols are clearly used as part of the charge.
Further confirmation comes from the account of wing commander Fersen who describes the Life regiment asking which method to use in the fighting. Fersens answer was to use the pistols because then they would get to see the white of the enemies eyes. Upon this the Liferegiment let their carbines fall to the side and drew pistols.

Later on at one of Liferegiment squadrons reverted to the use of carbines and regimental commander Bielke describes how they fought with caracolls like the enemy. They got roughtly handled as a result and was charged through by the Danes who captured the standard.

Bielke describes how his men were contiually "at the charge with pistols and more with the sword" for an hour and a later passage also suggest that the Swedes fired in the charge if they could.

The Danish choice of "fighting with caracolls" at Lund was a tactic chosen because the Swedes had weak and tired horses according to Dahlberg. Nils Bielke describes how he and his men took significant casulties from the Danes during their logn running fight with the Danish left wing because the Danes fired at some range and then used their stronger and better fed horses to witdraw from the vengefull Swedes. Given the severe Swedish losses in the battle (at least 40% possibly 50%)the Danish way of fighting was probably not limited to caracolls and the use of fire & caracoll against the Swedes was not in itself inefficient at causing casulties.

Interesting stuff and, typically for this period, somewhat confusing :-)

I take it this is all from the 1670's?

Yes, 1676 and the battles of Halmstad & Lund. Found a few extra bits on the infantry. The Swedish infantry's willingeness to use the sword in the last stages of Lund was actually the result of them having run out of cartridges and being cut off from the Swedish camp.

The method of fighting described for the guards above was known as the "old manner" in the post war period, it was replaced by the "new manner" i.e the true "Ga Pa" attack in the 1690's. The differences was that in the "new manner" the battalion fought 4 deep rather than 6, fire was by salvo rather than by rank in the first firing and now each rank fired only once in the attack. Two ranks at 40 paces, and then the other two at 10 paces or shorter.
The men now charged with sword in hand rather than clubbed musket. (The pattern 1685 sword issued to the Swedish infantry was a high quality weapon which handles very well both in the cut and thrust even today.)

The men now charged with sword in hand rather than clubbed musket. (The pattern 1685 sword issued to the Swedish infantry was a high quality weapon which handles very well both in the cut and thrust even today.)

Not the bayonet? Was this not used by the Swedes until later?

The bayonet was with one possible exception not introduced into the Swedish army until very late in the 1690's. There had beeen various types of bayonets tested since the 1680's and the 1693 regulation for the infantry assumed that the greandiers had bayonets and flintlock musktets while the ordinary musketeers still had matchlocks. The first offical pattern bayonet was only accepted in 1696 with an improved pattern appearing in 1699. Before the outbreak of the GNW only the grenadiers were equipped with socket bayonets. Some sources suggest that the enlisted regiments in the German provinces had ring bayonets, probably due to the fact that they had no pikes if the sources in question are correct.

With ample pikemen the Swedish infantry had limited reason to adopt the bayonet and full scale conversion to flintlock musket with bayonet only occured during the first years of the GNW as the new weapons became available. The Guards were the first to get complete issues of both. (The production rate of musketes was much higher than that of bayonets so a number of regiments had flintlock muskets but not bayonets.) The first regiment to have a complete issue of both was the Guards in 1700.

Question. If the original tactic was ala French- rapidly advancing, sword in hand- how does that include the use of musket as in Ga Pa tactic? It seems that French musketeers circa Louis XIII possibly never fired a shot (?) since they already advanced- "sword in hand"? As per Ga Pa- advancing in about 4 ranks deep ( sometimes NOT even forming ranks) halting close to enemy while first 2 ranks deliver a volley and then pressing home… Of course at times of Karl XII there were bayonets…

The reference to French style attacks with sword in hand is about cavalry not infantry. The infantry only switched to swords after firing, at least in the Swedish army.