"English/Dutch Cavalry tactics 1680's/90's" Topic
33 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
| karamustafapasha | 13 Nov 2011 4:33 a.m. PST |
It is well known that the English/Dutch cavalry changed to cold steel tactics (charging at the trot and without firing) in the WSS. But what tactics were they using before this time? I can't seem to find any information on this. |
| vtsaogames | 13 Nov 2011 12:42 p.m. PST |
I suspect the method used by most other western cavalry at this time – walking or trotting up to the enemy, halting, firing pistols, holstering same, drawing swords and trying to get back up to a trot before contact. Hapsburg cavalry used tight formations and pistols against the swarms of Ottoman horse they often faced. |
| Trierarch | 13 Nov 2011 2:53 p.m. PST |
Or a slow trot towards the enemy firing pistols on the move (more for psychological effect than physical) and trying to barge the enemy… or charging fast with the sword (like some French). Tactical employment depended on the Colonel training the unit and the Brigadier leading, not national doctrine. |
| doug redshirt | 13 Nov 2011 5:41 p.m. PST |
The Irish cavalry usually got the upper hand on the Dutch and English cavalry of William in Ireland. The Irish were all new units too, so the Dutch/English cavalry couldnt have been that good. The Irish Protestants formed a good number of cavalry units also, I think they did fairly well too. |
| Oldenbarnevelt | 13 Nov 2011 6:23 p.m. PST |
In the TYW it was pretty common to approach at a walk, fire at a trot, go in with sword at the gallop. What evidence do we have that this changed latter in the century? |
| Daniel S | 13 Nov 2011 10:02 p.m. PST |
No it wasn't as we have discussed at lenght beforee, still waiting for you to quote the Swedish or German source which proves the gallop part not to mention explain how horsemen firing at 3-5 paces distance or shorter have the space and time to increase the pace to the gallop. |
| Oldenbarnevelt | 14 Nov 2011 12:25 p.m. PST |
The question concerned English and Dutch cavalry. We know both used this tactic. France also used this tactic. As for Germany, we know that charging at the gallop was a common tactic. Now they either charged with the sword or they fired first and then charged. I'm still waiting for you to give an authoritative exposition on how the Swedish cavalry tactics. In leu of that, I can only assume they attacked as everyone else. However, my question was when did the English/Dutch cavalry tactic change? |
| Daniel S | 14 Nov 2011 2:51 p.m. PST |
Lets see what the sources say Johann Nassau-Siegen author of the Dutch cavalry instructions for Maurice of Nassaus cavalry:
Charge at the trot Karl Karlsson Gyllenhielm, Gustavus half-brother and Swedish Fieldmarshal educated in military matters by Henry IV during the 1590's:
Charge at the trot Giorgio Basta, Spanish and later Imperial General, military mentor of both Wallenstein & Tilly as well as author of one of the premier cavalry manuals of the period:
Charge at the trot Ludovico Melzo: Spanish general, author of an important cavalry manual:
Charge at the trot Imperiale Cinuzzi, veteran soldier of the Spanish army and the Imperial army:
Charge at the trot Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen, military theorist and author of several much published military manuals including one for cavalry:
Charge at the trot Leilo Brancaccio, Spanish General:
Charge at the trot Herman Hugo, author of a scholarly work on cavalry
Charge at the trot John Cruso, author of the first detailed cavalry manual in English and who drew upon the knowledged of his onw service as well as the leading military texts of the period:
Charge at the trot Robert Ward, English soldier and military writer:
Charge at the trot Raimondo Montecuccoli, Imperial General
Charge at the trot Georg Monck, soldier with extensive experience in the Dutch army, a general in the later years of the English civil war:
Charge at the trot Bogislav Philipp von Chemnitz, offical Swedish historian of the TYW:
Charge at the trot Rutger von Ascheberg, Swedish fieldmarshal whose first battle was Nördlingen 1634 and the last was Landskrona 1677:
Charge at the trot Of the sources available to me only Vernon advocates the charge at the "full career" as the standard mode of attack but adds "but in good order" and many experienced military men considered this combination to be beyond your typical period cavalryman due to avarage or poor quality horses and a lack of skilled riders. Hence the charge at the trot which allowed you to keep the formation in good order. ECW battle accounts are full of charges at a full trot or round trot but not one I've read so far mentions a charge at the gallop. So which are your sources? Particularly interested in the ones which show that the Germans charged at the gallop. Those would be dramatic news not only to me but to every other TYW historian. |
| karamustafapasha | 14 Nov 2011 5:33 p.m. PST |
vtsaogames and Trierarch: Thanks for the replies. Are they based on some source or informed guesses? Oldenbarnevelt: I don't know when exactly the Anglo Dutch change. As doug redshirt's post suggests the French and allied cavalry seem to have been superior to the Anglo Dutch cavalry in the Nine Years War (1688–97). The French at that time were using something like you suggest. A slow approach followed by a charge at the gallop but not in particularly good order. They might fire just before breaking into the gallop. Whatever tactics the Anglo Dutch used proved ineffective against this. But what they actually were is more of a problem. During the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714) the Anglo Dutch changed their tactics to remedy this situation. They started charging at the trot with sword in hand and no shooting. This proved a success and allowed them to fight on at least equal terms with the French during this war. Unfortunately the exact date & details of this change is never stated. From this it seems likely that the Anglo Dutch were not using the trot, fire, gallop tactics in the Nine Years War at least. Daniel S: It occurs to me that the development of Scandinavian tactics in the 1670's – 90's might give a clue. The Danes seem to have adopted the WSS Anglo Dutch tactics so what did they change from? Also I know the Swedes are developing the Ga Pa style tactics during this time but what were they using before this? |
| Daniel S | 15 Nov 2011 3:53 a.m. PST |
Karamustafapasha,
Swedish tactics for the cavalry charge were the same for a long period of time. From c. 1560 when Reiter style cavalry was introduced to 1706 the charge was done at the trot with pistols fired at point blank range. Of course it was nor always easy enforce that this was done properly, demoralized or untrained troops had bad habits such as firing at long distance and/or in the air rather than closing, the long war with Russia in the 16th century also saw the Swedes becoming used to succesfully fighting enemy cavalry with carbine & pistol fire delivered at the halt or by rotating ranks using the caracole. Which turned out to be a bad idea against Polish hussars. In the 1670's French influence and a shortage of pistols led to first some and later all of the cavalry charging sword in hand but still at the trot. But after the Scanian war tactics reverted to the old fashion of charging pistol in hand and firing at point blank range. Apart from adopting a new formation these tactics remained in use from the army reforms of the 1680's well into the Great Northern War. It was during the Gnw that the Swedes switched to charging sword in hand at the gallop though the 'Old' tactics were used as late as Fraustadt 1706. |
| Daniel S | 15 Nov 2011 3:15 p.m. PST |
I've tried to find more references to the pre-WSS cavalry tactics of the Dutch and English used in the Nine Years War and the Dutch War but after the 1658 description of General Morgans cavalry charging at the full trot at the Dune 1658 the sources turn silent. Morgan's choice of pace fits well with the ECW sources such as Cromwell's "pretty round trot" or Atkyn's "full trot" but the question is if these NMA style tactics were continued after the restoration? Oddly enough Olof van Nimwegen completely ignores the cavalry in his work and only focuses in the infantry. Tactics may not necissarily explain the superiority of the French horse before the WSS. It could simply be due to greater elan, unit cohesion and a fearsome reputation.
The charge at the gallop was not necissarily superior, though covering a later period Nosworthy had a very interesting discussion of this in his "Battle Tactics of Napoleon" and it turns out that the French cavalry frequently charged at the trot for various reasons. To complicate matters further any good squadron commander would be capable of employing several diffrent combat methods as the need arose. For example during the battle of Lund 1676 the Swedish Life Guards charged with pistol, charged with sword or used carbines & the caracole at diffrent times in the battle. The choice of tactics depended on the situation and the squadron commander.
(The unlucky captain who chose to use carbines was promptly charged through by the Danes and lost his standard. The Danes on the other hand frequently fired and turned away using the caracole as their well fed, stronger horses allowed them to keep the distance from the Swedes whose horses were suffering from exposure and a lack of fodder) |
| Elenderil | 16 Nov 2011 2:25 p.m. PST |
Daniel do you have access to the manuals you list. If so are these online resources. Most of the English sources listed are on my wish list at present and a version easily available on line would be a real find. |
| karamustafapasha | 16 Nov 2011 3:16 p.m. PST |
Thanks Daniel S this is all really interesting. Are all the Swedes still using the ‘old tactics' or is it more the case that they are supposed to be using the new tactics? Does Morgan use pistols during the charge at the Dunes? If they don't use pistols this sounds like the WSS British/Dutch tactics. WSS sources often claim that the WSS tactics are a return to the tradition of the New Model army cavalry. But this is because they think the NMA are charging without firing but as far as I know modern theories say they fired during the charge & it is this that they are usually referring to. Of course commanders would react to different situations with different tactics, I think that in practice ‘unofficial' tactics are often used in reality. Similarly galloping is not always superior to other tactics and indeed in the WSS French ‘gallopers' and British/Dutch ‘trotters' were more or less equal. Many other factors would clearly decide particular actions – numbers, morale, the exact situation, etc. But it still be possible to talk about usual tactics that were normally used. The WSS sources say that the tactics used previously were inferior to those used by the French in the Nine Years War. So they changed them and this enabled them to fight on equal terms in the WSS. This seems to be generally true from the information we have. Now of course the reason for the change might just be a misreading of what happened. Perhaps the British/Dutch had better élan or something in the WSS than they did in the NYW but it is difficult to see this in the evidence we have. Plus as we don't have any information on what tactics the British/Dutch used in the NYW we can't rule these out as the reason for the change. Caracoles: Are the Danes using real caracoling in the 1670's – i.e. in deep formations, firing then moving to the rear and reloading before moving forward to fire again. I an certainly no expert but I thought that this was mainly used against infantry. Also that it had stopped being used a long time before. Finally thanks a lot for your replies, they are very informative. |
| Daniel S | 16 Nov 2011 3:17 p.m. PST |
Yes, I own orginals, facsimiles or electronic copies of all the sources I've referenced. (Not all are manuals, some are letters, reports or offical regulations) Sadly the English material is the hardest to find online since EEBO controls the access to the digital versions and refuses to make the works available for free online using google books or Europeana. So at a time when the French, Spanish and German sources are easily available for free online or at a modest cost for the work to scan the books and turn them into pdf's the digital versions of English works are hard to find and surrounded by restrictions. |
| Daniel S | 17 Nov 2011 5:54 a.m. PST |
Karamustafapasha,
I'll break down my reply in several parts.
The infamous Caracole is widely misunderstood, it is the name of a manouver in which the cavalrymam turns left or right in place. Basicly a mounted version of "Right Face!". In German it was called "wenden" (turning) and one of it's uses was to turn a rank of horsemen who had just fired into a file which could ride to the rear of the formation to reload. Another method was to wheel the rank and move to the rear in line. Known as "schwenken" in German. Firing from horseback could be done in several diffrent way and did not necissarily involve rotating the ranks using the caracole. Nor did it require great depth. The Danes at Lund did so using formations 3-6 ranks deep. The Swedish squadron doing so was 3 ranks if regulations were followed. One thing to keep in mind is that both Danes &Swedes used carbines and not pistols when conducting the mounted firefight, so you don not get the same problem with accuracy as when pistoleers blasted away at 20 paces. |
| Rampjaar | 17 Nov 2011 7:34 a.m. PST |
Daniel, EEBO is available through a library account, I can access it (and a lot more, like the dutch pamphlets from the Knotel collection) through the Royal Dutch Library for 15 euro's a year. In this book: link I found a small reference to the change of tactics, but it's very short. |
| Oldenbarnevelt | 17 Nov 2011 12:09 p.m. PST |
Come on Daniel, that's a bit simplistic and in some accounts wrong. I think you are reading into your sources. Let's take a look at a couple of them. Curso: "He usually giveth his charge upon the trot, and seldome gallopeth, unless it be in pursuit of a flying enemy, or such like occasion." As I read this Curso is saying that charge can be conducted at the gallop but it seldom happens. However, all troops must be familiar with attack at the gallop if for no other reason than other occasions. I don't know how Curso came to his oppinion, but here is an account by DePontis on how he was attacked by the Cardinal Guise's cavalry. The Cardinal sent a squad, one of six, to attack DePontis and his men. "They came up accordingly at a good round trot, and being come on within twice pistol shot, spur'd on to a gallop." With regards to Ward, you are absolutely incorrect. Ward agrees with DePontis' account: "first with a soft pace, secondly with a trot, thirdly with a gallop;" Gervaise Markham describes how to traine cavalry to attack both infantry and cavalry. "This the Souldier shall doe by thrusting the horse violently forward both with his legs and bodie, and giving libertie to the Bridle. As soone as the Horse is started into his gallop, hee shall give him the even stroake of his Spurres, once or twice together, and make the Horse runne to the hight of his full speede, then being at the end of the Cariere. … And this serveth for all manner of [attack] wheth it bee Horse against Horse, of Horse against Foote." Both Ward and Markham were muster captains and were writing training manuals for their respective musters. The manuals were based on their experience in the Dutch army. By the way, I'm dying so I thought I would send you that Spanish book we talked about. I won't be able to use it. Do you still live in Gothenburg? |
| Elenderil | 18 Nov 2011 2:17 p.m. PST |
We need to be aware of differences in the use of the English language that have arisen over the years. "Giveth his charge" (and I admit to not knowing the context of the quote) could refer to firing a pistol or carbine. Equally well there is an interesting blog called "Investigations of a dog" written by a historian who specialised in horse logistics of the ECW, who has come to the conclusion that charges at a full gallop were not the norm in the period, partly due to the evidence in the period manuals and partly due to the mechanics of a body of horse moving at the gallop hitting other troops. He believes that the risk to the horses of falling/injuring themselves was a limiting factor. It is his view that the last few yards may have been covered at a gallop to close more quickly but that the final close to contact was not at a full gallop but under decelleration or at least a steady slower pace. I don't know enough about the issues but to a non horse rider they seem to have a certain logic to them. |
| Oldenbarnevelt | 18 Nov 2011 6:58 p.m. PST |
Elenderil, you are right. The section is discusses cuirassers and pistols and not the speed at which to assault the enemy. Here is a larger quote. Thanks Elenderil. "Now because the Cuirassier is armed pistol proof, he must not give fire but at a very near distance, being carefull to bestow his bullets so, as they may take effect. The principall place of advantage to aim at, is the lower part of the belly of the adverse Cuirassier, also his arm-pits, or his neck. Some would not have a Cuirassier to give fire until he have placed his pistol under his enemies armour, or on some unarmed parts. If he fail of an opportunity to hurt the man, he may aim at the breast or the horse, or his head, as he shall see occasion. He usually giveth his [p 19] charge upon the trot, and seldome gallopeth, unless it be in pursuit of a flying enemy, or such like occasion. Having spent both his pistols, and wanting time to lade" |
| Daniel S | 18 Nov 2011 11:27 p.m. PST |
Excpet that when you look up up the authors which Cruso based his views on, Basta, Melzo & Wallhausen, the language confusion is stripped away since it does not exist in the once you start looking at less ambigious languages ;-) Not to mention that when Cruso uses "give fire" and not "charge" when describing when and how to fire the pistol, that he suddenly decided to change his word is unlikely particulary when you look at the Continetal souces he used. Since the pistol was an essential part of the charge it's use is discussed at the same time as the speed of the charge as is the use of the sword once the pistols were spent. This how the continental manuals did it and you see the same combination of discussing weapon handling and the speed of the charge in the lancer section. |
| Daniel S | 18 Nov 2011 11:39 p.m. PST |
Of course charges could be conducted at a gallop but for Cuirassiers it was considered a bad idea, at least in the opinion of most of experienced military men. This was because as it caused disorder and broke the tight formation considered essential for the Cuirassiers success. The lower quality of the horses used by the Cuirassiers made it it hard for them to sustain charges at the gallop due to the weight of the armour worn which would cause further disruption of the formation. Last but not least the Cuirassier had little to gain by charging at the gallop, his main weapon was the pistol which was effective regardless of the pace of the attack and even with a charge of the gallop the sword would achive little against the armour worn. There were certain exceptions to this "rule", one is described by Cruso in the part you quoted, the Cuirassier galloped in "in pursuit" or "such like occasion". Basta & Melzo provide similar instructions, cuirassiers charged at the trot but pursued at the gallop. But such pursuits invariably resulted in disorder unless the men were restrained. Another was when charging infantry, Johann von Nassau-Siegen considered it the best pace for the charge since it reduced the time the troopers were exposed to infantry fire and the gallop was more likely to cause terror and disorder among the infantry. As for Ward his instructions are ambigous and we interpret them diffrently
(Page 301) "a Cuirassier usally giveth his charge upon the trot, and very seldom upon the gallop". Very close to Cruso's instruction which in turn is supported by continental sources as I've already mentioned.
No I know that in your opinion, the next part is proof that "charge"=fire rather than "charge"=charge but that is were we disagree. Except for that particular instance, "direct your next charge against the horse" I can find no other instance were Ward uses the word "charge" when descring the use of fire arms. It is "give fire", "discharge". "let fly", "shot" and so on. (But my search may have missed it)
Furthermore Ward instructs that against other Cuirassiers the pistol is to be used at short range, 3-4 paces or even touching. With little space or no space left before impact it is not possible to start galloping and to build up a usefull speed. Lastly if Ward uses "charge"="fire" why does he write "charge and discharge" on page 315 when describing cavalry fighting with infantry? If "charge"=fire then there would be no need for the "discharge". What also makes me doubt that the English usually charged at the gallop is the fact that there seem to be little evidence for such charge once the English start fighting among themselves The common pace of the charge as described by eyewitness is the trot, charges at the gallop are very rare. Early in the war Essex army employed even more sedated tactics even though it had a fair number of experienced men among it's officers. . If Ward et al. were indeed recomending the charge at the gallop the actual influence of their texts was rather limited. Pistols are described fired as close as possible when used by good units so even if we follow your interpretation of Ward the firing would be done at the trot and we again get the problem with not having any space left in which to deliver a charge at the gallop. If charges were commonly done at the gallop the evidence is so far missing and researchers have been looking for it extensivly. If there turned up a larger number eyewitness accounts describing the use of the gallop I'd be happy to modify my view but the extensive sources describing the use of the trot makes it unlikely that it was the typical pace for a charge. De Pontis would be Louis De Pontis? You are using the 1694 English edition? I only have a couple of the French editions and have yet to get to grips with them since I read French very slowly at best. He's a Frenchman and therefore part of the exception ;-) Our previous discussion have convinced me that there is a plausible case for the French doing things diffrently (at least some of the time). If the French charged sword in hand the use of the gallop makes sense since they got an actual benefit from the speed. Johann von Nassau-Siegen notes the French willingness to use the sword and compares it with the overreliance of the Germans on the pistol alone in his essay on the German military system. But as ever there are contradictory sources ;-)
D'Aurignac (a protégé of Turenne's) expected to charge pistol in hand against adversaries doing the same when he wrote his 1663 text, Lynn writes that D'Aurignac's charge was carried out at the gallop but when I looked up the footnoted page I found no direct reference to the pace of the charge. (If translated the French properly) The only hint is D'Aurignac's instruction for the charge to be carried out knee-to-knee in a tight formation which would be typical of the charge at the trot rather than the charge of the gallop. Another problem is that fact that we don't see French style galloping charges among French troops in foreign service in the early 17th Century. The Swedes made extensive use of enlisted French cavalry in 1608-1610 while the Habsburgs employed out of work troops from the French Wars of Religion against the Ottomans in the 1593-1606 war. The absence in Swedish service could be explained by the fact that the French had to use local horses since they arrived dismounted in Sweden. In Hungary it could be that the French restrained themselves since getting out of order and failing to keep a tight formation was to invite defeat against the Ottomans who were skilled at exploiting any weakness in a formation. Times up at the moment but I'll get back to you on Markham as well. |
| Daniel S | 19 Nov 2011 3:45 p.m. PST |
Some more food for thought, paintings and other images are of course limited as historical sources but can still provide usefull insights if used with care. The following images are all by Sebastian Vrancx who produced an extensive range of paitnings showing skirmishes, small scale actions, raids and the plundering of villiages in great detail.
IMHO his paintings provide an usefull illustration of just how close you had to be to use the pistol as described by the military writers, they also show how pistol vs pistol engagement were envisioned by painters and their patrons, the later were often military men themselves.
|
| Oldenbarnevelt | 19 Nov 2011 9:01 p.m. PST |
Daniel, so far all you have is theory. It would be nice to see some quotes of those authors you're talking about. As to the art, that can be easily explained by the needs of canvas space. After all, they are not photographs. |
| karamustafapasha | 20 Nov 2011 9:24 a.m. PST |
This is a very interesting thread – thanks for it. I was going to ask about caracoling again & specifically about this in 3 ranks (i.e. the common later depth). From an 18th century perspective it seems to me that English sources use 'caracoling' at that time to just mean firing from horseback, including that done during a charge. It does not seem to involve any actual movement of the individuals between ranks, etc. So do you think that mid – later 17th century 'caracoling' necessarily involved actually moving between ranks? Especially in 3 rank formations. |
| Supercilius Maximus | 20 Nov 2011 3:59 p.m. PST |
What depth were formations in the ECW/Restoration/Glorious Revolution period for the English/Scottish/Irish cavalry – three ranks, or just two? |
| Daniel S | 20 Nov 2011 4:12 p.m. PST |
Sure Rich, since the English references I've mention are either in your possesion or can be found quoted online I'll start with the German & Dutch material. KriegsRegeln Desz Ritters Ludwig Meltzo, Malteser Ordens, Wie eine Reyterey zu regieren… Reigles Militaires.. Published first in Italian in 1611, new Italian edition in 1626, German editions in 1625 & 1643, French in 1615 and Spanish in 1619. I'm quoting from the 1625 German edition: "Der Kürisser eigenschaft ist, dass sie den Speerreutern mit kleinen Trabb nachfolgen, vnd der öffnung , so sie in des Feindes Squadron gethan haben, sich gebrauchen, vnd dieweil den Kürissern die Unordnung gantz und gar zu wider ist/ so sollen sie umb deswillen durchaus keinen Galopp nehmen/ als wann sie etwa den Angriff thun müsten.
(…)
Der Kürisser Bewegung ist keinmal stercker,als der Trabb, wie oben angezeigt und wäret dieses nicht lang;
(…)
…sollen sie in Grosse squadronen geordnet werden, damit sie ein gus starck Corpus formiren, dann ihre eigenschaft ist, dass sie wol in einander gescholssen, und eng beijkammen, angreiffen sollen.
(…)
grosse squadronen von zwen auch vierhundert pferden" Giorgio Basta, Commissionary-General of the army of Flanders, General of the Cavalry in the Imperial army:
"Gouverno della caualleria, das ist, Bericht von Anführung der leichten Pferde: dabey auch was die schweren belanget,": The quoted text comes from the 1759 translation of the original 1612 Italian edition. (German editions published 1614 and 1626 French editions in 1616 and 1627, Spanish in 1624 and 1641-1642, Italian 1612, 1616, 1624 and 1642.) "Dieses sind die Cürassierer. Sie sind erfunden, den Gefechten heftige Anfälle auszuhalten, und ein fiendliche Esquadron zu werfen. Sie müssen daher en gewisse Schwere, und ein gewisse Stärke haben, nicht stärker als im Trab anfallen und in Galloppe verfolgen.
Aus dieser Ursache haben sie starke Pferde nöthig, und thus es nich wenn sie etwas schwer sind. Sie brennen ihre Pistole, nahe an den Feinde, so wie man saget, dem Propf ins Geschichte, ab. Einige pflegen die ihrige Gegner auf die hüfte zu fessen. Sie thun sehr gut Dienste; ihre Schüsse gehen nict nur wie die Lanze, hindurch; sonder side dingen auch überdem durch das Bruststück." "Die Eigenschaft der Cürassierer in Gegentheil ist in grosser Esquadron und dichtem Maasse anzugreifen. Je stärker und grösser diese sind desto grösser ist auch die Wirkung. Sie gehen also um geschlossen zu bleiben nur im Trab auf den Fiend, und im Gallopp, wenn er sich zur Flucht begiebt. Hieraus wachsen ihen verschiedne vortheile zu. Sie können in allen Gegenden, auch in weichen unebenen, dienste thun. Ferner ist jedes Pferd zum Trabe gut, und daher auch die flandericschen, welche wegen ihrer Schwere zur Lanze nichts taugen, für sie tauglich. Uebringens kann jeder Mensch durch eine geringe Uebung das Gewehr der Cürassiereer führen lernen, und folglich ist es leichter, Leute für die Cürassierer zu Schaffen. Jeder Mann in der Esquadron trägt, wenn er auch nich mit sicht, zum Nachdrucke derselben beij, und hilft den Stoss verstärken, indem er mit den andren geschlossen fortrücket."
Johann von Nassau-Siegen, cousin of Maurice of Nassau and co-author of the Dutch military reforms.
Eine Kurtze doch nutzliche verzeichnus und bericht.
Wie un in was massen die carapiner gemustert undt in underschidlichen stucken underwiesen zu werden
"Zum 6. werden sie underweisen, wie sie in obgemelten schlachtordnungen nutzlich und ordentlich treffen sollen. Nemlich mussen die kurtze roher uf den fiendt loss schissen, doch kein geliedt eher, es konne dan dem feindt das roher ufsetzen und stracks durchdringen. Sobalt sie durch seindt weil hinden sowohl als voern bevelchsleuthe seindt, mussen sie sich ufm fuess, ohne schwencken umbwenden und die seittenwehr aussziehn undt allsobaldt widder dem feindt if rucken treffen, ehe sich widder wenden oder ferttig machen kann." Von treffen
Item wan reutterey uf reutterey trifft, wie langsamer solches geschicht, ohne rennen, damit die ordnung nicht geprochen werde, wie besser. Wan aber reutter auf fuss volck zu treffen haben, wie geschwinder und furioser solches zugehet, wie besser, dan solches leichtlich das fuss volck in einen schrecken pringet, am wieder laden hindert, und man desto besser durch kohmmen und weniger schaden leiden darf -------
Comments to follow tomorrow |
| RNSulentic | 20 Nov 2011 5:19 p.m. PST |
The Pieter Snayers painting of the battle of Wimpfen in 1622 appears to show a caracole in the background:
link I'd love to see this painting up close. |
| Oldenbarnevelt | 20 Nov 2011 9:21 p.m. PST |
A bit supercilious don't you think, Daniel? |
| Daniel S | 21 Nov 2011 4:09 a.m. PST |
Let's see Rich, I worked past midnight here in Sweden in order to provide the quotes you asked for and get accused of "assuming an air of contemptuous indifference or superiority"! Why? I could have understood such a remark if I had thrown up poor images of the orginals with their Gothic "Fraktur" print and faded handwriting and left it at that. But instead of taking such a cheap shot I spent a couple of hours of scare spare time to transcribe the text of the quotes into something that is readable and posted it so that interested readers like yourself & Elendril et al. could get to grips with it "raw". (In addition I thought that my translations would be better with a decent nights sleep rather than being done during a caffeine laced all-nighter.) |
| Daniel S | 21 Nov 2011 4:24 a.m. PST |
Robert,
That painting is not of Wimpfen, donät now why it has gotten labled as that since it lacks key elemets of that particular battle. For example Baden-Durlachs wagenburg, the river to the rear of his position and last but not least the troops defending on on the right side of the painting are wearing field signs in Imperial & Spanish red while the attacking troops are lacking the blue Leaugist field signs. Snayer's painting does in fact show the battle of Fleurus, link
Closest to the viewer you can see the 800 shot defending the Ferme Chassart, beyond them you get the cavalry fight between Brunswick and Gauchier, next you get the 4 Spanish Escaudrons of foot with the woods behind them and furthest away the Spanish wagons used to cover the flank and rear next to Da Silvas cavalry. I have a larger photo of the painting here
link
Just add the missing "g" in jpg and copy the url into you webbrowser. |
| Daniel S | 21 Nov 2011 1:57 p.m. PST |
Translating German into English is not an easy thing as the grammar & sentence buildning of the two languages are rather different. Any attempt to do a word by word translation of an idiomatic expression has a high of ending up as a garbled piece of nonsens. Some words are also notoriously hard to translate since English lacks a word with the same meaning. As in the case of "trennen" a good translation may require the use of several words to convey the proper meaning. Cruso's choice of "pierce and divide" is actually very good. And last but not least the 17th Century was noteworthy for it's lack of standards as far as spelling, grammar and punctuation was concerned. Melzo:
"The Cuirassiers … is that they follow the Lancers at a an easy trot and make use of the breaches that they [the lancers] have made in the Enemy squadron, and because Disorder is completely against the Cuirassier, they must never willfully [deliberately] gallop, when they perchance must make the Attack." "The Cuirassiers Movements is never stronger [i.e faster] than the Trot, as was shown above and this for [only] a short space. [lit. "and were this not long"] Melzo is in some ways the most conservative writer of the 3 I've quote. He views the lancer as the shock troops who make the charge and create a breach in the enemy squadrons. The Cuirassiers main task is to exploit the breach create by the attack of the lancers which they do at an easy trot. When they must attack on their own they must never gallop because disorder is so disadvantageous for them. The second part describes the pace used by the Cuirassiers in no uncertain terms "keinmal" (never) leaves no room for anything else and even then trot is only to be used for short periods of time/short distances. (It is likely that Mezlo's "Trabb" is what the "round trot" or "full trot" of the English writers.) Basta
"These are the Cuirassiers. They were invented to endure furious Attacks in battle, and to overthrow an enemy Squadron. They must therefore have a certain Weight and a certain Strenght, not attack faster than the Trot and pursue at the Gallop." "They [the Cuirassiers], in order to remain closed up, go only at the Trot against the Enemy, and at the Gallop, when he [the enemy] takes flight." Basta is more flexible in his choice of pace than Melzo, charges are only carried out at the trot but pursuit is done at the gallop. Like Melzo Basta is motivated by the need to keep together the close order formation of the Cuirassiers ("um geschlossen zu bleiben") and makes clear in no uncertain terms the pace to be used, "only at the Trot" ("nur im Trab"). Basta's choice of words also hints at how the impact of cuirassiers was diffrent from that of lancers. When describing the lancers he writes that they were invented to "split" an enemy squadron (Cruso writes "pierce and divide), the German word used is "trennen". The cuirassier however is described as "throwing"/"overthrowing his enemy (German word used: werfen) Johann von Nassau-Siegen:
"…when horsemen charges upon horsemen, the slower such things are done, without galloping, so that the order is not broken, the better. However when horse have to charge upon foot, the faster and furiouser such things are done, the better, when such things easily bring terror among the foot, further it prevents reloading, and you come better through [the firing] and suffer only small damage [from it]." Johann von Nassau-Siegen is the most sedated as far as the choice of speed is concerned, keeping the formation together is everything against other cavalry. Against infantry however furious speed is of great use, it brings terror among the enemy, prevents him from reloading and you will only suffer little damage from his firing.
As can be seen the all 3 writers limit the speed of the charge for the same reason, the need to keep together the formation in close order, they were certainly not the first writers to get to grips with this problem, Tavannes and La Noue did so as well to name two. Another reason for chosing the trot rather than the gallop was the horses, one of the reasons the lancer fell out of use was that it was hard to find horses of the right size, stamina and weight so that they could sustain charges at the gallop and be nimble enough. The Cuirassier's horse on the other hand only had to be large and strong, it was no disadvantage if they were a bit heavy. And as Basta points out "Furthermore all horses are good for the Trot" ( "Ferner ist jedes Pferd zum Trabe gut"). Charging at the gallop with horses unsuited for it was to invite defeat as I'Hopital learned the hard way at Rocroi:
For his part. Marechal de l' Hopital was not as successful since having led his cavalry charge at a gallop his troops tired before reaching the enemy. The Spanish held their ground and smashed de l'Hopital's cavalry. The battle of Rocroi as recounted by the Marquis de la Moussaye Given the harsh conditions which men and horses had to endure in more than a few campaigns in the TYW and other wars it is likely that many horses would have been hard pressed to deliver charges even at the full trot let alone the gallop. At Wittstock 1636 the horses of Baner & Torstensson wing could barely stand after having had to charge 8 or even 10 times in one of the hardest fought cavalry actions of the war. Troopers actually fell out of the saddle due to exhaustion towards the end of the battle. Compare this to the "thirty brave charges" made by the superbly mounted French Gendarmes on the first day of Marignano 1515. |
| Oldenbarnevelt | 21 Nov 2011 8:25 p.m. PST |
I don't see a real problem between your sources and mine. If you concider a charge as a movement to engage in combat then they all agree. Cavalry charges at the trot. What my sources say is at the end of the trot, cavalry fires their pistoles then covers the remaining small distance with swords at the gallop. The only difference is niether Basta nor Johann von Nassau-Siegen describe how to finish the charge. They don't discuss the use of pistols and swords at the end of the charge. Thus I don't see any conflict with all these accounts. What Tavennes said is less experienced pistoliers should end their charge at the trot. HOWEVER, experienced pistoliers should end their charge at the gallop. [Delbruck] LaNoe criticizes the lancers not for galloping but for beginning the gallop too soon. However, I could find nothing about Rieters ending their charge at the trot. I also don't find anything to challenge the idea that pistol-armed cavalry moved from walk, trot, pistol shot at end of trot, finishing with swords at a short gallop. |
| RNSulentic | 23 Nov 2011 9:08 a.m. PST |
Daniel, thanks for the heads up on that painting! |
|
ponders nirvana.
