"When did Tercios drop the four corner sleeve?" Topic

I know at some point that "Tercios" dropped the four corner sleeve formation and went into a more standarized formation with pikes in the center and muskets on the wings. When did that happen and what size where the Tercios at this point.

There was no such standardised formation to being with, the number of Mangas could vary from one to four and rather than being tied to the corners of the Escaudron they could and would manouver in order to best employ their firepower against the enemy. When standing side by side with the Escuadron of pikemen they would look identical to a classic pike & shot unit.

link

The corner sleeves had fallen out of use by the early 17th century. There is conflicting evidence that the Imperialist tercios may have used them at White Mountain in 1620.

The question you should be asking is whether they were ever used as corner sleeves on the battlefield. As Daniel S says, they were flexible and manouverable units, could they really have dominated the battlefields of Europe with such a restrictive battlefield formation?

An interesting subject and you will soon see that there are two schools of thought on this one.

I've given up trying to figure these things out. I think there is a some serious mistaken conclusions surrounding the whole era. I just have not read a good examination that makes sense and really wish there was a solid book out there that covered why these things were any good at all.

I gave up on all the conflicting opinions. Some of the fellows claim more accurate references being available in languages other than English and I have no way of knowing how accurate they are.

My decision, to heck with it. At Breitenfeld my imperialists use the Tercio with the corner sleeve.

Al

There is a contemporary English work that helps clear up the confusion; I think. The "commentaries of Sir Francis Vere".
I believe I read this back in the 80s or 90s when it was 'serialised' in The Arquebusier. Charles Omans version of The Battle of Nieuport appears to be based heavily on this version.

Or I could just be imagining it, as I have not been able to locate the versions of The Arquebusier containing that work.

The basic problem stems from a lack of research and an reliance on secondary rather than primary sources.
Basicly Delbrück, Rüstow and the other historians which laid the fundation of the "Tercio myth". didn't bother to read much in the way of Spanish sources despite the large number of military texts produced by experienced military men in Spanish service. Instead much time was spent interpreting prints & paintings and early 17th C formations were assumed to work like those of the 18th C i.e to be fairly rigid.

In reality formations of the period were a lot less static when in action and the sub units would move and change position as needed. The classic example of this is the "horns" aka "Mangas" of the Spanish Escaudron which were not tied to the corners but as already mentioned could and did move around a lot in support of the parent unit. Indeed they were so flexible in the hands of good troops that the Mangas were at times detached in the middle of a battle to fight on their own. A good example of this is the battle of Nördlingen where the "Mangas" of the Italian and Burgundian Escaudrons standing in reserve at the Schömefeld hill were sent to reinforce the the Spanish troops defending the critical position on top of the Albuch.

This kind of mobility and formation changing applied to the Swedes and Dutch as well. The classic "Swedish brigade" of Gustavus Adolphus was not a static formation in combat, instead the 3 squadrons would assume one of 6 formations as needed.

As for Breitenfeld the notion of Tercios at that battle rests on the misunderstanding of a single text. In a relation of the battle atributed to Fieldmarshal Horn Tilly's infantry is described as "16 regiments in four great Spanish battalions". Yet all other eyewitnesses describe Tilly using 10 to 14 smaller battalions.
The problem is cause by the fact that you have a Swede, writing in German trying to describe what he saw with imperfect command of the terminology.

Rather than "battalion" Horn was describing a "battala", i.e "battle" made up of several individual regiments/battalions. Another eyewitness, the Scot Monro, refers to enemy "great Battailes of foote" but his description of the Swedish army shows that this does not refer to single massive units.

If Tilly had indeed deployed his men in 4 great Escaudrons/"Tercios" this would not only have been exceptional since 5000 man formations had not been used by the Spanish since the early 16th C, indeed it would been contrary to Spanish practice at the time Tilly served in the Spanish army. It would also have been impossible for Horn to identify 16 regiments since the flags would have been massed together in each Escaudron.

Do not overlook the Spanish and their appreciative learning curve in the Lowlands. From the transition from William the Silent to Prins Maurits, Dutch tactics changed followed by the Spanish adapting to fighting a very mobile and versatile enemy.

Many of those hard-learned lessons did have an influence. When? I do not know, but it was a gradual transition.

Groetjes,

Gentlemen,

Thank you for illuminating this point. It has certainly changed my perspective on the evolution of the Tercio. While there is no smoking gun due to lack of primary source material I think for wargaming purposes there needs to be a variety of formations that can constitute a "Tercio" in at least the 17th century army lists. They also need to get smaller as time goes by. I thank you all for your help.