"Reiters or Cuirassiers" Topic

Is there any real difference between Reiters and Cuirassiers during the second half of the 1500s? They both fought with sword and pistol and both had basically the same armor. The Reiters had the caracole but didn't they abandon the tactic as time went by? Once the Reiters abandoned the caracole, weren't Reiters and Cuirassiers basically the same cavalry?

Their tradition.

I am not sure wether "cuirassier" was even a unit type at that time, rather then an evolving Knight (lance) with less armour and lighter (or no) lance (the demilance).

Cuirassier is probably the term to be used by the cavalry type that evolved out of both these formerly different styles.

While using similar weapons they did not use the same armour nor did they recive the same pay. Contemporary documents show them as separate types of cavalry, for example the Habsburgs recruited both Cuirassiers and Reiters for their war with the Ottomans 1593-1606.

The Reiter was commonly called "Schützenpferd" in German, they were "light" cavalry and had evolved in the 1540's.
They wore armour known as a "Trabharnisch"

The Cuirassiers on the other hand were heavy lancers who had abandoned the lance in favour of the pistol. They would have more extensive armour of better quality.

The diffrence in armour meant that the Cuirassier had to be better mounted which was an additonal reason for his higher pay and status.

The Reiters were never restriced to the Caracole in the way described in many books. Already in the wars of the 1540's & 1550's they charged into combat to use their pistols at point-blank range and in the melee. However a drop in quality beginging in the 1560's meant that more and more units became reliant on firing at a distance and had problems with conducting a proper charge. Actual performance would depend on the time and place.

Daniel-I wonder if the distinctions that you draw are more theoretical than actual. More affluent reiters probably wore better quality armour. Marginal cuirassiers may have gotten by with less than the ideal armour, and especially as the campaign wore on probably were probably riding lower quality horses as well. Adding to the "fun", some commentators would have us believe reiters were pistol cavalry while others indicate they could carry arquebusiers as well pistols, suggesting that reiters not only overlapped cuirassiers on the high end, but also arquebusiers on the low end.

We are speaking of a time without standardized equipement and a timespan of 50 years. The exact meaning of Reiters, Deutschreiter (German Reiters) or Schwarzreiter (Black reiter, for their blackened and often cheap cuirass) changes over time and space. The Schmalkaldic war merged distinct equipment into Reiters. During the French Religious wars Reiters were typically German mercenaries (oftern lower nobility), but lost their character due to heavy losses and new units raised in other regions. Their equipment certainly changed, too, with the development of armour, pistols and the typical battlefield environment. Generally firearms became better, which made armour less effective, especially less cost-effective. So we especially see a degrade in the heavily armoured cavalry. In 1550 Gensdarmes were still a valid unit type, but already pretty expensive.

I am pretty sure that some Reiters were better equipped then some Cuirassiers, that there were several unit types that overlapped with both and that Daniel is spot on to the typical differences between both.

Imho in the early half of this era (1550 to the 1575) the differences were probably distinct, both in heritage and equipment. While these differences slowly blur out, the cuirassier remained the more heavily armoured type.

Bill,
The distinctions are based on the documentary evidence available for the Reiters, i.e the "Bestallungen" according to which the units were raised as well as the muster rolls they left behind. In addition you have records of armouries like the Landeszeughaus in Graz and the records of the merchants who made & sold the armour as well as their buyers.

The "bestallungen" laid down in detail how the men were to be armed and armoured and there was no extra pay awarded for turning up in better equipment. The Trabharnisch became the standard armour because it was cost effective, even the cheapest "Feldküriss" cost at least five times as much as a Trabharnisch, the most expensive ones 20 times as much.
As the military contractor supplied much of the arms & armour they faced an increase in the cost for no gain . Not to mention that heavier armour meant that you had to find more expensive horses as well.

It was the combination of inexpensive armour, the ability use horses that were were less costly than those of the lancers and the impact of their firearms which made the Reiters such an effective force and made it possible to raise them in large numbers.

I've found very little evidence for better armoured "Reiters" outside the first decade or so in which the Reiter bands were a mixture of "kürisser" (men-at-arms with lance), "Speisser" (demi-lancers) and Schützen/Pferdschützen/Schützenpferd (Reiters) and even then the best armoured men were a small minority. Later on officers may have brought better gear but I have yet to find examples of the ordinary troopers having it.

The Trabharnisch was not low quality armour, rather it focused the quality on a few pieces that were less expensive to make. As mentioned the more complete armours were much more costly and on top of that they did not provide a lot more protection against firearms. Based on battle experience the King of Denmark actually refused to accept the service of the cavalry which the nobility was obliged to provide if the men turned up in full "white harness", from late 1565 only men in black Trabharnisch were to serve in the Danish-Swedish war.

The reason for the "overlap" with the arquebusiers is surprisingly simple, the Schützenpferd were the mounted arquebusiers in Germany but their more extensive armour and pistols gave them the ability to fight as battle cavalry as well. Early lists of Imperial armies such as that which fought in the Sant Quentin campaign in 1557 refer to the same units as "black cavalry" in one list and "mounted arquebusiers" in the other.

Later on the Bestallungen begin to separate the two but the diffrence is the "Reiters" at most only have a few men with arquebus (1 in 5 or 1 in 6 to take two examples) otherwise the armour and other equipment are indentical.

The Cuirassiers are a much more complex issue since they come from a much wider variety of sources and have left less in the way of documentary evidence.

You have the volunteers who supplied the Huguenots with their cavalry who found themselves fighting with sword and pistol due to a shortage of lances in 1569. Even before then some of the Hugenot Gendarmes had neither lance nor any armour at all. (In 1567 units are described were most of the men had only pistols and wore nothing more than the white cassock) The shortages seem to have become even worse by the time Henri of Navarre fought in the 1580's but by the battle of Ivry his cavalry was described as very well equipped and mounted on good horses. Clearly this is an example of how the level of armour could be very diffrent depending on the period.

On the other hand you have the Cuirassiers employed by the Habsburgs against the Ottomans in 1593-1606, here we find detailed regulations regarding the equipment in the Bestallungen as well as the enforcement of those regulations at musters.

I recall reading several contemporary comments that the mass of reiters were composed of "villeins". If Cuirassiers were more motivated and composed of real warriers, Curassiers should be far superior to Reiters regardless of similiar tactics.

The comments tells you more about the snobbery of the writer than the military ability of the Reiters. The Reiter may have had fewer "Gentlemen" in their ranks compared to a company of Gendarmes, particularly if you include the armed Grooms as well. But lack of noble blood is not the same thing as a lack of military ability.

Blaise de Monluc (a veteran warrior if there ever was one) described the Reiters in his "Commentaries"

"In truth those people encamp themselves like true men of war, it is very hard to surprize them : they are more careful than we, especially of their horses and arms and are besides more terrible in war, for a man can see nothing but fire and steel ; and not a Groom in their Troops but accouters and trains himself up to the fight and so in time become good soldiers"

François de Rabutin himself a Gendarme who fought the early Reiters in the 1550's regarded them as

"…invented for the amazment and breaking up of the French men-at-arms."

Not bad for a bunch of "villeins"

Training, discipline, leadership and espirit de corps were all more important than wether the trooper was of noble birth or not. Now noble birth could provide some advantages such as training in horsemanship and the use of arms from an early age. It could also provide a varying amount of espirit de corps. But these advantages were limited and often came together with a number of disadvantages such as poor discipline and among the French a lack of the skills needed to make effective use of firearms, in particular pistols.

Actually my thoughts on hearing the word villein was more along the line of shiftless thiefs, murderers and rapists…you know your standard run of the mill renaissance psychopath type. I suspect under the right commander and discipline, they might make good soldiers but I would suspect their cohesion as I would expect every man for himself.

But then if it is simply a general term used for any man not of noble birth due to the snobbery of the writer, I would ignore any sort of negative connation to the word "villeins".

Clearly the Reiters were quality troops at least early in their history.

I do also recall reading statements that the columns of Reiters often fell apart once the front ranks were penetrated due to poor fighting quality of troopers beyond the front ranks. Although I would hate to generalize to all Reiters units from a couple observations without really knowing the context or timeframe. IIRC, Delbruck had quite a number of observations from historical personalities commmenting on the reiter vs lancers vs sword controversy.

Puster,

One of the things that struck me as I dug into the documentary sources was how little change there was in the equipment used by the Reiters. The pieces of armour required were the same in 1546 as in 1606.

There was a change in the apperance of the armour, the simple ridge on the breastplates of the 1540's became drawn out into the pointed "Tapulbrust" of the 1560's&1570s and then turned into the "Ganzbauch" style (peascod style) breastplates of the 1580's. The shape of the burgonet varied and some harnesses were made with a combed morion rather than a burgonet. But these changes were a matter of style rather than substance.

The weapons mix carried did see more change with the boar spear carried in the early period being abandoned in the later 1550's. From then on units had arquebus & pistol or arquebus & two pistols or two pistols alone. In addition to the sword some documents required the troopers to have a mace or warhammer as an additional sidearm.

Jagger,
Villein is french for peasant, originaly a class of serf. Often used as a derogatory catch all phrase for non-noble fighting men in certain situations. The Reiter were certainly no strangers to murder, rape or theft as with most 16th C military formations those crimes were all to common particularly when they were not paid. The Reiters gained quite a bad reputation in France for the havoc that accompanied their invasions. ( Off course the French themselves were quite prone to such crimes among themselves as religious strife loosend the already loose bonds of discipline.)

Some Reiter formation were certainly of good quality, the units raised for the early years of the wars of religion and the Swedish-Danish war could draw upon the veterans of the

Managed to hit send to early, the danger of writing on the phone….
To continue the Reiters in the 1560's benefited from the veterans of the wars of the 1550's, this gave them a level of training and cohesion that was often above average. By comparison the Reiters raised for the 1587-1588 invasion had few if any of the qualities mentioned by Monluc.