"Mounted Arquebusiers From Italian Wars." Topic

Anydoby had buyed and painted these figures?

From main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

They are on their way. Ordered weeks ago along with some other goodies. They are quite impressive.

And due to the controversy over whether arquebusiers fired from the saddle, I only bought those at the ready.

I think I'll go the same route, Condottiere – for the longest time I quite loved the idea of them (and crossbowmen)shooting from horseback, but the more I read about it, the more convinced otherwise I am.

SOme sources indicate that there is a tradition of firing from the saddle originating in Germany that ultimately results in the Reiters, but these seem to be Men at arms who originally substitute quality of equipment or training with new weapons, not units of arquebus armed horse. Sources are, however, only secondary and not too specific (probably Daniel knows some reliable or first grade sources :-)

I am not yet decided wether to order the shooting arquebus, but even if so I will most likely not build them as a unit. Perhaps I will add one in an Impetus size based (12*6) with others firing "Dragoon"-style (unhorsed on foot)

Glad you had enjoy them guys!.

Amicalement
Armand

Modern reconstruction shows that almost certainly winged hussars did not go into battle with the wings mounted, either on the rider or the horse. But I shall build my next unit of them just like the last, with wings on. Mostly for ID purposes. So, if I where tom need the above figures i probably would have some of them firing from the saddle. But maybe not, I would just need resonable drgoon rules to g with them.

owen

There are examples of long armed wheellocks, or wheellock carbines, but it looks as if the examples above are matchlock. I imagine the wheellock longarms were intended to be fired mounted, much as the wheellock pistol. (Funny enough, there are matchlock pistols…I have see period ones from east; Turkey and India, as examples.)

ilodic.

Germany and central Europe had a tradition of using the crossbow from horseback both for the hunt and in warfare as far back as at least the 15th Century. The use of mounted crossbowmen spread to Scandinavia as well with several Swedish sources providing evidence of the crossbow being used from horseback in warfare.

Paul Dolnstein actually drew an encounter he had with a hostile mounted crossbowman during the Landshut war.

With the mounted a common feature in German warfare it was an easy step to being to use the arquebus from horseback but loading a matchlock on horseback in the middle of combat is a difficult thing so effective use of the arquebus was only possible with the invention of the wheellock.

The Reiters actually began as bands of men-at-arms and demi-lancers supported by large numbers of mounted arquebusiers (Schützenpferd) but when the combination of carbine and pistol proved effective while requiring less expensive armour and not having to buy an expensive horse many of the lance armed men began to convert themselves into "schützenpferd".

The image is cropped in this photo but the complete image shows the mounted crossbowman aiming to shoot at Paul Dolnstein who has encountered an enemy patrol while mounted during the Landshut war.

With regards to the crossbow:

The cranequin has by far the greatest mechanical advantage of any spanning devise for the crossbow. There are extant examples of such which have advantages of close to 1:400, which is still faster to load than the much more combersome and less effecient (but cheaper) windlass. The advantage of the cranequin, in addition to requiring very little effort on the spanner, is that it can be done while holding the bow in one hand, and the cranequin in the other…not so for the windlass. This does indeed suggest that cranequins for mounted crossbowman were intended to be spanned while mounted. And to assume they were then fired when mounted (though not moving) seems reasonable. There are numerous period sketching examples of mounted crossbowmen with cranequins at their side.

ilodic.

Thanks again, Daniel. Its always a pleasure to learn from you :-)

Me too, many thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Modern reconstruction shows that almost certainly winged hussars did not go into battle with the wings mounted, either on the rider or the horse. But I shall build my next unit of them just like the last, with wings on. Mostly for ID purposes. So, if I where tom need the above figures i probably would have some of them firing from the saddle. But maybe not, I would just need reasonable dragoon rules to g with them.

owen

Owen, what is your source(s) for that conclusion?

A Polish reenactors group. They have a youtube video out as well I believe. I did not save the link but will look around.

What they said was that if you mount the wing on trhe man, it just about pulls him off the backl of the horse. If you mount it on the saddle it causes the horse sever problems when he trys to run. Niether seem like a good idea to have happen in the middle of a cavalry charge.

They also had some pictures of a horse painted white on top and red on the bottum. Looked odd to me. But they claim that was often done for the Hussars.

Of course this might not be true, not the first time a reenactor group got it wrong. but as they where working with real men and real horses, I dont have anything to counter them with. Perhaps Daniel S will come back by and correect me if I am wrong. If I am (and the reenactors) wrong, I would like toknow that.

Now I will wrack my brain trying to remember where i saw that. I like to have good sources as well.

owen

Thanks, Owen.

OTOH, didn't the Samurai mount banners, etc to the horseman's back? I would like to see that video if it demonstrates their point about the wings.

Being a reenactor myself as well as having trained as an archeologist once up on a time I'm all in favour of using "reenactment" for research, particularly in the scientific form known as experimental archeology. But this requires a lot of time, skill and resources, there is a reason why Marcus Junkelmann, The Ermine Street Guard and the Company of Saynt George are regarded as exceptional rather than being typical of reenactors & reenactment.

The notion that the wing would pull a man from the saddle sounds odd to me given that back mounted wings have been used in several movies without the stunt riders and extras struggling to remain in the saddle. (Or at least such a struggle is no visible in the finished images)

But without knowing the details of the reconstruction and the test it is close to impossible to judge if their conclusions are valid or not.
There is a lot of factors which would impact the outcome of a test:
Which type of wing was tested? (the design used changed over the years)
Which kind of saddle and other horse tack was used?
The type of horse, how has it been trained?
And so on…

Any kind of details would be most interesting.

For me personaly it does not change much if the hussars did not wear wings into combat. After all my little metal Poles go to war without wings to being with since there are no reports of the Poles wearing the wings when fighting the Swedes. Swedish eyewitnesses instead focus on other parts of the equipment used by the hussars.

Like the lance points just before they struck? I wish I could remember the group, there cant be that many of them out there.

I had not thought of the samurai banners, but not sure how much total surface area they have vs the wings.

Also, the actual construction of the wings could make a huge difference. Feathers after all are shaped to generate lift, so it made sense to me, and I did not realy check out the claims. But just short or long feathers probably make a lot of difference. As would the number of feathers on each wing. And, it just occured to me it might make a difference if they all went the same way or alternated thier facing. I simply dont know, as i have never seen a set up close and personal. But I surly would love to find out for sure.

AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH

I am trying hard not to get sucked in to buying a mob of figures for the polish-lithuanian confereration wars, but discusions like this weaken my resolve. Until they actualy puplish the rules, in English I may make it. And it helps that they are not available in the states on a retail basis yet.

I sound like golum, I shouldnt , I shouldnt, but me wants them yes we do we wants them a lot……..

Owen

I do think it is important to know if wings were worn or not. The theory I heard was the wings were used to avoid being lassoed from their adverseries (croats(?), tartars(?), cossacks(?), turks(?)…I am not certain, forgive me for my lack of eastern european cavalry during this time.)

The source(s) this came from seemed a way to justify something that seemed so out of place, and would otherwise be a great hindrance. More importantly, among one of these groups, it could be argued the lasso was a true, and quite menacing threat.

Unfortunatly I do not recall the referance(s), though am certain I have read it in more than one place. I know this is getting off topic a bit, but if someone could validate reading something similar.

Thanks,

ilodic

Once you pinpoint why were wings decorations used by Turks, you'll have your answers for Polish Winged Hussars too :)

Ilodic, lassos were a real threat and would be used by both the Turks and their Tartar cousins. I have seen several period Turkish artworks portraying Spahis lassoing Christian armoured knights off their horses.

Wings would be a genuine advantage against the Turks, but merely an ornament against Western foes like the Swedes.

In other words…hussars only had "wings", depending upon their opponent at the time? So maybe there were Polish hussar regiments who possessed "wings" that fought only the Turks and Tartars. The time period which this spanned, the every changing geography of eastern europe (Poland especially) and who fought who when, in addition to the regimental designation of Polish cavalry is all very vague to me…bringing me back to the first sentence.

BTW, the mounted arqubuisers look fanatastic! As do all the TAG miniatures I have seen.

ilodic

It is important to separate modern day theories such as the lasso theory (first published in 1949) from the bits and pieces of information found in the period sources.

So far the most detailed quote from a period source I've seen is from 1588 where a papal legate visiting Poland describes the wings as intended to scare the enemy horses and in addition provided additional protection against sword cuts.

There is also the impact on the morale of the enemy troopers, armour and clothing provoke complex and sometimes unexpected responses in combat. Be it the grim black apperance of Western style Cuirassiers with their faces hidden behind grim steel visors or the hussars and delis with their flamboyant dress with feathers, animal pelts and fluttering pennons the apperance of the troops could and would be a weapon in it self.

Hussars and most other Polish troops were not organised into regiments. Rather they fought as "banners" which for the most part were raised for a particular campaign or war and disbanded afterwards. The closest thing to a regular force was the so called "Quarter army" (Wojsko kwarciane) and even it's banners were not permanent formations in the way that some (but far from all) "Western" units were.

Banners were formed into "Pulks", a word translated into "regiment" today but in a 17th C context such a translation would be misleading.

A "Pulk" was a temporary formation as well but at least in the Swedish-Polish wars some Pulks were made up of the same banners for long periods of time.

Wings not being used against the Swedes could simply be a matter of weather and location. Both Polish Prussia and Livonia has more than their share of bad weather which would easily ruin the feathers. And the campaigns were long and did often not pause for the onset of winter. Also with a number of units being raised only after the Swedes had invaded there could simply not have been the time or the resources to outfit the hussars with wings, indeed some units were raised so hastily in 1626 that other, more crucial equipment was missing as well.

Daniel, is there a period acount of the wings being used in a battle? I was under the impresion that there where no such accounts, that all of the ideas about them are basicly speculation, at least on the battle field.

Same thing with the lasso as a weapon. In a skirmish where everybody is spread out, but in a situation where heavy cavalry was mixing it up I dont see how you would have the room to use one. Whie the wings might provide protection fromthe side or rear, they dont from the front. and if you are behind somebody, go for the horses hooves, not the rider.

I grew up working cattle on horseback, but really suck as a roper. My father was better and one of our neighbors was a lot beter than him. But to get any range out of one at all you need to build a big loop, and that takes time and space. Not a huge amount of time, but in a fight a lot more than you would like. So while I dont doubt that it was done, how often would be a real question. And often enought to go through the pain in the butt those wings most likely where? Not convinced.

As well as thier effect on the enemy, the wings could have a big impact on thier wearers. Look at all the little things we do to uniforms to make the wearers feel specuial and better than thier opponents. I imagine I would feel pretty badass charging down on somebody with a set of those wings, as long as they didnt pull me ut of the saddle that is.

Do we need to start a new thread about this? I am learning new stuff about a favorite unit of mine and hope it rolls on more.

owen

I bought 5 packs (unit deal + 1) a while ago and they are on my list of 'to-dos'. They are very clean castings, well sculpted and proportioned. My only niggle is with the 'balance' of one of the horses – it looks like it's about to sit down on its rump.

I also bought a similar number of Stradiots, and another 72 man Italian pike bock (3 unit deals plus 2 packs).

I like all the TAG figures. I'm currently painting a load for a client (several hundred) including a lot of figures I'm seeing for the first time (swordsmen, crossbows, etc.). They are all very cleanly cast, with nice poses, and they are relatively easy to paint – I think they are quite "perry-like" for painting complexity.

This week, after a loooong break, I'll start painting Italian Wars stuff for myself again – I have about 500 figures in the pile, including 100 cavalry, so it's only a mini-project to bring the collection up to scratch.

Looks Excelent olicana.
Great job.

Amicalement
Armand

Olicana, very impressive pics.
What figures feature in the armoured pike-block and the Gendarmes?

Le Duc