"Swiss in 1503 - crossbow or arquebus?" Topic

What were the, 10% or so, shot troops of the Swiss in Italy, importantly in 1503 AD, armed with?

I'm guessing crossbow, but the Swiss were keen on the arquebus and went over to it before some others. Hmmmmmm.

I wonder if this is another of those "who knows" questions that bedevil those who wargame the Italian Wars. Still, if it is, it allows us to eat lots of fudge – yum, yum.

The "German"/HRE areas, including the Swiss were keen to adopt the arquebus already in the late 15th Century.
For example already in 1504 experienced Landsknecht like Paul Dolnstein expected the missile troops to be completely equiped with arquebus.

The Swiss were a bit diffrent since their forces serving in Italy tended to be drawn from two diffrent sources. On one hand had you had the regular companies raised by the Cantons which were well organised and equipped. On the other hand you had the "free soldiers" who followed the regulars as volunteers in the hopes of gaining employment or at least loot. These volunteer bands were often somewhatdisorderly and poorly equipped but could often make up a significant part of a Swiss force.

Looking at the artwork the famous 1495 print of the battle of Fornovo shows the Swiss skirmishers only armed with arquebus while the drawing of the Swiss troops marching into Naples in 1498 shows both crossbowmen and arquebusiers. While showing an event in 1498 there are strong hints that the image was drawn at a later date. Not only does the artistic style change in the last pages of the manuscript but the clothing style of the Swiss is radically diffrent from what is shown in other sources for that period. The style of dress is that of the early years of the 16th Century and closely resembles what can be found in images dater 1502-1505

link

According to FL Taylor, arquebus. He quotes Giovio's Istorie as saying one in every ten Swiss in Charles VIII's army were arquebusiers.

He then goes on to quote Guicciardini's Istoria d' Italia as saying that one in every four Swiss soldiers in the army that invaded Milan in 1511 were arquebusiers.

From my memory of what I've read, the one in four (which I've seen elsewhere as one in six?) was probably a one off experiment. They were probably back at one in ten by Novarro and Marignano.

It's the early (1503) armament rather than proportion that I would like confirmation on. The Spanish had gone over to the arquebus at this date (Gonsalvo, Cerignola and hence the 1503 date – and this was considered trail blazing), the northern Italians lost the crossbow post 1509, The French post 1525. The Swiss and Germans switched over at some point, but when? When did Maximillian and the Swiss Cantons decree their ordnances?

The obvious answer is "Yes"!

They had both, with the arquebus increasing with time. I wouldn't also be fooled by latter paintings or sketches that show no crossbows. I've seen some evidence that the crossbow lasted longer than thought.

I mix them in my 25mm Italian wars armies.

Joe Collins

I would be interested in seeing the source that claims one in four as an experiment, because without more I'd assume instead that one in four was the usual proportion when the confederation went to war -- as it had been during the Burgundian Wars -- and one in ten was more usual for a mercenary contingent.

I don't recall reading of any specific ordinance in which the Swiss were ordered to all put down their crossbows. It seems to have been more of a general preference, accelerated by the experience of the Burgundian Wars. But as I pointed out, Taylor cites Italian sources as saying the Swiss were pike and arquebus as early as Charles VIII, so I'd just use them as such, even if you want to mix in a few crossbows in the units to represent some of the "free soldiers" that Daniel S mentions.

Some Swiss historians actually questions the high number of firearms reported by some sources. For example while Guicciardini writes that 1/4 of the Swiss in 1512 were arquebusiers the preserved muster roll for the Bernese show only 72 arquebusiers among 1500men.

Letters from 1499 complain about the shortage of arquebusiers and crossbowmen as do some later letters as well.

Yet in 1487 a force raised for service with the Duke of Savoy seems to have had no problems to outift it's men with the required pikes, arquebus and halberds. Zürich could raise a decent force of crossbowmen and handgunners already in the 15th Century.

I'm guessing, in gaming terms, it makes little difference as the Swiss employed them more as skirmish weapons rather than the Spanish/Imperialist who also developed them, as close as possible, to independent bodies -at least when standing behind walls and large gaping ditches.
Would it be not amiss to have the 10% represented in your games by just shot and then by just bolt? See if there's a difference in outcome or abilities? I'm guessing, by the looks of your collection you could swing this?
I'm thinking the Swiss style of war in the 1503 era did not give much credence to using large bodies of shot where brute force usually did the trick -don't have to reload a pike, and if it's wet, wear gloves.

I would go with handguns rather then crossbows, and fewer rather then more.

The contemporary depictions of the Schwabian wars (1499) show not many arquebus and not a single crossbow that I am aware of (which does not mean there are none, but they are scarce).

A well known depiction of 1513 of the episode shows arquebus in use:

Naturally the Swiss in Italy 4 years later are another campaign, but personally I do not believe they introduced many crossbows into their army.

Images are not photos and need to be treated with care, particularly when not made by eyewitnesses or at a later date as is the case with the Luzerner Schilling. Their main utility is what they tell us about the apperance of soldiers and the arms & armour they used. (and even they they can be in error, one Swiss chronicle shows just about everyone in full plate armour.) When it comes to the number of weapons present in a force documents and narrative sources are superior as sources.

While it may have been possible to standardise weapons among the regulars the "free soldiers" would turn up with whatever they could get their hands on.

Muster rolls show that crossbows were still used in 1576 when a Swiss force was sent to Strasbourg. Still waiting for a copy of the original document as I suspect they were used by cavalrymen rather than infantrymen.

Yep, thats why I mentioned that it was made in 1513, and not "contemporary" for 1499. Still, one would assume that crossbows – if used in any significant numbers – would show up anywhere on the depictions of the Swiss.

Not that I think that a lack of images proods their absence, but if I would build a Swiss force of 1503 (I assume that was what the OP had in mind) I would go with handguns rather then crossbows. Independents being armed with crossbows rather then arquebus makes sense out of logistical reasons (its far easier to produce string and bolts by oneself then black powder), but for the same reason it is likely that units would be armed with the type of weapon that the logistical train can support – which would be firearms rather then crossbows. Being one of very few with other demands in a unit may pose a problem when you need a new string – this may cause similarly armed soldiers to band around the artisans in the train who can support them.

The usage of crossbows for cavalry makes sense (afaik these are documented for the French well into the 16th century – and looking at the warbook posted here recently, the crossbowmen are also mounted) for its handling and noise as opposed to the arquebus. I would certainly prefer a crossbow when I would be mounted :-)

Is there an indication on how many and which part of the Swiss contingent used crossbows at Strasbourg?

would be interested in seeing the source that claims one in four as an experiment, because without more I'd assume instead that one in four was the usual proportion when the confederation went to war --

I have a funny feeling that it is somewhere in Oman's book. I've looked but can't find the experiment phrase, and I'm not wholley sure if it is about Swiss or Landsknechts. But he does say:

"In exceptional cases the proportion was known to go up to one in five or one in six……one hears of no battle in which the Swiss arquebusier played any decisive part"

Would it be not amiss to have the 10% represented in your games by just shot and then by just bolt? See if there's a difference in outcome or abilities? I'm guessing, by the looks of your collection you could swing this?

Yes, I can swing this.

I mix them in my 25mm Italian wars armies.

I did consider this, but I'm loathe to do so because of the amount of crossbow only troops in the employ of the French (Gascons, etc.). I only have 120 crossbowmen (10 units of 12, including 48 still to paint). All will be based as crossbow only skirmishers for use with any army. I think I'll need them all (and then some) for most big battles involving the French, who employed them everywhere by the thousands – 4000 to 6000 are typical numbers. I need more bloody crossbowmen, don't I.

I would be interested in seeing the source that claims one in four as an experiment, because without more I'd assume instead that one in four was the usual proportion when the confederation went to war --

Ah, found it. It's in F. Taylors book. This is about a Swiss army, not a mercenary contingent. I do realise he is using conjecture, but one in four was very odd.

"Particularly striking is the ratio of firearms to pikes in the Swiss army which invaded Milan in 1511. One man in every four carried an arquebus, and the arquebusiers were more than usually active in the skirmishes which took place during the abortive march of the invaders. In view of this unusual activity and of the fact that the proportion of firearms was subsequently reduced, it is not perhaps fanciful to conjecture that the composition of the army was in the nature of an experiment."

He also states in the same section.

"Only one-tenth of those who served Charles VIII were arquebusiers. This proportion was maintained in theory by Florence…in 1506, though it is probable that in practice the ratio was even less…..in 1507 firearms were still more neglected by the landsknechts, since in a company of 400 men there were as a rule only 25 arquebusiers. The proportion of one in ten seems to have been customary among Italian infantry serving in the Venetian army in the year 1510."

One in ten, or less, seems to be the average proportion for arquebusier attached to pike. These were not the only arquebusier around of course, Medici's Black Band was almost entirely armed with the arquebus and there were certainly other 'arquebus only' mercenaries. But, one in ten seems to be the 'military standard' of the day. I think one in four is way too many in most circumstances.

Oh, BTW. It seems as though I guessed wrong. By the last decade of the 15th century, the Swiss had almost entirely switched from the crossbow to the arquebus. I have the books, so why didn't I re-read them, doh?

My book list is here:

link

Keep in mind that neither Oman nor Taylor worked with Swiss sources but rather relied on a narrow selection of non-Swiss narrative sources. Swiss sources show a much more complex picture with some forces having all arquebus, others having a mix of both well into the 16th Century and that commanders frequently complained about shortages of missile troops armed with either arquebus or crossbow. Indeed even pikes which were assumed to be the standard Swiss weapons in most secondary sources and in wargames was frequently in short supply as well.

Olicana

A useful view from someone who employed a wide range of sources is J S C Bridge's 5 volume History of France from the death of Louis XI. It only goes up to 1515 but there are very good treatments of Fornovo and Ravenna.

Long out of print but a digital edition exists:

link

An early attempt as assessing acutual numbers was made by Ferdinand Lot: Recherches sur les Effectifs des Armees Francaises des Guerres d'Italie aux Guerres de Religion 1494 – 1562 pub 1962 in Paris by CNRS/SEVPEN/Ecole Pratique des Hautes Ecoles.

Oman is a magisterial narrative work but some parts border on the fantastical such as his treatment of Fornovo and Pinkie and his discussion of the early Tercio.

Thanks for the book link, and also available via Amazon in hard copy – excellent!

A fine resource, thanks for the link.

Again, however, this book should not be used as a historical resource without an understanding of the attitude that many British authors had vs. Germany in the post-WW1 era (a bias that was strangely absent after WW2, when it certainly would have been far more deserved). Eg, Maximilian is the vile villain, who bullies around and tramples upon the free people of Flanders, while the rejection of his daughter by the French king (who had her in custody to raise her for a decade in the right spirit) is recommended for sending the daughter back – two years after his marriage.

Puster,

At the end of the day Bridge was writing a history of France, his bibliography lists predominantly French and Italian material. It may be more accurate to consider his bias to be pro-French rather than anti-German certainly in the first two volumes published in 1921 research for which probably commenced before the Great War.