Korvessa | 09 May 2015 10:13 a.m. PST |
I was reading lately that GIIA had his cavalry hold their pistol fire to the last few yards of the charge than go to swords. This sounds exceedingly complicated to me. If you fired with your right hand, it seems like you would either have to reholster and draw your sword in a very short period of time (difficult to do) or just drop the thing – the latter would mean having hundreds or thousands of pistols laying around on the battlefield. If you fired left handed – were you expected to reholster and draw your sword at the same time? I can't see doing either of these with the horse moving at any kind of speed at all. If you gave yourself enough time to holster and draw, it seems you would have to fire outside of effective pistol range. Not to mention, shooting a pistol while moving fast and hitting the broadside of a barn is hard enough, not to mention doing it from a horse (regardless of what Hollywood westerns would have us believe) How did they do it? |
vtsaogames | 09 May 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
Some swords have cords attached to the hilt. Perhaps hang the sword over your right wrist using this cord, fire the pistol, stick it in the holster on your saddle and the sword is hanging on your wrist? That's my guess. |
Daniel S | 09 May 2015 11:44 a.m. PST |
You make seem more complicated than it was, at the time it was the standard tactic of all western cavalry and it is well described in tactical manuals and military memoirs. First of all the pistol charge is no particularly fast, it was done at the trot rather than the pointless galopp which would only have risked disordering the unit for little gain in impact. Secondly the pistols were basicly used as melee weapon with long reach rather than a missile weapon fired at a distance. Pistols were to be fired at point-blank range, 3-4 paces at the most, the best way accpording to the veterans was to basicly touch the enemy, the the muzzle blast burned his clothing or injured him you could be pretty certain that the bullet hit as well. We also read of pistols being trust inside the armour were it was open or under the breastplate before being fired. Such close range pistol fire could be quite murderous and could had a severe impact on morale as well. Eyewitness spoke of seeing nothing but fire and steel. Pistols would only be fired by at impact by the first or possibly 2nd rank, the other ranks would have swords drawn and ready to use in combat. The men who fired pistols would either have their swords hanging from the wrist using a sword knot or simply wait until they were outside the enemy formation before drawing swords and returning to the melee. Doing so was a part of the basic training drills, the men would line up with a target set on a pole, charge and fire the pistol, then pass by the target while holstering the pistol, draw the sword and turn around to strike the target with the sword while passing on the other side. |
ochoin | 09 May 2015 12:39 p.m. PST |
I'm no expert but shoving a fired pistol into the holster bucket doesn't seem that hard. I'd imagine a number of pistols might get dropped in extremis but isn't this why two or more were carried? |
Korvessa | 09 May 2015 2:13 p.m. PST |
Ochoin, by itself, probably not; but doing it at the same time as you control your horse (and a trot is a bumpy ride)and draw a sword and identify a target in a short distance strikes me as difficult. |
Griefbringer | 09 May 2015 2:52 p.m. PST |
Remember that the pistols of the time were relatively heavy, so in a pinch you could even use one as a club until you would manage to draw your sword. |
Supercilius Maximus | 10 May 2015 3:41 a.m. PST |
At a slight tangent, which was the preferred form of sword play in this era – thrusting with the point, or cutting with the edge (or either/both)? |
Daniel S | 10 May 2015 4:35 a.m. PST |
Both as needed depending on the target and situation, in general the thrust vs armoured targets while cuts can be used against more or less unprotected targets. As in general the cavalry swords in use during the early part of the war were designed to trust well and to be able to withstand fighting against men in full cuirassier armour. link The blade has a thick diamond cross section that narrows sharply into a devastating awl shaped point. Another slight less extreme variation on that theme is this Dutch-Swedish sword which uses a slightly hollow ground cross section rather than a true diamond one.
As the war ground on into the late 1630's and early 1640's heavy armour became a rare sight on the battlefield and blades changed accordingly. They became lighter and used a hexagonal or even lenticular cross section. This made them more effective when use in the cut despite being light but they lost the ability to use the thrust against armoured targets. link link There were still some swords which attempted to both things equaly well such as this broadbladed sword with a hilt from the 1630's and a 1652 blade that is suprbly hollowground. It can still withstand the impact of being thrust into an plate armoured target while the broad hollowground blade allows it to deliver some very nasty cuts. The drawback is the sheer cost and craftsmanship needed to make such a blade. Far easier to churn out hexagonal blades that worked just as well against 85-95% of the likely targets. link |
Daniel S | 10 May 2015 6:19 a.m. PST |
Decent drawing of swordknot in use
|
Supercilius Maximus | 10 May 2015 12:05 p.m. PST |
Thank you for taking the time to produce those answers, Daniel. I gather some of the Swedish horse, and especially the Finnish units, used curved swords much resembling scimitars – presumably the cut/slash was effective against armour sometimes too? One last comment, the points on some of the "armour-piercing" swords look quite vulnerable. Presumably this explains – at least in part – why hammer/spike combinations remained popular in this period as less likely to snap in contact with armour. |
Daniel S | 10 May 2015 12:40 p.m. PST |
The supposed 'Eastern' nature of the Finnish cavalry has been much exaggerated. There were no diffrences between them and their Swedish counterparts as fars as equipment and tactics is concerned. You would see some use of captured weaponry among the native cavalry which is what the Osprey illustrates when it shows a Finn armed with a Polish saber. But the vast majority (98-99%) of the men would have standard western style swords as those were required by the regulations to pass muster. (And it was also such swords that were issued from Crown armouries to make up for shortages.) The cut is pretty ineffective against plate armour, particularly the heavy type worn by Cuirassiers. Mail and buffcoats provided less protection but the former was still pretty effective against cuts. Points did indeed get damaged during battle, the point of the sword used by Gustavus in the battle of Lutzen has such damage for example. But the cross section made them stronger than they look as the photos do not show how thick the blades are very well. Warhammers are not particulary good at penetrating plate armour but they allow you to damage and degrade the function of the armour if hits are well placed. (Helmet strikes can also help stun or disorient the enemy and set him up for a finishing blow.) But the main advantage is the blunt trauma they can deliver to areas protected by mail which is why they remained so popular in the 'East' where mail was common. |
ochoin | 10 May 2015 11:44 p.m. PST |
@ Daniel S. You need to write a book. I need to buy it. |
vtsaogames | 11 May 2015 8:59 a.m. PST |
|
Supercilius Maximus | 11 May 2015 1:16 p.m. PST |
|
Daniel S | 11 May 2015 2:43 p.m. PST |
Thank you for the vote of confidence guys :) I'm actually working on a couple of drafts currently but it is slow going as free time to write in is in short supply and I have to ration it between writing and conducting the actual research. But at least I have reached the point were I feel that I'm at the "end of the beginning". |
HillervonGaertringen | 12 May 2015 8:08 a.m. PST |
Hi Daniel S, we are always looks for authors please email me at charlesjsingleton@yahoo.co.uk, if you fancy a chat about publishing thanks Chas S commissioning and series editor Helion and Company |
huevans011 | 18 May 2015 5:54 a.m. PST |
Let me join in the general praise for Daniel. I have learned more about Renaissance warfare from Daniel S and a few others on this board than from any book or published material. This thread is especially interesting because the popular myth about Swedish cavalry is that it charged at the gallop and only used swords. From Daniel's account, it would seem that Swedish tactics were similar to Imperial tactics. |
Daniel S | 18 May 2015 2:56 p.m. PST |
Huevans, Thank you, that is high praise indeed. That particular myth has never had any fundation in the sources and seems to originate from a couple of diffrent sources, on one hand you have two Swedish historians (Mankell & Sonden), on the other no less a person than Delbruck who all describe the Swedish cavalry as galloping during the charge without provining any source that supports this. Delbruck at least has pistols being fired before the charge is completed at the gallop while Sonden basicly has Gustavus cavalry carrying out Carolean style charges using only cold steel… There were more similarities between Imperial & Swedish cavalry tactics than there were diffrences if you look at how a unit was to charge the enemy. There certainly were diffrences they were more subtle. |
huevans011 | 18 May 2015 3:57 p.m. PST |
I would delighted to learn more about the comparison between Imperial and Swedish tactics, if you have the time. |
Supercilius Maximus | 19 May 2015 5:02 a.m. PST |
Daniel – Is it possible that the Swedish cavalry was perceived to be moving faster because of their relatively small size? Is it also possible that the Swedish cavalry actually did move marginally faster (albeit without actually galloping) because they carried less weight than the horses of their more heavily-armoured/equipped opponents? |
huevans011 | 19 May 2015 6:24 a.m. PST |
Another question that comes to mind is the strength of the armour suits of the time. IIRC, there is an anecdote from a Royalist cuirassier colonel who claims that his armour was impervious to a close range pistol shot. From the earlier posts, I now get the impression that the armour – at least w the rank and file – was pretty thin and not very strong. |
Daniel S | 19 May 2015 11:19 a.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus, The thing is that no period source I have read so far describe the Swedish troops as charging at a greater speed or pace compared to Imperial or Leaguist cavalry. That "fact" only appears much later in mid-19th Century and early 20th Century works. And the descriptions of Swedes charging at the gallop in those works are either unsourced or the footnoted sources do not support the description. |
Daniel S | 19 May 2015 3:11 p.m. PST |
Huevans, I suspect that you are thinking about the encounter between Richard Atkyns and Sir Arthur Haselrig during the battle of Roundway Down when the later survived multiple close range pistol shots as well as being attacked with swords. Sir Arthur was probably wearing an officer armour of above average quality but his level of protection came at the cost of heavy weight, similar suits preserved in the great armoury in Graz weigh an incredible 42 kilos with all the reinforcement plates attached. While the armour of common troopers (and most officers) lacked the reinforcement plates their armour was neither thin nor weak. Efficient armour was critical to the cuirassiers role as battlefield cavalry at at the very least the breastplate and helmet skull had to be pistol proof and it was expected that at least the upper part of the tassets were pistol proof as well. Some armours had pistol proof backplates and rear faulds as well and did try to provide at least some level of proof in the arms as well but this would cause the weight to increase rapidly. In a similar way some armour parts could be made to be carbine proof but again this drasticly increased the weight. Regardless of their pistol-proofness just about all cuirassier armours made the wearer sword proof, it was virtually impossible to cut through any part of the harness and any blows delivered were intended to stun and disorient rather than to wound or kill. Thrusts did not do much better, if backed by the weight and speed of the horse weak spots on the tassets could be penetrated but this was by no means assured. As in previous centuries the focus was to deliver thrusts against gaps in the armour or to create situations were such gaps could be exploited in combination attacks. |
huevans011 | 20 May 2015 9:46 a.m. PST |
|
huevans011 | 24 May 2015 7:27 a.m. PST |
Browsing this AM and ran across archived pages from a defunct 17th Century warfare blog which dealt with the issue of whether Prince Rupert's royalist cavalry charged at the gallop. Relevant to the preceding discussion. link link |
Supercilius Maximus | 25 May 2015 4:07 a.m. PST |
Excellent link that could not have appeared at a more appropriate time for my needs – thank you. |
Elenderil | 07 Jun 2015 1:19 p.m. PST |
Investigations of a dog is a very useful source on cavalry use in the ECW as well as on the logistics of keeping s troop in the field. |