"Spanish & Imperial Tactical Formations 1600-1650" Topic

Dear All,

I am looking at having a go at re-fighting Nieuport, Breitenfeld, Lutzen and Rocroi. Could anyone give me some advice on how the Spanish/Imperials were organized or deployed at each battle and how much space the formations would have occupied please?

One book I am reading has the Imperials deployed in tercios 30 wide by 50(!) deep at Breitenfeld. As a maximum I guess that would have a footage of 30m per tercio which doesn't seem likely…

I have not my books with me right now, but you should have in mind two things: A) that Breitenfeld was exceptional, not the norm; Tilly probably used that deployment as an answer to particular circumstances; and B) that a "tercio" was an administrative, rather than a tactical unit; it fought in companies, which were assigned by the Sergeant Major -in the Spanish and Italian units he was the commanding officer- as the tactical and operational situation demanded. If memory doesn't fail me, at Nordlingen, for instance, companies from the Tercio Idiaquez were fed to the first line as needed, while the rest of the tercio remained as a close reserve and only moved in mass when one of the German regiments caved in under pressure and retreated, leaving a gap in the Imperial line that was plugged by the Spaniards.

Any author who claims that Tilly deployed his infantry 50 deep at Breitenfeld has neither read the primary sources for the battle nor studied period military manuals. It almost sounds like a misunderstanding of the Swedish General Staffs interpretation that Tilly deployed his infantry 50 wide and 30 deep. But that particular interpretation was also unsupported by the sources (for some reason they chose a particular mid-16th C formation for Tillys infantry in 1631)

And German armies did not have "tercios", they were organised in regiments which used battalions or brigades as the tactical unit. (The name depends on when and where you look.)Give your units a depth between 10 to 16 ranks and you will be closer to the actual truth than anyone claiming 30 or 50 ranks depth.

The Spanish system was highly flexible and they adapted their depth to the tactical situation and the terrain when deploying. Also the pike "escaudron" could have a diffrent depth than the "mangas" which contained most of the shot. Pavel Hrncirik who has reconstructed the Spanish part of Nördlingen in great detail estimates that the pikes were formed up 12 or 16 ranks deep due to the need to fit into the defensive works while the "mangas" of shot were 6 deep.

I think it is important to remember that from Nieuwport is 40 years before Rocroi, and Spanish tactics underwent changes during that time, just as other armies did.

An engraving of Nieuwport shows Spanish pike formations as having flags 3,4 and 5 deep, while the Dutch are shown with flags 2 or 3 deep. The Spanish pikes are also shown 4 and 6 flags wide while the Dutch are 2 or 3. Flags on an engraving are admittedly not a good substitute for rank and file counts, but they are an indication that the artist was trying to indicate Spanish pike formations were deeper and wider than the Dutch.

<<at Nordlingen, for instance, companies from the Tercio Idiaquez were fed to the first line as needed, while the rest of the tercio remained as a close reserve>>

Where can I find out more about this type of deployment? I have a pamphlet by Stuart Reid on ECW musketry – he suggests that – at least early in the war – that musketeers would ploy out of the ranks by file and then deploy into a line at the front of the formation and give fire (and then ploy back into the line).

An earlier post by the late Rich Knapton suggested that only the first two ranks – the best armed and armoured – would do the fighting with the succeeding ranks acting as supports and reserve.

All of this suggests that troops fought the battle out of their main formations – this main body being retained to form a reserve. Only at the end-game would the main bodies be engaged – usually by remaining enemy horse.

If above is true then at some time this out-of-body fighting style changed to troops fighting from the body itself.

NB – the Late Rich Knapton reference concerns horse and/or pikes

Many thanks to all. Following up other posts on TMP, this link was useful: link

I was quite struck by this remark:

at the battle of Montijo (campaign of Portugal in 1644), the Tercios had an average number of 600 men and were deployed on 6 rows.

That doesn't sound so different to a typical ECW infantry deployment of the same period.

Why should it be that diffrent? The Spanish army was professional and flexible and could adapt it's formations as needed to suit the ground and tactical situation. The idea that the Spanish were backwards and favoured large, out of date, "clumsy" units are based on poor research and older books have a lot of not so hidden prejucdice against the Catholic armies.

Whirlwind's question prompted me to dig into my admittedly limited sources and try to organize my thoughts on paper. My apologies for the times in which the logic seems muddled or unclear but this is yet very much still a work in progress.

Ignacio and Iván Notario López, The Spanish Tercios 1536-1704 (2012), provide some details about Spanish tactical practices. According to the authors the frontage of each file of pike was 3 feet with each rank having a depth of about 7 feet.

The pike could be deployed in several formations. The first was the cuadro de gente (Square of Men). This formation had the same number of files as ranks, but because ranks had a greater depth the formation's footprint would be about twice as deep as it was wide. More common was the cuadro de terreno (Field Square or Terrain Square). Here the footprint was square, but again because of the greater depth of each rank the result was the number of pikes in the front of the formation was double the number of pikes of the unit's depth. If an even greater frontage was desired the cuadro prolongado (Extended Square) was used. This would vary in size but still retained the same spacing of each file (3 feet) and rank (7 feet).

Thomas Barker, in The Military Intellectual and Battle: Raimondo Montecuccoli and the Thirty Years War (1975), provides a translation of Montecuccoli's Sulle Battaglie (Concerning Battle), written between 1639 and 1642. Montecuccoli describes five pike formations: the Square Battalion, the Terrain Rectangle, the Double Battalion, the Oblong Rectangle, and the "Proportioned" Battalion.

The first three formations have the same positioning of the men as described in The Spanish Tercios, although the footprints of the units is not addressed by any direct references to the actual measurements of the frontage or depth of the unit. The Oblong Rectangle is described as being used only when a certain frontage or a certain depth is desired. The "Proportioned" Battalion is explained in terms of how to form a unit when what is wanted is a particular ratio between the frontage and the depth of the formation.

Montecuccoli states that "Square Battalions of men and Terrain Rectangles [Note that here Barker believes Montecuccoli actually meant to say "Proportioned" Battalion instead of Terrain Rectangle] have been found to be weak frontally….Therefore these types of battalions are no longer of great utility in field encounters."

The description of the formation of the Terrain Rectangle assumes the same measurements of the frontage (3 feet) and depth (7 feet) as described by López and López. However, in the same paragraph Montecuccoli clearly implies that the depth of each rank was reduced to 3 feet when in combat. This would then give the Terrain Rectangle and the Double Battalion a similar footprint in combat of both having twice the number of men in the ranks as in the files as well as twice the frontage compared to the unit's depth.

According to Peter Engerisser and Pavel Hrnčiřik, Nördlingen 1634: Die Schlacht bei Nördlingen – Wendepunkt des Dreißigjährigen Krieges (2009), by the first half of the seventeenth century the Escuadron doblete (Doubled Squadron or Montecuccoli‘s Double Battalion), with the width twice that of the depth, was the most common Spanish infantry formation. In their analysis of the formations of the six Spanish and Imperial infantry units defending the Albuch at Nördlingen, Engerisser and Hrnčiřik conclude that the four Spanish units had their pike deployed in either Terrain Squares / Double Battalions. As the latter is described by both authors, as well as Montecuccoli, as the more common formation I am assuming the use of Double Battalions.

On the left and right sides of the Spanish pike block were up to five files of arquebusiers which formed the guarniciones (Garrisons). According to The Spanish Tercios these arquebusiers each had both a frontage and depth of 6 feet and were assumed to have the same depth as the pike, both in number of ranks and the depth of the same. As well, the two Garrisons were not supposed to leave their position on the flanks of the pike. It should be noted that these Garrisons are unique to only Spanish raised units. Imperial formations did not have this feature.

Outwards of the central pike formation with its attendant Garrisons were the mangas (Sleeves) of musketeers. These could vary in number and, unlike the two Garrisons, could maneuver separately from the central pike block. López and López suggest that the rank and file both deployed with a spacing of 6 feet between the musketeers.

The question of spacing is indirectly addressed in Gustaf Barkman, Gustaf II Adolfs Regementorganisation (1931). A diagram illustrating the deployment of a 1000-man battalion according to the precepts of Giorgio Basta (1606) provides for a frontage of both the shot and the pike of 3 feet while the 12 man deep formation fits into a scheme of about 6 feet depth per rank. A similar illustration of a Dutch battalion shows similar spacing.

How then can this at time conflicting information concerning spacing in the ranks and files be interpreted? I strongly suspect that the spacing of the ranks changed from the 6 feet (open order according to George Monck [1671]) used during movement to the 3 feet (order) required in combat.

The Spanish use of 6 feet frontage for each file of shot would appear to be a requirement of the space needed for the countermarch were each rank would move forward or backwards between files. But the countermarch could also be performed with several files moving in gaps between groups of files. Basta arranged his shot in "divisions" of 7 shot, each having a frontage of 3 feet with a gap of 6 feet between each division.

The Dutch used divisions of 4 shot (again each with 3 feet frontage) with a 6 foot gap between divisions. The question remains as to whether the Spanish changed to the system for the deployment of shot as outlined by Basta and used by the Dutch or continued to use their original structuring.

But what of the Imperial forces? My understanding is that they initially followed the Spanish model, albeit without the use of the garrisons of shot. At the time of Breitenfeld Tilly then would have his pikes in Double Battalions with twice the number of files as compared to ranks. While moving forward these pike blocks would have a square footprint, but once in combat they would have twice the frontage as depth.

Montecuccoli provides a formula to calculate deployment for a Double Battalion. Let us assume a unit of 1500 men will have a pike to shot ratio of 1:1. That provides for 750 pike. Double the number of pike (750x2=1500), then take the square root of that number (√1500=38.72 or 39) to obtain the number of files. Half of this number will then provide the number of ranks (39/2=19.5 or 20). But since 39x20=780 some adjusting will be needed.

The Dutch were the first to do away with such calculations by simply standardizing the number of ranks at 10 deep. Basta adopted the same reform and advocated 12 ranks. After Wallenstein returned to command he adopted a 7 rank standard. In turn the Swedes adopted a standard depth of 6 ranks. It can be argued that the accusation that Tilly was old-fashioned was not based on his retention of deep deployments but instead that he continued to adhere to the older mathematically structured formations.

The question still remains as to when the Spanish changed from mathematically-derived formations to standardized depths.

The following is Engerisser and Hrnčiřik's reconstructs of the composition of the Spanish and Imperial infantry defending the Albuch at Nördlingen. Note that the Spanish raised units all include Garrisons of shot while this feature is absent from the Imperial formations. Likewise the Spanish units are all deployed in Double Battalions. In contrast the Imperial infantry is not – the combined Regiments of Webel and Alt-Sachsen are deployed in the Wallenstein-inspired ranks 7 deep and the Leslie and Fugger Regiments are drawn up in the 10 ranks more commonly used earlier by Protestant German forces.

It also is notable that the number of Sleeves or, in the case of Imperial troops, Abteilungen, was not fixed in either size or numbers. Engerisser and Hrnčiřik's maps show the shot acting both in close support of the pike or independently if so required.

Spanish

Toraldo and San Severo Tercios – 900 men: 312 pike (26x12); 2 Garrisons each of 60 arquebusiers (5x12); 3 Sleeves each of 156 musketeers (26x6).

Salm and Wurmser Regiments – 1500 men: 512 pike (32x16); 2 Garrisons each of 80 arquebusiers (5x16); 4 Sleeves each of 204 musketeers (34x6).

Idiáquez Tercio – 1500 men: 512 pike (32x16); 2 Garrisons each of 80 arquebusiers (5x16); 4 Sleeves each of 204 musketeers (34x6).

Panigarola and Guasco Tercios – 1100 men: 390 pike (30x13); 2 Garrisons each of 65 arquebusiers (5x13); 2 Sleeves each of 208 musketeers (16x13) and 1 Sleeve of 210 musketeers (70x3).

Imperial

Leslie (Imperial) and Fugger (Bavarian) Regiments – 1500 men: 500 pike (50x10); 4 Abteilungen (Sleeves) each of 250 musketeers (42x6).

Webel and Alt-Sachsen Regiments – 1000 men: 301 pike (43x7); 2 Abteilungen each of 129 musketeers (43x3) and 1 Abteilung of 280 musketeers (28x10).

Why should it be that different? The Spanish army was professional and flexible and could adapt it's formations as needed to suit the ground and tactical situation. The idea that the Spanish were backwards and favoured large, out of date, "clumsy" units are based on poor research and older books have a lot of not so hidden prejucdice against the Catholic armies.

Haha! Erm, if anything I was surprised that the rough and ready ECW armies resembled the professional Spanish so much…i.e. that perhaps this argues a pan-European coherence of infantry tactics and formations by this point.