"Imperial Demi-Cuirassiers during mid TYW" Topic

Hi.
Il have a question regarding imperial cuirassiers and harquebusiers during the Swedish phase of the Thirty Years War

As far as I know the troopers in more or less classic harquebusiers gear formed the common protestant cavalry during the Swedish phase of the TYW.

But I wonder about imperial cuirassiers in that time, especially at Lützen and Breitenfeld. It is known, that during later times armour was decarded left right and center. There were also constant monetary problems of the emperor and the League. Non the less most imperial "assault" units were declared cuirassiers until the end.

So may question is: How common were the Demi-Cuirassiers and mixed Cuirassier/Harquebusier units on imperial side during Gustavus time.

An listing of individual Regiments would be of course awesome, but I would happy with an ratio, even if it is just an educated guess.

Thank you in advance,

Gunther von Kessel

I don't think that list of such units exists, as regiments were just called Cuirassiers or Harquebusiers, often misleading as regiment could have few companies of each and still be just called by one type. It's hard to make even educated guess of the ratio, as attrition, losses and problems with purchasing replacement meant that standard of available equipment could really varied even on company-level.

The Guthrie three volumes on Battles of the Thirty Years War do describe some Cuirassier units as mixed Cuirassier and Arquebusier but I do not know how reliable his sources are. It would take quite a bit of picking through to find all the places where there are such mentions. I assume you've checked the online Nafziger ORBATs to see if they specify anything?

Deploy the armoured cuirassier squadrons in the first line and the lesser-armoured harquebusier squadrons in the rear/support line.

Once the first line has fled then it doesn't matter how the second line is armoured/armed – they'll flee too!

Just found this on the Saxon army:

League of Augsburg – Saxon army

Some of the horse listings show C/A for mixed regiments – along with proportions.

In Helion & Companies book "In the emperor's service, Wallenstein's Army 1625-1634" written by Laurence Spring, page 72, it is said:
"In 1641 it was found that of 727 troopers in Piccolomini's Regiment, just 127 were still wearing full cuirassier armour."

Even though this is for a slightly later date than asked, this may be a reference point for a minimum number. 127 of 727 is approx. 17% fully armoured cuirassiers.

According to the same book (page 114) it is said that the cuirassiers were quartered with a boy/servant each, to among other things help him with the armour in the morning. The harquebusiers didn't seem to have had this and supposedly didn't need it. It also seems that the fully armoured ones had a need for better horses than harquebusiers to carry the weight (page 71). My own conclusion/guesswork based on this is that the fully armoured ones may to some degree have been concentrated into certain companies within the regiment to simplify logistics. It would be interesting though to hear if this conclusion can be further supported or rejected by more historic accounts or reasoning.

Piccolomini's regiment is not a good choice for a template of how the Imperial cavalry was equipped as the regiment had a decidedly non-standard organisation with different equipment standards laid down for different companies. If you look at how the companies were supposed to be equipped the % becomes a lot higher.

@IsacD

If that regiment deployed its squadrons six ranks deep then you have enough fully-armoured troopers for the front rank (16.67%).

@DanielS

Where can one find the information about the various companies equipments? Can we find out their tactical organisation?

@Stoppage, the basic document to look at is the "Bestallung" which is the documents which authorized the raising of a regiment and the terms and conditions which applied to the unit's service. These often but not always included a section on the equipment of the regiment. The problem is of course that the "bestallung" is theory, for the actual practice you have to look for documents that are almost always lost. The Piccolomini regiments are unusual not only in their organisation but in the fact that large parts of the regimental paper work survived in the Family Archive.

What makes the Piccolomini's special in terms of organisation is that the regiment started out as a regiment of Mounted Arquebusiers which also included a few companies of Cuirassiers. When the regiment was upgraded to a Cuirassier regiment they kept that organisation with the Arquebusier companies simply turning in their carbines in favour of additional pistols so that each exx-arquebusier had a pair.
There was no increase in armour.

Tactical organisation was not laid down in the 'Bestallung', it was by this time pretty much standard knowledge not written down as a rule except by military writers such as Montecuccoli. For the Imperial cavalry the basic tactical unit was the 100 man company which in battle was usually grouped into squadrons between 200 and 500 strong. Of course companies were usually understrenght so you could see entire regiments deployed as a single squadron due to a lack of horses & men.

According to Elster's "Piccolomini Regimenter"

"in August (1645), the regiment came to Leitmeritz and Trauntenau, as the Swedes under Königsmark, reunited in Bohemia, approached. The regiment is back in better condition; It is only missing the Kurasse; Boussu (the new commander, after Michael Graff was killed at Jankau) bought 200 Kurasses and 300 carbines for the regiment. The regiment is 500 mounted strong."

Do you think these re-equipped cuirasses would be the full 3/4-armour or just breast and back harnesses?

I'm looking through some battle paintings by Peter Snayers. I'm surprised to see cuirassiers in full 3/4-armour, except that some have exchanged their helmets for soft hats. There are also other examples with cuirassiers in full armour from the waist up, with the medieval looking closed helmet, but unarmored below the waist, i.e. no tassets or leg protection. I don't know if this is artistic license of Snayers part for dramatic effect, but he does seem to mix the level of armour within the companies or groupings of cavalrymen quite a bit as a quick general observation.

Looking at the word ('kurasse') used in Elster it could mean back & breast_or_ full 3/4-armour in 17th Century context. The terminology was sloppy and did not use words as strictly as we do today when the word is usually used for the back & breast combination.

It does not help that the word for the two types of armour are very similar and that spelling was decidedly non-standard at the time. Sometimes the only way to be sure is if the price or weight is mentioned.

Switching the helmet for a soft hat was very common when on the march or carrying out duties outside pitched battle. Mass produced 17th Century closed helmets were not comfortable and even the Zischägge style helmets could be surprisingly crude compared to 16th Century munitions armour. So helmets were left on wagons or on the horse/a pack horse a lot of the time if not outright discarded. Which could cause problems, after the battle of Honigfelde Swedish eyewitnesses noted numerous head wounds due to the cavalrymen not having worn their helmets when on the march.

Removing the tassets either temporarily or permanently was another way in which the cavalry troopers made them selves more comfortable. It was a particularly well known habit among Spanish cavalry in the Netherlands, originaly among the lancers but then apparently spreading to the Cuirassiers as Giorgio Basta condemed the practice and stated that tassets provided essential protection "against the deadly blows of the pistols)

Possibly Elster means the full Cuirass as elsewhere he records ….

On 15 September (1643), Commander Graff reported from the Camp between Prossnitz and Olmutz. There had been much marching back and forth, which has included the heavy cavalry, especially since the Kürassier regiments now also had to provide the outpost service of light horsemen. It is therefore likely to be better to abolish the Kürasse and and introduce only Halbkürasse in their place.

"Es sei deshalb wohl besser, die Kürasse abzuschaffen und an deren Stelle nur Halbkürasse einzuführen."

Elster has another section (January 1645) on the fashion for lightening of Cuirassier armor due to weather, all-season campaigning, leaders' example etc …

It is interesting though that Elster's examples of Cuirass usage or abandonment are from the mid-1640s, not the mid-1630s.

Thanks Daniel S and Piccolomini for those details! Really interresting that 3/4-cuirass seems to have been in use still in 1645. It changes my impression of the appearance of mid to late TYW forces. For the wargamer it gives a little more cavalry variation and colourfulness in my opinion.

I should try to get hold of a copy of Elster's "Piccolomini Regimenter", seems to be an interesting source. Is there any other written sources on 3/4-cuirass use in the mid to late TYW?

Thankfully Elster is available for free on Archive.org

PDF link

The heavily-armoured Cuirassier may have lingered on longer in the Imperial army ….

Wow, fantastic, thanks a lot for that link! :)