"Evolution in Military Tactics from 1640’s to 1690" Topic

Excluding the introduction of the socket bayonet and the gradual reduction by some nations of the proportion of pike to shot towards the end of the 1680's, were there any dramatic changes to military organizations and tactics during the latter part of the Pike and Shot period?

It seems that horse still tended to follow either Dutch/pistoleer tactics or Swedish/shock tactics (I have seen the many conversations related to charging at the trot vs. gallop, and this debate is not what I'm interested in discussing…)

I am asking because I am looking for a gaming system for my League of Augsburg era troops, and am inclined to use For King and Parliament (a system I highly enjoy) because it seems to address pretty much everything required for the earlier wars of Louis XIV and the Irish Jacobite War of 1689-91. While it is written as an ECW set, it seems perfectly adaptable to the latter decades of the century.

I'm curious wether others have used these rules for this period, and whether they have made any adaptations or revisions.

Cheers,
Dave

What about Beneath the Lily Banners which plays well and is specifically for the period you wish to game? Alan

Hi Alan,

I'm not actually looking for a new set of rules. I really like FK&P. I was more curious in finding out from those who may know more about the later pike and shot period whether (historically) there was any significant difference in the way armies fought prior to the military revolution caused by the flintlock and the bayonet.

My sense is no, but i'm interested in what others have to say.

Cheers,
Dave

It's something I've been wondering about- I've been collecting minis for the late c.17th.

There are changes going on, increased firepower is probably the greatest. Flintlocks are coming in- they have a higher rate of fire than matchlocks. The introduction of cartridges further increase the rate of fire. Finally as the proportion of shotte vs. pike within a battalion increases, so then the fire of the battalion increases. I read in Blackmore's "Destructive and Formidable" (IIRC) that the firepower of a battalion, relative to the ECW, had doubled by the end of the century.

There's also fire by platoon, and grenadiers. I've also read that the reduction in pike in the late c.17th increased the vulnerability of infantry to charging horse, although this would be somewhat balanced by the infantry's increased firepower and the arrival of socket bayonets. Oh, and cannon are getting lighter and more manoeuvrable.

I've been looking at extending TtS! into the Renaissance but also potentially beyond that into the Early Modern period- it's been slow, but I'm getting a grasp of how it might work. I know that Andrew is also looking at modifying FK&P for later periods…

I think that while there were gradual evolutionary changes at the tactical level, there were larger changes occuring at the operational and grand tactical levels, affecting the 'shape' of armies and battles.

For one, late 17th c. armies had more organized logistical support, and could thus be larger. The biggest European field battles of the 1640s tended to cap out at about 30k men per side, while by the 1690s field armies of 50-60k were not unusual.

The biggest change, in my opinion, is from formalized deployments to more adaptive ones. 1640s armies tended to deploy into pre-arranged formations, which were often drawn up well in advance of a battle. They usually had three 'wings', often with multiple lines and reserves, over a total frontage of about 1-2 km. Rocroi is a great example:

By the 1690s, with bigger armies deployed in thinner formations, commanders can't just deploy the whole army on a km-wide level plain. The army needs to fit the terrain, rather than imposing the army structure onto it.

You start to see curved battle lines, following rivers or ridges, and deep reserves well away from the front line. Permanent brigades are needed to manage the increased complexity. Compare the Rocroi image to Neerwinden:

Secondary fronts with smaller armies, like Ireland or northern Italy, could conform more closely to the mid 17th c. style of battle. I've used my rules to cover Aughrim…

link

…and would like to do Staffarda someday as well, but I think Neerwinden or Steenkirk would require a radically different model.

Another important change was that artillerymen became regular troops rather than civilian specialists. This, along with the improvements in the guns themselves, would have increased the lethality of artillery from the ECW era.

Interesting perspectives.

Simon – I think at least until the end of the 1670's most armies retained a 1/3 ration of Pike; for example, Olof van Nimwegen states that in the 1660's and 1670's Dutch companies remained 1/3 pike.

The period probably experiences its greatest tactical changes during the Nine Years War; wider adoption of platoon fire, a reduction in the number of pikes, etc. probably provides a breakpoint which would require a bit more thinking concerning modifiers; perhaps dispense with ammunition chits for units using platoon fire and allow them to always double fire (with increased cost) to represent the continuous fire, etc.

I don't think it would take much to adapt, however.

Portolan – Interesting and informative! I had been focusing mostly on the tactical aspects, but your macro perspective seems spot-on. Armies grew because they could. And while increased army sizes didn't necessarily change how individual battalions fought, it made a huge difference in how armies fought. Thank you for the response!

Shagnasty – Were artillerists becoming regulars at this point? I know that artillery transport remained primarily civilian until well after the SYW, but I am less informed about when the gun teams themselves became a regular branch of the army.

Thanks for the contributions!

@OP You can't go wrong with Beneath the Lily Banners a superb ruleset.

Marcus,

Thank you for your advocacy of your preferred ruleset. But if you read my reply above I'm not interested in a new set of rules. FK&P is my preferred set.

But perhaps you can tell me how BTLB differs from other ECW systems so that it models the period 1660-1690 more effectively?

Hello Dave,
I'm very interested in this period myself and developed adaptations in both WAB and Pike to Shotte to reflect what I think are rapid and fundamental changes to warfare from 1670 to 1700. I believe I got on most of the demonstrable revolutions in my basic research but I take your point that rules are not what you are after. So, to paraphrase:

Reducing pike ratios to different proportions across different nationalities over the whole time-line.
Introduction of the plug bayonet and later, the socket bayonet.
Introduction and uptake of flintlocks over matchlocks.
Introduction of the cartridge (muskets and artillery)
Experimentation in fire delivery systems – caracole, fire by ranks, fire by files/divisions, rolling rank fire, platoon firing.
Divergent uses of cavalry.
The evolution from tercio to battalion.
Formations were ranked up in greater depths than two or three ranks.
Armies were arrayed in two or three battle lines in block/checker board style.
This period is the transition from cavalry (heavy horse) being the battle winning arm of service as fire-power increased. The proportions of horse to foot is massive compared to later periods.

The really fun and interesting aspect to all of this is that within a single army much of the above divergence would be present from unit to unit. No army exercised complete consistency.

I developed my own rule adaptations for the systems I used and liked. I found BTLB lacked period attention and flavour.

If you are still interested, everything is on my blog Williamite Warfare. This is not a project I'm very active on at the moment but it's dormant only.

link

Didn't the formation of Grenadier Cos. and their use of grenades start in those years.

Great summary Unlucky! My limited research resources (I have Anatomy of Victory, a pdf of John Lynn's book on the French Army, and snippets from Olaf van Nimwegen‘s The Dutch Army and the Military Revolution) it sems like a lot of the changes that would create a very distinct battlefield experience (platoon firing, plug bayonets, increase in the number of flintlocks over matchlocks, decreased numbers of pikemen) really started to come to the forefront in the mid- to late 1680's. Other items you mentions (French "shock" tactics, which were essentially charging at the trot sword in hand and reserving the pistol for the melee vs. the more common European practice of pausing prior to contact to deliver a pistol volley before contact) seemed to be part of the military landscape in the 1660's and 1670's. As for the gradual conversion from matchlock to flintlock, Lynn indicates that, while the Dutch were early converts in the mid-1680s, about 75% of both French and English troops were still armed with the matchlock in the 1690's.

The other larger tactical items (deploying in multiple lines, etc.) seem to apply to games which take a much greater strategic viewpoint, and would not be something that need be worried about in a game of about 12-15 units per side.

So I guess the real issue is deciding what era your playing…War of Devolution/Franco-Dutch war of the 1660's and 1670's, where you really don't have to take much of the foregoing into consideration, or the Williamite/Nine Years War, where you will need to come up with mechanisms to account for the variety of troop types, armaments, and tactics (meaning developing appropriate modifiers to reflect flintlock vs. matchlock, the presence of the plug or ring bayonet, etc.)

BTW I enjoyed reading your blog!

Camcleod – Grenadiers began to appear in the 1670's. Turrenne issued orders in 1674 related to their deployment in the battalion, and there are records of depots with literally hundreds of thousands of "bombs", as grenades were called.

Once again – thanks for the insight! It has helped direct me to the kind of rules mechanisms that are like the be necessary and/or useful for getting a good later-period game out of FK&P.

Cheers,
Dave