Introducing myself to the Italian Wars - What were the armies' composition?

[Siegfried]

Good day to you all! As an absolute beginner to the world of online wargaming, I am very glad to be posting my very first topic in this forum and hope it can be the first of many to come. Just from giving a little glance through the threads, I realized how kind and knowledgeable many of you people here are. Not to mention the level of your painting and modeling which to me seems of the most premium quality I've seen in years. My background as a wargamer is relatively short, in spite of liking many aspects of it, being more or less familiarized wih the hobby through my short experience with Warhammer. Yet in contrast to that, my love for history is a lot deeper an more deloveloped, though I've never had the chance to share it with anyone else than me. I've always wanted to combine my two interests, but along the way the same obstacles appeared again and again making me abandon the whole project. Perhaps, I thought, the web could give me a solution to that problem. Indeed, it's been quite a long time since I first encountered the LAF, but wasn't at that time into any period to get to myself to register and post something. Not until, at least, very recently when I began working on two new period-projects, one of which happens the topic for this post, the Italian Wars of the 16th Century.

I must admit that before coming across the splendid work by Mr. Stuart, I had very little interest in Renaissance warfare, let alone the Italian Wars. My intersts laid more around the Medieval Era, rather than the modern one. But as some of you may know from experience, when such beautiful work shows itself before one's eyes, it's impossible not to get your hands dirty with that specific time-period. He's a great painter and spectacular modeler, let's be honest. His work is nothing less of astonishing. He, and perhaps the fact that I'd during that time been listening to lectures on the Reformation and its susequent wars, were the main factors for my 'conversion' into an aficiando of all things Renaissance. Thus, I decided to give myself the treat of starting a full scale project based around that period, like Stuart did but with mine more focused on the aftermath of the War of Cognac (the 7th Italian War).

My idea was to go for a fictional alternative to what really happened and sort of bring every single state in Europe against the advancements of Charles V's Empire. The story goes that after the Treaty of Cambrai, Francis I king of France loses a bunch of improtant land to Charles, and the Italian Cities, on their part, lose their independence. However, the twist in my tale is in that the cities instead accepting Charles's puppet rulers, revolt succesfully against them and ask Francis for his support. Of course the only thing Francis wanted was to conquer them himself, but to do that he first needed to expulse Charles from the territory, so he temporarily allies with the Italians. The Papal States, however are not fine with this arrengement, for Clement wanted the Medici to rule over Florence and the only way to do that was through Charles, so he ask Naples, then Spain's colony, to join forces with the Papal army and crush the rebels. Venice aware of the threats she faced, sides with the rebels, as so does the Schimaldik League, the German Protestant Alliance which sees Charles and Church as the greatest threats to their survival. England allies itself with Charles to ravish the lands of the French, and the Ottomans remain neutral, but not for long. Besides from that, in Italy, every single noble family is at each other's throats, ramping entire cities and towns in a series of internal wars doing more damage than in any other part of the continent. The stage for the greatest of Italian Wars is set. I know, I've just thrown history out of the window   But I have to say I really wanted to do my own thing and see if the very battles I fought with miniatures could determine the course of my fictional campaign. It adds a lot more weigh to the games, and besides, I've always liked narrative structures in them.

However, the problem that I now face is that I don't know where to start with my collection. I vaguely know what manufacturers could do the figures, and I have in mind two rule-sets which are said to give a good a feel of the period. Yet, what has driven me mad for the last few weeks is that don't know how I should structure my armies. I've tried looking at army lists, books on warfare and even articles online but I couldn't find any that were of any use. So, I ask to you, veterans of the Italian Wars:
-What is each of the armies compostion?
-What ratio was there between cavalry, pike and shot?
-How frequent were the alternative units to pikemen, such as halbediers, billmen and militia spearmen?
-What percentage would have been either Landsknecht or Swiss units (mercenary troops for short), and what resting percentage would have been militiamen and men-at-arms (local troops)?
-How many pike-blocks are enough for an army?
-And finally, when do I have enough troops of each type to play a somewhat basic and interesting game?  

I am sorry if I am being too overwhelming with the amount of doubts I present to you. I hope I haven't been too much of a bother for you. I really need a sort of guide or plan to drive through this project. I think it's indispensable to know how this larger armies are structured for one not to drive himself mad while working on the project. Besides, we all know what happens when we don't have a plan for what we need to buy... We build piles of lead and plastic... Therefore, if you have any information on the questions I just gave you, please would let me know? I doesn't have to be from some prestigous academy, an army list made by you will be enough to help me. Any book or site online would also be great. And though I understand sometimes it can be a little hard finding accurate information on historical stuff, I trust you have your tricks to do so. Knowing most of you have had some experience playing the period and are as worried to be true to it as I am, I have no doubt that your information can be more than trusted. I thank you very much for your help. Have a lovely week and I wish the best!

[FierceKitty]

The first question you really need to ask yourself is whether you're aiming at large armies looking like the real thing on the table, or beautifully detailed individual models which can do only skirmishes. This will guide you into making the right decision about the scale.
I attach lists for the armies I use for 10mm forces suitable for about 1510. They do not claim to be exhaustive or unchallengable.

[Siegfried]

Thank you very much @FierceKitty! Your help is worth a thousand diamonds. My aim is to go for large scale battles, with most of my miniatures based on square and rectangular bases. As for the scale of the miniatures, 28mm appeals me the most. I know it can be expensive, but if I am going to do some hobby, it'd better look good. I am ready for the costs. Again, thank you for the army lists. Now I need some information on the Italians, the Protestants and the English. Any additional info on the Spanish and French will also be welcomed.

[zirrian]

Thank you very much @FierceKitty! Your help is worth a thousand diamonds. My aim is to go for large scale battles, with most of my miniatures based on square and rectangular bases. As for the scale of the miniatures, 28mm appeals me the most. I know it can be expensive, but if I am going to do some hobby, it'd better look good. I am ready for the costs. Again, thank you for the army lists. Now I need some information on the Italians, the Protestants and the English. Any additional info on the Spanish and French will also be welcomed.

The new RedBox sets in 1:72 are pretty good, and Hagen released some metal Landsknechts as well, that, as you said, would look good

[SteveBurt]

For information on the Italian wars, you can't do better than 'The Art of war in the 16th Century' by Sir Charles Oman.
That will give you all the info you can possibly need.
Armies in this period are extremely variable (much more so than the 17th century) and include gendarmes, halberdiers, pikemen, arquebusiers, genites and all sorts. And of course you get to field tercios.

[zirrian]

For information on the Italian wars, you can't do better than 'The Art of war in the 16th Century' by Sir Charles Oman.
That will give you all the info you can possibly need.
Armies in this period are extremely variable (much more so than the 17th century) and include gendarmes, halberdiers, pikemen, arquebusiers, genites and all sorts. And of course you get to field tercios.

I'd be interested in reading it, but jaaaaysus, 50-100$ per book...

[Condottiere]

I'd be interested in reading it, but jaaaaysus, 50-100$ per book...

Research materials aren't cheap, though you might be able to find it secondhand, but I'd avoid it, as it's outdated...

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=193557

Nullfied is perhaps a bit exaggerated but more uptodate and professioanl research has repeatedly shown that Oman was in error in more than a few his texts. Depending on the work he used only a very limited set of sources and/or was more than willign to let his biases influence his interpretations and conclusions. In several instances it's hard not to wonder if he deliberately distorted soruce material to fit his own theories rather than adapting the theories to fit the facts.

His works on the art of war in the middle ages and the 16th Centry are very readable but flawed and misleading as well. Good for enjoyment but not a good, solid fundation for serious research.

No Oman is hardly alone in the club, Delbrück went even farther with deliberate lies about the content of sources in order to squash works who did not agree with his theories. Because of his status and precived authority he got away with it. Plenty of bad historians today as well, just look at how Juliet Baker or Michael Hicks distort some events&sources to suit their own biases.

The problem is that because he wrote in English and is precived by some as a "Giant" he must not realy be questioned or criticised too closely. Basicly he's singled out for special treament which would not be given to others who commited the same level of errors, particularly if they were made deliberately. Isn't it more than a bit troubling that when historians start to look closely at events described by Oman, be it Pavia, line vs column at Maida or the French at Albuera they find a surprisingly diffrent reality in the content of the sources. Yet they often use the very same sources Oman used.

An exampel of the problems with Oman's is his supposed "Tome of tomes" for the 16th Century which is filled with gaps and errors, many which could have been avoided with proper research at the time of writing. Yet Oman seems to ignore the numerous continental works on the subject and instead relied on his own narrow selection of sources. Add in his biased view of for example the French and Germans and you get an even more distorted description of events. For example he frequently but not always downplays or leaves out actions & performance which would portray the German Landsknechts and Reiters in a positive way.

As I wrote earlier I enjoy reading "A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth century" but I would fairly large parts of it as a source for serious history nor as a fundation for a well researched wargames scenario. But it gets me inspired for the period in a way that few of the superior works that were written at the same time does. What ever his flaws as a historian Oman was a fine writer.

Taylor's The Art of War in Italy: 1494-1529 is a bit better, but the author had similar biases and selective with sources as Oman. Machiavelli's Art of War is enjoyable, but theoretical and blatant self promotion, yet gamers and rules writers rely on his biased views regarding the condottieri.

Thomas Arnold's The Renaissance at War is a decent introduction to 16th century warfare.

I think it's Oman who perpetuated the idea that the Giovanni's Black Bands were mounted arquebusiers and picked up by rules writers, demonstrating that Italians weren't close combat inclined, yet it's nonsense...

Maurizio Arfaioli's The Black Bands of Giovanni shows tables with percentage of pikemen for each company. The book is OOP, but available for free on the author's site.

History & Uniforms has a few issues about the Italian Wars...

[olicana]

Hi,

the information you want is rather hard to find because numbers in historical documents are rather vague for the most part, giving composition as single numbers (9000 Landsknechts, 4000 Italians, 500 Stradiots, 300 Lances) at best.

However, I've done quite a few historical scenarios using them with the knowledge I possess (let's say it's just about adequate) using the info I have in my books and detailed many on my blog as wargame scenarios. It might be of some basic use.

Italian Wars blog posts (you'll need to trawl through them I'm afraid)
 http://olicanalad.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Italian%20Wars

My books http://olicanalad.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Book%20List%20-%2016th%20Century

There is also some eye candy (of sorts):

[Ignatieff]

 

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

Siegfried,

Not sure if this helps you or not, but here are the ratios within the English army of Henry VIII which he took to France in 1513, as provided to me by Stuart Mulligan (of the Army Royal blog site) and given here with his permission.  He has asked me to stress that they are specific to this army only.

Actual numbers -
* Foreward (Earl of Shrewsbury) - 12,000 (incl. 2,500 landsknechts)
* Middleward (Earl of Worcester/Lord Chamberlain) - 7,500
* Rearward (Henry + Duke of Suffolk/High Marshall) - 14,000 (incl. 700 landsknechts)

Ratios - 1 = approx. 250 men; items marked * are not allowed (at all) in FoGR rules.

Mounted
- English Men-At-Arms          2
- English Demi-Lancers         6
- English Light Horse            9
- English Archers                 4 *
- Burgundian Heavy Cavalry 4
- German Mercenary Xbow   1 *

Dismounted
- English Men-At-Arms         8
- Yeomen of the Guard        6 [70:30 split between arquebus and bill]
- Retinue Billmen               ?? }
- Militia Billmen                 ?? } numbers unclear but bows outnumbered bills 3:2
- Retinue Bowmen             ?? } balance added to rest of army = 30,000+
- English Pikemen               6 *
- English Arquebus              6 *
- Landsknecht Pikemen      12
- Landsknecht Arquebus      4 *

GRAND TOTAL                 122 (x 250 = 30,000+)

I use "Field of Glory: Renaissance" rules, which, whilst generally good, do not represent the Early Henrician army at all well, and suggest that the authors have lumped the 1513 army in with the (much poorer) 1540s army in terms of composition, troop quality, and military thought  - see my thoughts on composition v. FoGR army list here:-

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=74239

Whilst usually besting members of my own club, I have used the FoGR army in two Italian Wars competitions against some of the best FoGR players in the country, and the army seems to "fold" rather more quickly than one would expect from its limited battle experience in 1513 (and my limited ability as a commander!).

[Griefbringer]

Ciao Siegfried!

If you are looking for specific information, it might help to specify your interests more explicitely. The early half of 16th century was a transitionary phase in warfare, and the compositions of the forces tended to vary not only as a function of time but also by the theatre of activity - a French force gathered to invade Italy could be different from one assembled to oppose an English landing in Normandy. I gather from your description that your semi-fictional setting will take place somewhere in the 1530's.

Regarding ratios of cavalry to infantry, the big battles tended to be quite infantry-heavy, with cavalry forming maybe 20 % of the overall manpower, and ranging from relatively light to fully armoured on barded horses (e.g. French Gendarmes). However, smaller actions may have been more dominated by cavalry (e.g. clashes of scouting parties), so you could start your collection by getting a couple of units of cavalry for each side (allowing you to play skirmishes) and then adding gradually infantry and artillery to enable bigger actions. Besides the heavily armoured lancers, there was quite some variety in types of cavalry - mounted arquebusiers, mounted crossbowmen (probably quite rare in the 1530's), mercenary stradioti from the Balkans, Spanish ginetes, English demi-lances and so on, with pistol-armed reiters making their entrance in the 1540's.

As for the pike-to-shot ratios in infantry units, those tend to vary by the force in question. Landsknechts would have at least 1/8 of a unit armed with arquebuss, and the Swiss mercenaries may have had slightly fewer - and both of these would have had small numbers of halberdiers somewhere within a pike block. Spanish tended to have around 50/50 ratios of pikes and shot (plus sword-and-buckler men early on), originally organised into colunelas and from 1535 onwards formed into larger tercios. French also re-organised their infantry in mid-1530's into legions, comprising of pike and shot. Any continental urban militias pushed into defending their home towns would have probably been mainly shot (maybe with some polearms and an occasional crossbow).

As regards English, there were no permanent forces nor any major foreign military activities in the 1530's. However, since there were English expeditions to France both in 1520's and 1540's you might want to try interpolating something from those forces. In either case, bill and bow were still the major arms of the English, with pike and shot forming a small portion - though this would have been increased by the presence of the mercenary landsknechts.

[olicana]

Regarding ratios of cavalry to infantry, the big battles tended to be quite infantry-heavy, with cavalry forming maybe 20 % of the overall manpower, and ranging from relatively light to fully armoured on barded horses (e.g. French Gendarmes).

When reading numbers for Gendarmes, they quite often refer to 'lances' rather than men. The 'lance' is an organisational structure of 3, 4, 5 or 6 men. A french lance was the Gendarme, two to three other lance armed heavy cavalry, a light horsemen called a coutilier, and a (non-combatant) mounted groom. For example, if you read 300 Gendarmes, that would be likely to be 900 - 1200 heavy cavalry, 300 light cavalry (I imagine the 300 light coutilier in the rear with the spare horses, possibly accompanied by another 300 grooms).

Counting 'Gendarmes' (lances) as one man is a mistake that's often made by beginners, myself included, and I'm still playing catch up with my heavy cavalry numbers. These days I multiply lances by 2.5 for Italian and Spanish cavalry, by 3 for French (a rough field strength). It's a fudge, but the numbers of heavy cavalry in an army is impressive and consequently expensive to reproduce on the table-top.

E.g. At Ravenna in 1512, the French fielded 1980 lances (approx) - that, using a modest multiplier of 3, is about 6000 heavy cavalry in three divisions - 2700, 2340, and 900. At full strength, that would be 7920 heavy cavalry and 1980 light cavalry, and 1980 mounted grooms, though I wouldn't personally field the light stuff on the table.

[Metternich]

As noted, the English roster is peculiar to the English; Tudor armies were noted as particularly old-fashioned, as they continued to retain bills (cheap holdover from the medieval period) when modern armies were armed with the pike, and they retained the longbow.  Likewise, the English were deficient in heavy horse, compared to continental armies (lancer heavy horse - gendarmes, or men-at-arms - were a particular specialty of French armies, while English relied on: demilancers, in half or 3/4 armor and riding unarmored horses: light Border Horse; and hired German reiters with pistols). The Spanish Army also was lacking in heavy lancer cavalry (less than 10% of its cavalry)  compared to their French opponents, and often relied largely on others to provide it (early in the Italian wars, Italian allies provided heavily armored lance-equipped men-at-arms; later, Germans provided pistol-equipped reiters). Early Spanish light cavalry, the Jinetes (Ginetes, Genitors), were good quality skirmishers,  armed with a light adarga shield and javelins and/or light spear (they could wear some light armor, such as chainmail shirts or brigandines) .   By the end of the Italian wars, the Jinetes were replaced by Herreruelos (pistoliers, like the reiters) and the Herguletiers (mounted arquebusiers, many with little to no armor)

The Spanish Army in the 1530's relied on their Tercios, a formation of 10 (8 pike and 2 arquebus)  or 12 (10 and 2) companies generally as follows (corselets are armored pike; early in the period the company could contain up to 50 sword-and-buckler in place of some pike.)  Armored and unarmored pike served in the same formation, with the armored pike constituting the front ranks)  (Note, the arquebusier companies were exclusively firearms troops, replacing pike with more arquebus)  (giving a ratio of the Tercio as a whole of 50% pike to 50% shot)  :

 A: Composition of a Tercio of 12 companies of 250 men:
2 x [11 officers, 224 harquebusiers and 15 musketeers] 
10 x [11 officers, 111 corselets, 108 unarmored pikemen;, and introduced circa 1560 20 musketeers] 

B: Composition of a Tercio of 10 companies of 300 men: 
2 x [11 officers, 35 single pikemen, 239 harquebusiers and 15 musketeers]
8 x [11 officers,  135 corselets, 44 unarmored pikemen, 90 harquebusiers; and introduced circa 1560 20 musketeers]

 Company Officers
1 Capitán - captain
1 Alferez - ensign
Abanderado - standard-bearer
Sargento - sergeant
Capellán - chaplain
Furriel - quartermaster
Tambor - drummer
Pifano - fifer
Barbero - barber surgeon
Cabos de escuadra - corporals (10 in a 250 man company, 12 in a 300 man company)
  and perhaps a few  Reformados - officers currently without a command, fought as private soldiers and were an example to the men. 

[olicana]

I only play up to about 1530 because that's when most of the major battles took place, after that it was mainly a series of sieges with few major field battles (Ceresole), when the Spanish army was differently organised.

From 1502 (memory) up to 1512 the Spanish were organised into colunelas. These were grouped into larger formations of 1500 - 2000 men comprising 2/5 pike, 2/5 arquebus and 1/5 sword and buckler men: they fought as combined units of shot closely supported by pike and swordsmen. Most of these infantry (approx 8000) were badly knocked about at Ravenna in 1512 and I have no record of them operating in colunelas after that. At Bicocca in 1522 they are not recorded as fighting in colunela, but as arquebus supported by pike (separate units?) without swordsmen (?). At Pavia 1525 they were definitely fielded as separate entities and the swordsmen (in any numbers) have definitely gone.

Prior to 1502 the Spanish seem to have been crossbowmen and arquebus men backed by sword and buckler men. They were always short of pike in any significant numbers until 1503 when Gonsalvo de Cordoba was reinforced by 7 regiments (numbers uncertain) of elite Landsknechts which allowed him to take offensive operations in the open field.

When collecting for this period (1495 - 1530) I suggest that you don't try to recreate any particular force (unless you are doing Spanish colunelas) because most armies varied widely in composition anyway. I'd collect by contingent with swap-able flags (because all sides fought with very similar troops).

You'll need crossbows, arquebus, Landsknecht pike, Swiss pike, French / Italian  / Spanish pike, sword and buckler men, Gendarmes, mounted crossbows, mounted arquebus, genitors, Stradiots, artillery.

N.B. Pike: Landsknechts and Swiss rarely deployed more than 10% as arquebus men. There was one campaign when the Swiss tried 1 in 6.

N.B. French native missile troops were almost exclusively armed with the crossbow until after 1525. They fielded 1000s of them, mostly Gascons.

N.B. One troop type you will not need (as a unit type) is two handed swordsmen (because it's a bit of a myth) and, IMHO, you will not need halberd units either. Although I confess to having 2 units of 16 Swiss halberdiers and 2 of 16 Landsknecht halberdiers in my collection of 1800 figures they only see the light of day on rare occasions, in fact I've NEVER needed the Landsknecht ones for anything.

[Metternich]

Siegfried, if you want to play on the aftermath of the The War of the League of Cognac (1526 - 1530), there is still plenty of scope for fighting well into the 1550's with three Hapsburg-Valois Italian Wars in succession  (1536-38, 1542-46, and 1551-59).  This is the heyday of the tercio.
  In an interesting counterfactual scenario, there is even scope for Ottoman troops to fight in Italy at the end of 1536 in support of the French forces advancing on Genoa (there actually was an Ottoman fleet off the coast, prepared to support the French with whom they had signed a treaty,;but the French didn't attack Genoa because its garrison had been reinforced).