The role of “Carabins” in the Thirty Years War

[Sparrow]

I’ve decided that the new wargames project will be Thirty Years War (TYW) in 28mm. This will, hopefully, turn into quite a long term thing so I ‘m very keen to get off on the right foot!

As a long-standing ECW gamer I’m keen to ensure that my planned TYW games are not just ECW games with sexier Flags and cavalry but want to try and get over some of the key differences - one of which is the Carabin (“mounted arquebusier”). What I am keen to get opinions on is how they were used?

Where they

1) Formed units of mounted firepower designed to “shoot in” the heavier Cuirassier (I notice that certainly by the mid War period they are in fairly chunky independently designated units). Interestingly it is most likely this role the Parliamentarian Horse in Essex’s Army are trying to replicate at the beginning of the ECW?

2) Mounted skirmishers (as Heath describes on page 119 of “Armies of the Sixteenth Century”- yes, I know that’s the wrong century but interesting nonetheless).

3) all of the above

4) anything else - and were there differences in their use between various armies?

Any ideas/thoughts out there?

(My own thoughts had been that they were originally fulfilling the role of “musket” to the Cuirassier (“pike”) but morphed over the course of the War into a more general role but is this too simplistic?) .

Any thoughts/advice warmly received!

Thanks in advance!

[Arthur]

Arquebusiers were originally intended to support cuirassier units, which were the real shock cavalry. Their carbines allowed them to skirmish from a greater distance while cuirassiers would normally fire their pistols at close quarters -  at point blank range as a matter of fact.

This was the theory, but what actually happened in the field was nowhere near that simple. Cuirassier units were expensive to raise and maintain, not only because of the 3/4 suits of armour they wore but only because of the very costly horseflesh they required (cuirassier mounts had to be bigger and stronger than average to deal with the weight of a fully armoured man). Not all colonels were able to afford such equipment and horses, and they are quite a few recorded instances of very poorly armored cuirassier regiments : at Lützen for instance, Lohe's newly raised Imperial cuirassier regiment was reported to be 'ill-clad', which suggests a lack of proper cuirassier armour, while Ottavio Piccolomini's arquebusier regiment was described as better equipped than many cuirassier units. Even in units which had been issued with a full kit, it became increasingly common for cuirassiers to lighten their load by getting rid of the most cumbersome pieces in their suit of armour (leg and forearm protection usually being the first items to go). A 'demi-cuirassier' would thus be content with back and breast plates, upper arm protection and tassets on his thighs. By the mid-1630's, cavalry regiments in full cuirassier armour were becoming increasingly scarce on the battlefield, except possibly for some lifeguard units.

Conversely, some arquebusier regiments could also be upgraded to cuirassier status : after Lützen, Wallenstein turned several of his arquebusier regiments into demi-cuirassiers by taking away their carbines.

In addition, some armies found it economically impossible to field proper cuirassier regiments : Mansfeld's protestant army had very few of those in the 1620's, which resulted in the cheaper arquebusiers being used as shock cavalry. Christian Von Brünswick (a.k.a the Mad Halberstadter) used his arquebusiers in the same way for the same reason. Swedish cavalrymen also tended to make do with lighter body armour, partly for economic reasons but also because Gustavus-Adolphus was heavily influenced by late 16th/ early 17th century French cavalry tactics, which favoured chevau-légers - i.e shock cavalry with a lightened suit of armour consisting of what was basically an arquebusier's kit.       

In the mid to late 1630's, the line between cuirassiers and arquebusiers became increasingly blurred, most 'cuirassiers" wearing only a helmet, back and breast plates and possibly a gauntlet on their bridle arm for protection : in effect, late cuirassiers were nothing more than an arquebusier without an arquebus. Tactically, both cavalry types had become totally interchangeable.     

[Sparrow]

Thanks Arthur - that really is hugely appreciated! Sort of confirms my thinking that as the war progresses the lines get very blurred and also about the original use of ”Carabins”/ Mounted Arquebusiers. I’ve wargamed the pike and shot/“Renaissance” period since Gush’s WRG 1st edition but never felt Rules gave these troops their real role. We still wait for that ultimate early - mid C17th rule set!

Turning to my project I’m currently trying to decide on a theatre/time period to focus on (and one of the things this will influence is how I use/represent Carabins!). The Swedish period has always traditionally grabbed my attention but it feels a bit “overdone” / wrapped in “stereotypes” etc. I’m therefore wondering about looking at the French/Spanish aspect of the war and the mid-late 1630’s (including the Italian campaign) through to Rocroi (particularly after reading Hanlon’s book!). I know from previous posts of yours I’ve read this is something you are well informed on - any advice?

[Arthur]

The later (so-called 'French') phase of the war is a good choice, though it isn't as extensively documented as the Swedish phase (1630-1634) which tends to hog the limelight. One added bonus of doing French vs Spanish is that you won't have to worry about regimental coat colours since neither side issued uniform clothing to their troops (though some degree of homogeneity probably did exist at company - and possibly regimental - level after a unit had received its theoretically annual issue of clothing). .

Re cavalry tactics, the Spaniards seem to have followed the general trend of opting for lighter armour : by the late 1630's, the Spanish caballos corazas (cuirassiers) probably didn't differ much from the French Chevau-légers in appearance, both wearing back and breast plates over a buff coat for protection rather than full 3/4 armour. Lifeguard units and French gendarmes were still supposed to wear full cuirassier armour but what period evidence we have suggests these worthies were demi-cuirassiers at best, with many of them being probably armoured in the exact same way as the 'light' cavalry. By the 1640's, genuine carabin units were increasingly used as dragoons and tended to prove their worth either at the battlefield's periphery (for instance by taking control of built areas or broken terrain such as woods and walled orchards) or by foraging, escorting convoys and securing lines of communications.   

Generally speaking, my advice would be to stop thinking in terms of equipment and approach cavalry types from a purely tactical perspective instead. Regardless of the sub-period, TYW cavalry can be broadly divided into two major groups : shock cavalry trained to take the fight to the enemy and engage him at close quarters, and support cavalry whose lack of training/equipment/suitable horseflesh meant they would fight from a distance with their firearms rather than charge with cold steel. Shock cavalry includes many different troop types, from the best Catholic League and Imperial cuirassier regiments of the 620's and early 1630's to Gustavus Adolphus' German and Swedish regiments of horse and French Chevau-Légers of the 1640's. Support cavalry would similarly be many things : mounted arquebusiers used in their traditional support role, Croats, poorly equipped and motivated cuirassiers with insufficient training or lightened cavalry who weren't too keen on closing in on the enemy, etc. When it came to fighting at close quarters, training and experience were at least as important as equipment, and probably more : a veteran regiment of well-drilled arquebusiers could fight quite aggressively as shock cavalry provided it had sufficient collective self-confidence to function as a cohesive unit under stress.   

One final thing if you're doing the Spanish army : don't go for that massive tercio nonsense with musketeer sleeves at each quarter of a huge pike block. By the 1630's, the Spaniards had adopted the smaller battalion/squadron of about 1,000 men as their basic tactical infantry unit, just like the French, Imperial and Leaguist armies. Spanish tercios (i.e regiments, in the administrative sense) were still supposed to be 3,000 men strong, but even assuming a tercio reached its official paper strength (which was uncommon, most of them being 1,000 to 1,500 strong on campaign on a good day, and many falling below the 1,000 men mark), it would be split into 1,000 men battalions in the field.     

[Sparrow]

Arthur, you’re a star and v much appreciated!! Will start reading around this properly!

[Arthur]

Re the French army, Stéphane Thion's French armies of the Thirty year's War is probably the go-to book. Its English-language edition is still available in print form and I'm sure you can find pdf copies floating around :

http://www.histoireetcollections.com/fr/livres-en-anglais/2565-french-armies-of-the-thirty-years-war.html

John Lynn's Giant of the Grand Siècle : the French Army 1610-1715 mostly focuses on Louis XIV's reign but its chapter on tactics has a few pages on the evolution of French battlefield tactics during the 1630's and 1640's. 

As far as the Spanish army is concerned, I don't think there's much out there in English outside of the somewhat sketchy MAA booklet on the Spanish Tercios from 1536 to 1704 (if there are other English-language volumes on the subject, I missed them). The most useful tome I know is Pierre Picouet's excellent Les Tercios Espagnols 1600-1660 : it was published in the same collection as Stéphane Thion's book on TYW French armies but unlike Thion's work it didn't get an English translation and was only available in French. I say 'was' as it is now long out of print and fairly difficult to get, with zero copies available on the second-hand book market as far as I can tell.

http://www.babelio.com/livres/Picouet-Les-Tercios-Espagnols-1600-60/195097

Picouet's free website on the Spanish Tercios is supposedly still online but I haven't been able to access it lately (dunno if my browser's acting up or if there's something wrong with the server) :

http://tercio1617.0catch.com/home.html

Still on the subject of the Tercios (note that the poor Spanish cavalry doesn't seem to get much love or attention from scholars), there's a recent Spanish-language book I haven't got and therefore cannot comment upon. All I can tell you is that it's fairly cheap for a full-colour hardcover book (the Kindle version is even cheaper) and apparently very pretty to look at :

http://www.amazon.es/Tercios-españoles-Flandes-Atlas-Ilustrado/dp/8467753455/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1546099504&sr=1-1&keywords=Los+Tercios+españoles+en+Flandes

In German, Pavel Hrncirik's Spanier auf dem Albuch: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Schlacht bei Nördlingen im Jahre 1634 is probably the best recent work on Spanish tactics : it focuses on the battle of Nördlingen but it debunks quite a few myths about the Spanish army in general. The paperback edition isn't cheap but I believe you can get it as a pdf for just a few euros :

http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/3832261206/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?smid=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&psc=1

[Sparrow]

Cheers - I have a copy of Thion (and the old Pike and Shot Society book on the French from quite a few years back) but not Lynn - will try that! Agree Picouet’s website is v useful! Am about to wade into Parker’s Army of the Spanish Road.

Quite appreciate your comments re the Tertia’s formation by the 1630/40’s. Even looking at that print of Nieuport it’s noticeable the Spanish Tertias are not in the “classic” formation beloved of some military writers (that classic large pike block with four corners of shot). Makes you think when they actually discarded it? I’d always thought it was circa 1630’s but perhaps that’s too late? (Indeed - did they really use it in the field? Not enough knowledge on this at my end but I do wonder what eye witness accounts are out there?).

ECW is so much easier as most contemporary accounts are in English!

[Arthur]

Picouët compiled a chart of the evolution of the Spanish infantry squadrons (i.e battalions) between 1600 and 1660, using Hrncirik and others as his source. His conclusion is that from the outbreak of the TYW onwards, they kept decreasing steadily in size, from an average of 1,300 men per battalion in 1622 at the battle of Fleurus to around 900/1000 in the late 1630's. By the early 1640's, this figure had fallen below the 1,000 mark, Spanish battalions fielding an average of 750 men at Honnecourt and Rocroi in 1642 and 1643 respectively (other sources give an average of 900 men per battalion for Rocroi), and around 550 at Montijo (1644) and Lens (1648).

This is a far cry from the massive 16th century style cuadro de terreno  so beloved of wargamers. Picouët and Hrncirik both insist that such juggernauts were a thing of the past by the 1620's, the prolongado de gran frente being the preferred battlefield formation for the period. Spanish battalions/infantry squadrons would thus deploy 10 to 12 deep with musketeer mangas (sleeves) on both sides of the pike block. The mangas could also be detached and used separately, giving the Spaniards a tactical flexibility that most people tend to overlook (the opposition between dynamic, tactically progressive Protestants and reactionary Catholics who stubbornly clung to their outdated military doctrine is an oft-repeated chestnut which is absolutely not supported by primary sources)   

 

[Sparrow]

Really interesting stuff! Thank you! The reduction in “unit size” makes sense, not least logistically (large armies are very difficult to keep in the field in the mid C17th!). This also supports the idea that the cuardo de terreno was shorter lived than some suggest. Again, given how rigid it was, logical (and, despite being a “welsh chapel” boy) I’ve never gone for that idea that there were differences in military inventiveness depending on whether or not one believed in transubstantiation!

It would still be fascinating to read contemporary accounts of these formations in action. I’ve read a few relating to the Swedish part of the war (largely from English/Scottish Officers serving with Gustav Adolphus’ Army) but few relating to the French/Spanish side of the war. It will be intriguing to see what they say!

[Metternich]

I have been following this thread with great interest.  This type of exchange is one of the main reasons I read Lead Adventure Forum.  Thank you, gentlemen, for sharing your knowledge.

[Sparrow]

Cheers Metternich - I think a lot of this is down to Arthur 

I’m pretty much a Thirty Years War “virgin” with what little
I know is based on too many years wrapped up in the ECW (two very different wars!). The Early/Mid C17th is so misunderstood by wargamers (and a lot of re-enactors!). It’s complexities and detail make it fascinating to study (in my opinion) and one probably has an even wider range of troop types, campaigns and fighting styles than, say, Napoleonics! So much to get your teeth into!

If there’s one trend I could change it’d be the latest one (thanks to Warlord Games “Pike and Shotte” Rules, I think) where you get a pike block, say, 4 ranks deep, flanked by 2 formations of shot 2 ranks deep. Look at any contemporary picture of battles of this period and you’ll realise just how uncommon this is?* I appreciate that all most wargamers want is “a game” (so do I sometimes!) but why is it that in other periods (eg Napoleonics, Marlburian etc) gamers are more demanding of the history component than they are for ECW or TYW? It just intrigues me?

Us wargamers are funny people! .... rant over

Ian

* Yes, I now realise someone will come up with an example where it happened but, reading accounts of the period, looking at contemporary pictures, and understanding the weapons/their influence in tactics of the time you’ll appreciate it was very unusual? Being slightly cynical, has this formation got more to do with the number of various poses included in the plastic sprue or, maybe, the style of modern day re-enactors and their preference for salvo fire compared to Firing “by rotation” (so to speak)?

[Griefbringer]

If there’s one trend I could change it’d be the latest one (thanks to Warlord Games “Pike and Shotte” Rules, I think) where you get a pike block, say, 4 ranks deep, flanked by 2 formations of shot 2 ranks deep.

I am not familiar with Pike and Shotte rules, but from my experience several rulesets dating back to 90's tend to encourage such behaviour, by providing close combat bonuses based on the depth of the unit for up to 4 ranks, while allowing missile fire only for two ranks. I will need to double-check my rules collection for details.

[Sparrow]

Hi Griefbringer

You might be right!

The old WRG “Gush” Rules had such bonuses but, as a result of the Army lists/points system most gamers I encounter tended to stick to 2 rank units for C17th (there may well have been other rules based reasons but my memory is not what it was!). The Warlord PandS Rules were the first I have seen thst set out to actively promote/encourage such inaccurate formations?  Of course, it might be me misunderstanding? (That said their ECW supplement was bl**dy awful....in my opinion 😉)

[smirnoff]

Not really adding much to Arthur's excellent posts but....

IIRC after Brientenfeld Wallenstein executed officers [as he did at Lutzen] and I think some of these were commanders of Mounted Arquebusier units who either failed to charge, refused to follow orders or ran away. Did him no good as this just further alienated the army from him.

Whilst the topic is on 2nd Brietenfeld there is more stuff to chew over in this threadhttp://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=328259

Of note are the contributions by Daniel S (Daniel Stalberg, a Swedish historian who knows his stuff). In fact it is worth trawling the web for stuff by Daniel on the TYW, he has read in many languages and cheerfully myth busts all over the shop.

[Sparrow]

Cheers Smirnoff - v much appreciated! (Always enjoy a decent bit of properly researched myth busting!) - the details in the thread are really fascinating (an interesting example of what that “other web site” could, in the past, achieve !).