The role of “Carabins” in the Thirty Years War

[Arthur]

Smirnoff is right, Daniel Staberg really knows his onions and his Renaissance-themed blog is well worth visiting despite being updated only sporadically :

http://kriegsbuch.blogspot.com

His post on the battle of Breitenfeld is quite illuminating when it comes to the tactics used by Catholic forces, I think, and the few paragraphs he devotes to the formations used by Tilly's imperial army really put paid to the old chestnut of Catholic forces relying on massive tercios.  :

http://kriegsbuch.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-imperial-leaguist-army-in-battle-of.html

And who knows, we might even see one day the TYW book he's been promising for the better part of the last decade 

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!

Such first-hand accounts exist and aren't difficult to come by but they will be a problem for those who can't read French as they don't usually come with an English translation. Stéphane Thion has quite a few period accounts, letters and testimonies on his excellent semi-bilingual TYW blog, which is also well worth a visit or ten :

http://rohanturenne.blogspot.com

Stéphane didn't translate everything into English though, which is understandable as this would be a massive and extremely time-consuming undertaking. All he did in the case of quotes by French native speakers was modernise the spelling and syntax to make them more accessible to 21st century readers;
 

The reduction in “unit size” makes sense, not least logistically (large armies are very difficult to keep in the field in the mid C17th!).

Logistics certainly played an important part in the shaping of C17th armies but I suspect the real reason why Spanish infantry squadrons (and pretty much everybody else's as well) grew increasingly smaller was a tactical one : massive formations may have looked formidable on paper but in the field they proved too rigid and unwieldy to win battles. The reason why the 600 to 800 men battalion became the norm by the late C17th (and remained so until the end of the horse and musket era) is that anything larger lacked the flexibility the evolution of warfare imposed on commanders.

(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!

You wouldn't but a lot of very old TYW chestnuts that have been floating around for the past couple of centuries or so owe a great deal to political and religious bias. English and British authors of the 18th and 19th centuries have often tended to side with the Protestant faction, which resulted in the Catholic camp being systematically depicted as a reactionary clique that clung to outdated doctrines and ideas. Walter Harte's bibliography of Gustavus Adolphus, published in 1759, is a prime example of such history written (and sometimes reinvented) through the prism of ideological prejudice (keeping in mind the fact that anti-Catholicism was still widespread in 18th century England). it was for instance Harte who invented the spurious quote found just about everywhere since which portrayed Tilly as a general who couldn't care less if his men went barefoot and in rags provided they could still fight ("a ragged soldier with a bright musket"). Conversely, Gustavus Adolphus came to be depicted as a God-like genius who single-handedly invented modern warfare from uniforms to modern tactics while leading legions of Scandinavian supermen against treacherous, double-dealing Catholic overlords and their hordes of undisciplined hirelings.

Modern researchers have now put paid to most of these myths (Richard Brzezinski did a fine job of debunking them while still acknowledging Gustavus' undoubted brilliance and skill) but you'd be surprised how much of this stuff still lingers in modern publications, essentially because many English-speaking authors can't access primary sources due to the language barrier and merely repeat what's been repeated for the past couple of hundred years. Daniel Staberg got a bit of flak on TMP for pointing that out a few years ago, but his point was quite valid, I think.       

[Sparrow]

Cheers, Arthur, for the links - again, hugely appreciated! You’ve also guessed correctly at my personal language barrier limitation (something I am not proud of ☹️). Perhaps this is the reason I need to make me roll up my sleeves and finally get on with learning French....?

It was the Brzezinski books that opened my eyes on the TYW. If only he could publish more! I’m afraid too many in the past have falling into the trap where one rubbishes the opposition of great generals, such as Gustav Adolphus. To me this actually dims their achievements. Given all they accomplished the armies of Tilly, Wallenstein etc were clearly very competent (compared to their peers) and to be respected.

The point you make re unit size and battlefield flexibility is well made. I probably over emphasise logistics in most of my thinking.

I have a lot of reading to do this year to start getting into the 30 Years War - quite exciting, and motivating. It’s certainly boosting my “Wargaming mojo” (something that was badly needed!).

[Griefbringer]

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.

After a quick check last night, I found the following rulesets where it can be beneficial to deploy the pike up to four ranks deep, while the shot is best kept 2 ranks deep.

1.) De Bellis Renationis v. 1.1 (1997): shot can fire in up to 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks against infantry (2 ranks against cavalry).
2.) Warfare in the Age of Discovery (1998): shot can fire in up to 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks. Furthermore, the army lists specify fixed formations for units, and several 17th century pike formations are obligated to deploy into T-shaped formation where shot is in 1 or 2 ranks and pike in 3 or 4 ranks.
3.) Warhammer English Civil War (2002): shot can fire in up to 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks (2 ranks when charging).
4.) 1644 (2007): shot can fire in 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks.

For something different, Renessaince Principles of War (2004) has the whole pike and shot unit represented by a single rectangular base.

[Sparrow]

Cheers Griefbringer, appreciated!  - I was clearly wrong to blame the “T” formation tragedy on “Pike and Shotte” but interesting to note that 2 of the quoted rules sets (1644/Rick Priestly and Warhammer ECW/ John Stallard) come from the Warlord stable, I’m sure Warlord make some fun games but their focus on historical fact always feels quite low down their priority list? (Then again, perhaps it’s me being a grumpy old g1t!).

Warfare in the Age of Discovery I cannot comment on having never seen/read/played them but DBR is interesting. Logically  by mid C17th the main role for many (not all) Pike is protecting your shots that may explain the 2 rank rule vs cavalry - subtly guiding the gamer?

Renaissance PoW sounds very  interesting! I only have experience of their C19th Rules (which I really enjoyed) and can see this idea working well with 6mm/10mm in particular.

I think this all  reinforces the point Arthur is making - we seem to have some rather inaccurate stereotypical views of C17th warfare  and us gamers (and re-enactors) have lazily followed them - the truth looks far more interesting!

[huevans]

After a quick check last night, I found the following rulesets where it can be beneficial to deploy the pike up to four ranks deep, while the shot is best kept 2 ranks deep.

1.) De Bellis Renationis v. 1.1 (1997): shot can fire in up to 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks against infantry (2 ranks against cavalry).
2.) Warfare in the Age of Discovery (1998): shot can fire in up to 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks. Furthermore, the army lists specify fixed formations for units, and several 17th century pike formations are obligated to deploy into T-shaped formation where shot is in 1 or 2 ranks and pike in 3 or 4 ranks.
3.) Warhammer English Civil War (2002): shot can fire in up to 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks (2 ranks when charging).
4.) 1644 (2007): shot can fire in 2 ranks, pike can fight in up to 4 ranks.

For something different, Renessaince Principles of War (2004) has the whole pike and shot unit represented by a single rectangular base.

That's a bit silly. Late 30YW formations were 6 to 8 ranks of shot deep and the ranks would move forwards and backwards to give fire in turn. Alternatively, they could close up into 3 ranks and give a single volley at once. It would be nice if rules sets would make the effort to be historical from time to time.

[Condottiere]

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

What's sketchy about it?

[Sparrow]

What's sketchy about it?

From my point of view it was a a bit of missed opportunity (though nowhere near as awful as the 2 volumes on the Imperial Army). It wasn’t terrible but just now feels a bit shallow?

For example, take the link Arthur provided to http://www.babelio.com/livres/Picouet-Les-Tercios-Espagnols-1600-60/195097  - there is a lot of interesting  stuff out there for us to really get our teeth into (as shown by the Ospreys on the Swedish army). Like quite a few recent Ospreys (though not all) it just feels to be lacking in any real depth ?

[Ignatieff]

Great thread Sparrow and some super comments from one and all. 

I'd strongly urge you get hold of a copy of the new Snayers book: 'Pieter Snayers, Battle painter 1592-1667', before it sells out.  Not cheap but the only comprehensive study of his works available.  I've seen many if not most of his pics in the flesh, but you can never get them photographed properly.  This does it for you, and has a stack of pics currently in private collections, which you'd never get to see.

Why is it important?  Well most of his battle pics were commissioned by men who were at the actions (Piccolimini had very deep pockets in this respect).  And allowing for the self-glorification of the commissioning client, they are very accurate in the details (professional soldiers wouldn't let them get away with anything else). So much so that perspective is often distorted to capture the action.  Highly recommended to be able to study the evolution on tactics over the period.

[Sparrow]

Cheers Ignatieff - it was the last push I needed to call Caliver and order this book - duly done😉

(That’s RCW and now TYW books you’ve talked me into - not that it took much talking  )

[Griefbringer]

That's a bit silly. Late 30YW formations were 6 to 8 ranks of shot deep and the ranks would move forwards and backwards to give fire in turn. Alternatively, they could close up into 3 ranks and give a single volley at once. It would be nice if rules sets would make the effort to be historical from time to time.

Keep in mind that the numbers that I gave are for a rank of miniatures, which can correspond to multiple ranks of real world combatants.

For example, if you assume that a single rank of models stands for 3-4 ranks of real combatants, then having 2 ranks of models able to fire per turn could feel more reasonable. Though then allowing 4 model ranks of pikemen to physically attack their opponents may require assuming very long pikes.

PS. My favourite annoyance tends to be the obsession of many British game authors to cram reindeers into Nordic forces, regardless of the period, to bring some local flavour. Never mind that they only live in Lapland (not a common battleground) and have limited load-pulling capacity compared to horses. For example, DBR army list for TYW Swedish includes an option for a base of Laps with reindeers (treated game-wise as a unit of Light Horse).

[vtsaogames]

This is a great thread, fabulous info and links. Thank you.

[Arthur]

From my point of view it was a a bit of missed opportunity (though nowhere near as awful as the 2 volumes on the Imperial Army). It wasn’t terrible but just now feels a bit shallow?

For example, take the link Arthur provided to http://www.babelio.com/livres/Picouet-Les-Tercios-Espagnols-1600-60/195097  - there is a lot of interesting  stuff out there for us to really get our teeth into (as shown by the Ospreys on the Swedish army). Like quite a few recent Ospreys (though not all) it just feels to be lacking in any real depth ?

This.

Unlike many people on a variety of forums, I don't necessarily consider the Osprey format a prohibitive limitation. It is obviously not conducive to in-depth coverage and can offer little more than a primer on a given subject, but a capable author can manage very well with it, Brzezinski's two MAA's on Gustavus Adolphus' Swedish army being a prime example of this. The problem with the Spanish tercios MAA is that it attempts to cover two centuries of history in less than forty pages, for a result that is superficial at best. It merely scratches the surface and only offers snippets of useful information, which means you have to turn to Picouet, Hrncirik et al for the real thing.     

[Condottiere]

This.

Unlike many people on a variety of forums, I don't necessarily consider the Osprey format a prohibitive limitation. It is obviously not conducive to in-depth coverage and can offer little more than a primer on a given subject, but a capable author can manage very well with it, Brzezinski's two MAA's on Gustavus Adolphus' Swedish army being a prime example of this. The problem with the Spanish tercios MAA is that it attempts to cover two centuries of history in less than forty pages, for a result that is superficial at best. It merely scratches the surface and only offers snippets of useful information, which means you have to turn to Picouet, Hrncirik et al for the real thing.   

Even the two Swedish titles are a primer at best and its worth overinflated, as it's been the only source in English for ages. The Lópezes' title isn't perfect, especially when covering the later battlefield versions and I'm not that enthused about all the plates, but it's useful in clearly stating the organization of coronelias and tercios and the transitional period - it's all one could ask for in an Osprey.

[Condottiere]

Cheers, Arthur, for the links - again, hugely appreciated! You’ve also guessed correctly at my personal language barrier limitation (something I am not proud of ☹️). Perhaps this is the reason I need to make me roll up my sleeves and finally get on with learning French....?

It was the Brzezinski books that opened my eyes on the TYW. If only he could publish more! I’m afraid too many in the past have falling into the trap where one rubbishes the opposition of great generals, such as Gustav Adolphus. To me this actually dims their achievements. Given all they accomplished the armies of Tilly, Wallenstein etc were clearly very competent (compared to their peers) and to be respected.

The point you make re unit size and battlefield flexibility is well made. I probably over emphasise logistics in most of my thinking.

I have a lot of reading to do this year to start getting into the 30 Years War - quite exciting, and motivating. It’s certainly boosting my “Wargaming mojo” (something that was badly needed!).

Not so much fallen into a trap, more like lazily regurgitating information, usually due to a bias or being monolingual - I'd even throw in miserliness. I'm peeved whenever I see Oman as a go to reference for anything to do with Condottieri and Landsknechts...

The plagiarist Vladimir Brnardic mentions units of sword and bucklermen occupying the front ranks of tercios, ready to catch bullets, but it's nothing more than uncritically lifting a theoretical passage from Montecuccoli's grounded treatise - Thomas Barker's The Military Intellectual and Battle: Raimondo Montecuccoli and the Thirty Years War. In the aforementioned work from 1975, Barker covers some of the battles and disproved the notion of four massive tercios at Breitenfeld, by quoting the Swedish king's description of Tilly's deployment: four regiments arranged in a checkerboard pattern of three battalions each and about the same size as his ~1500 man Swedish brigades.

The idea of a tercio being a 3-5000 man block was never true, even in the 16th century: the Sergeant-Major would divide the men into battalia of varying companies, depending on the number available, no different than what everyone did, with the exception of the Swiss initially, as they lacked tactically sophisticated training, preferring swift engagements lacking combined arms.     

[Condottiere]

That's a bit silly. Late 30YW formations were 6 to 8 ranks of shot deep and the ranks would move forwards and backwards to give fire in turn. Alternatively, they could close up into 3 ranks and give a single volley at once. It would be nice if rules sets would make the effort to be historical from time to time.

Would you suggest a set of rules accurately covering ranks and files, at a ratio of 1:20 or 1:50, without being a tedious simulation? With an interest in the War of the League of Augsburg and the War of the Spanish Succession, I would've liked rules to reflect 4-5 ranked continental and 3-4 ranked British battalions and thought I could do this with Under the Lilly Banners, but realized this wasn't possible and WECW might be a better option.