ECW battle tactics queries for someone new to the era

[SJWi]

SultanBev, another simple sounding question but a more complex answer....assuming there is a single answer.  To build on what Hwiccee has said, the 17th century saw quite a few improvements in infantry, and particularly musketeer organisation. Chronologically it starts with the Dutch reforms which organised musketeers 10 ranks deep and they fired by rank moving backwards and then re-loading so a continuous barrage of shot could be deployed. The Swedes fired a three rank salvo or salvee with one kneeling and two standing. These three ranks then retired and re-loaded.  I have also read about a more hybrid "German Style" which I guess comes from the fighting mainly in Germany during the 1630s and '40s.

I don't think the English "did something else", but the names have come from the earlier conflicts where the style was developed.  Remember England hadn't fought a serious land war since the 16th century, so adopted techniques and tactics developed overseas . Many units hired or were officered by men who had some experience form the Thirty Years war so they would train in the the style these guys had used.

I think you will also see tactics developing during the ECW. Remember, from Edgehill to Worcester is a period of 9 years and the armies at the end of the period would have evolved considerably  in professionalism and tactical nouse. What might be a truism in 1642 won't necessarily be the state on play in 1651.         

[Hu Rhu]

I'm not sure how much of this debate is useful to wargamers.  It is the same when arguing about the effectiveness of archers in the Wars of the Roses.   The answer is no-one knows, so we make the best of our limited knowledge and when writing wargames rules.

Richard has the right idea, you targeted the guy in front of you, whether armed with a pike or musket it doesn't matter.  Manoeuvre was not something blocks of men did on a battlefield in contact, nor firing at anyone that was not a direct threat to you.

My go to set of rules Pike and Shotte by Warlord has a proximity rule whereby at close range to an enemy you can only go forwards or backwards, not sideways or wheel or anything fancy.  You can also only fire in a limited arc, which again in effect only allows you to target the guys in front of you.  The end result is that you charge and fire at the guys in front of you.

If you want to play smaller battles, such as skirmishes and sieges then use a set of rules that permit more manoeuvre and greater arcs of fire, such a Pikeman's Lament or similar.

As to having a whole range of weapons available to pikemen, I think that this is wishful thinking. Halberds and Half-Pikes were either ceremonial or carried by officers and NCOs, not to use as close range weapons in a 'push of pikes'.  Better equipped pikemen may also have carried a sword, which is what they wielded at close quarters.

[Captain Blood]

Captain Blood, I assume you are referring to me when you mention the "re-enactment fraternity". No I'm not. It was back in the '80s that I ran around West Stow Anglo-Saxon village as an unarmoured 9th century Saxon peasant being hit by men with swords and axes.

In fairness the Sealed Knot guys I refer to do not think of themselves as "experimental archaeologists", fully realising that (a) their engagements are stage-managed (b) modern HSE rules preclude a lot of things and (c) compared to a true ECW battle the number of cavalry is miniscule. That said some of them are pretty well-read and have views worth listening to.

No, I wasn't referring to you as the fraternity
You did, however, mention re-enactors, which spurred my observation that re-enactment is not, for the most part, an entirely realistic portrayal of what (probably) happened in real historical encounters. It can be risky to place too much reliance on what re-enactors say about 'the way things definitely were' - which in my experience, some of them are quite prone to do. (Even though
 - as Gary says above - most of the time nobody knows anything for certain when it comes to how our forebearers did things 400 years ago).
But yes, of course, there's a lot of genuine knowledge out there, and most views are certainly worth listening to. I just caution people to bear in mind that for the most part these are opinions and interpretations based on re-enactment experience, which is not the same as historical fact

[Moriarty]

Useful site:
https://www.britishbattles.com/english-civil-war/battle-of-adwalton-moor/

[HerbertTarkel]

Do any of you own the Perry reprint of the manual of how to make war?

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product/the-art-of-martiall-discipline-open-edition/

It’s quite good.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Could not the NCOs have carried halberds as a predecessor to the Spontoon?  Strikes me as a useful thing to have amongst Musketeers if the volleys fail to keep an enemy at bay…and behind them to make sure they didn’t use to much discretion over valour.

[SJWi]

Aethelflaeda, yes some officer/NCOs did carry "halberds", albeit their are shown as generally shorter than their medieval forbears.

Herbert, good to see you enter the debate from over the pond. I Hope all is well in Canada. The curator of the Cromwell museum has offered to lend me his copy of the Perry re-print and I'll then see if I want to spend £65 on a copy for myself. He says it is probably the best contemporary account readily available so I guess I will succumb to temptation. At least books don't sit in the "metal mountain" waiting to be painted! 

[Sparrow]

These may be of some assistance …
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781858040080/Infantry-Combat-Mechanics-First-English-1858040086/plp

and

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=31325324078&dest=gbr&ref_=ps_ggl_2039220669&cm_mmc=ggl-_-UK_Shopp_Tradestandard-_-product_id=UK9781846034695USED-_-keyword=&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD3Y6gsrZhAmn7cM6hOPv5RSFQNQZ

[SJWi]

Sparrow, thanks. I have the Osprey but I found it frustratingly short of detail on the actual pike and shotte tactics.  I found reference to the Peachey booklet in another of his publications but couldn't find a copy anywhere. I'll have a think about buying this one. I have also been recommended "The Art of Martiall Discipline" which is sold by the Perrys but at £65 a copy is possibly too pricey for my pocket.

[sultanbev]

Found the site of the publisher of the Peachey book, they still use SAE and cheques !
https://www.stuart-hmaltd.com/ECW_military_practice.php
I shall try and place an order tomorrow. Although the website has a 2205 date on it, last updates appear to be 2019....

They seem to have a booklet for each battle too:
https://www.stuart-hmaltd.com/ECW_battles_books.php

[SJWi]

Sultanbev, many thanks.  When I tried to look for this a few weeks ago I could only find a company in the US and the P&P was prohibitive. Some really interesting titles there.

Regards

[thestoats]

I'm a bit late to the party and I know much more about the contemporary conflict in continental Europe than what was happening in the British Kingdoms, but I thought I'd answer these questions using my knowledge on the Thirty Years' War:

1) Continental tacticians advocate for both infantry musketeers and mounted shot (i.e. harquebusiers) to prioritize shooting at pikes. Pikes formed the backbone of infantry squadrons and breaking them meant the musketeers couldn't stand up on their own. The unit's colours were also stationed within the pikes, adding to the effect that the discipline of the pike block represented the coherency of the squadron.

2) When two infantry formations engaged in melee, pikes would advance while the musketeers would hang back, so no, the pikes would not try to get to the musketeers as the enemy pike would be blocking their way.

3) Musketeers would almost always shelter behind the pikes during the "push of pike" with few exceptions, such as during the Yellow and Blue Brigades' desperate countercharge at Lutzen. Musketeers generally were not equipped for a melee, wearing no armor or at most a helmet and usually having swords of inferior quality compared to what pikemen were issued.

4) Against charging cavalry, the pikes would generally remain stationary to provide ample protection to their musketeers. As mentioned previously, in melee pikes would steadily advance towards each other in compact formations.

5) Depths of units were not as prone to variation as frontage due to each army's doctrine. For example, Wallenstein mandated pike formations to be 7 ranks deep in the Imperial Army. In a composite German squadron, most tacticians recommended a depth of 10-12 ranks. As such, the frontage of a unit would increase as more men were available to fill the ranks.

6) Halberds were used solely by the officer corps during this period and not necessarily thought of a distinct weapon. Their use was more as a symbol of authority than a component in pike and shot formations. In fact, the Swedish army listed all NCOs and officers, regardless of the weapon they used, under the same category to differentiate from the pikemen and musketeers.

7) Musketeers sheltering under the pikes and waiting out the cavalry charge is pretty common in the German-style formations. However, there were other ways to protect the pikemen, such as in the Swedish brigades where pikemen would be posted at the front, musketeers were positioned behind to fire at the flanks of encircling cavalry, and more pikemen were posted as a reserve at the back of the formation.

[sultanbev]

I have a new question about English pike and shot regiments.

I've just noticed a wargames rules set that allows the musketeer sleeves to detach from the pike block, in effect all three acting as independent units.
Is this realistic, did it ever happen? (I'm not referring to commanded shot units).
 
From all the reading I've done so far, the whole point of a mixed pike & shot unit is that they protect each other, thus, they need to move and deploy together. Separately, they are vulnerable to other troop types, the shot elements to cavalry, the pike elements to shot.

The other thing I found weird is the fielding of model units with pikes in 3-4 ranks of bases, the shot in two ranks spread out in longish lines either side of the pike block. All the diagrams and drill descriptions from the time I've seen show the shot blocks in 6 (or 8, or whatever it happens to be) ranks depth, the same as the pikes - this seems a pretty consistent theme.

So there was this comment I found on one otherwise very informative blog:
“Wargamers, myself included, are somewhat unhistorical by arranging musketeers in two rows but our pike in three or even four rows.”

How did this even come to pass?

[SJWi]

Sultanbev, I'm currently just outside Plymouth so don't have my books to hand. Since you started this thread I have read dome accounts of "smaller" battles and indeed today I visited Freedom Fields and Modbury in Devon. I have read of pike and shotte being separated especially in close terrain such as fields with hedgerows, or where there wasn't much cavalry. How widespread this practice was I can't say but it did happen
As regards your 2nd point I too have fallen into this trap. My "generic" units have 3 ranks of pike and 'command" with wings of shotte. As I play FK&P rules with a grid I need units that look the part but fit in the grid, so I injected a degree of pragmatism.

[OB]

Sending out sleeves from the parent body pre dates the ECW. The English in Ireland in the Nine years War would send out a sleeve of pike if their shot had lost the fire fight. It seems it was a recognised tactic for formed troops.