TYW tactics question.

[B.E.A.R]

During the TYW was the Holy Roman Empire still using the terico formation or had they switched to the Dutch formation? The information I have found say they were but I just want to know if I have missed some information.

[fastolfrus]

I vaguely recall reading a mention of tercios for an early force (pre 1621?) but the Dutch formations were easier to maintain with less experienced/trained men (and probably more effective in light of changing technology & tactics).
Certainly wouldn't consider them for the later stages of the war though, but you have a 30 year span anyway.

[huevans]

There are a # of detailed discussions on TMP. Note especially Daniel S's thoughts.

It seems clear that the mid 16th Century Tercio formation was long gone and the HRE was using contemporary Dutch style formations.

[B.E.A.R]

Thanks gents, now how well do Foundry miniatures look with Assault Group?

[Khurasan Miniatures]

Tercio was not a formation, it was an administrative unit within an army.

[former user]

I don't claim to be an expert on that matter, but from what I read and understood:

Imperial troops started with the classical cumbersome Tercio concept and had to adapt when the Swedes came up with their more flexible one. After all we are talking of 30 years during which professional mercenaries had a lot of time to adapt.

So it is rather a question of where and when that can be answered only in detail in relation to the phase You want to play.

But I might have got it wrong....

[Khurasan Miniatures]

There was no tercio concept as a field formation.  There was a bastioned square (just one way to arrange the "mangas" around the "escaudron"), and other formations.

Imperial troops sometimes fought in deeper formations than, say, Dutch regulations required, and sometimes in larger units as well, but much of what has been written about this comes from English language writers with an axe to grind, that the protestant powers had a more modern and flexible formation approach.  This is why we are also told that Imperial cavalry caracoled whereas protestant cavalry charged.  (Caracole wasn't really even a formation or battlefield behavior, it was just a way to manoevre/change formation.)  The fact is that Imperial infantry were fighting in fairly long lines with the musketeers on the flanks well before the TYW started.

Breitenfeld is given as the ultimate example of Imperial infantry fighting in deep clumsy formations, but even if you believe Horn's account, that was not doctrine, it may have been dictated by circumstance on the field that day.  But Horn (a swedish general) is the only writer of the period to claim the few huge units.  All other period accounts claim the usual number of Imperial infantry regiments -- 10 to 14.

[former user]

now that sounds interesting

can You tell where I can read this in full without bothering You to explain in detail please?