17th Century Armies - Part 2 The Dutch

Next up is the Army of the Dutch Republic mainly because it was an army that developed formations and tactics for one primary purpose; to fight the Spanish (Who I covered in the last three posts).  It was an army intended for the war of sieges and manoeuvre that characterised fighting in the Low Countries.  That doesn't mean it wasn't expected to both fight and win field actions though, the logic being that an army which does not pose a battlefield threat to a besieging force cannot lift sieges!  The Dutch army was never particularly large and relied on the availability of mercenaries and foreign volunteers.  Unlike the Spanish these troops were integrated into the Dutch armies tactical doctrines and organisation although they served in their own separate battalions.. 

Many of the developments from the 16th century onwards were things wargamers tend to gloss over, such as training regimes, standardisation of weapons, regular drill, and finance.  These ensured that the Dutch had a better ratio between actual unit strengths and paper strengths than most of their contemporaries, generally only being 25% under strength, and that troops could effectively interact with each other using the same commands and drill movements.  Most of these key developments were already in place by the start of the 17th century and were seen in action at the Battle of Nieuwpoort in 1600 where the Dutch defeated the Spanish army of Flanders.

1. The Army deployments at Nieuwpoort (from Vere's Commentaries)

 When developing his new tactics and formations Maurice of Nassau took inspiration from surviving classical military manuscripts as well as from contemporary military thinking.  His main innovation was to create the smaller battalia formations of 550 infantry.  This had more officers and NCOs than the equivalent Spanish combat unit, which created more efficient command and control and so gave greater tactical flexibility compared to the large Spanish squadrons.  Maurice was drawing on the earlier works of Machiavelli and Lipsius in considering the use of smaller tactical formations akin to the Roman cohort.  In the 16th century those writers theorised about smaller more agile formations but firearms were not then sufficiently effective to make the ideas feasible.  Maurice was the first to actually put the concept into practice with the more efficient firearms of his day.

To offset the numerical advantage of the large squadrons deployed by the Spanish, Dutch infantry battalions operated in Brigades made up of three or four battalions plus attached artillery to provide cross unit support.  

The Dutch Army’s main difference from its contemporaries in the early 17th century was in it’s army and brigade formations and the interaction between the pike and shot.  As a BCW gamer I was used to seeing the shot deployed as two wings on either side of the pike block.  That wasn't always the case in Europe, at least in the first half of the TYW, instead shot could initially be used to screen pike formations or could be deployed behind the pike for protection.  They only deployed as wings of shot as the enemy came into musket range.  The Dutch were also the first to employ the 'bastard' musket a lighter version of the matchlock musket but with the same impact and were early users of 'firelocks' both snaphaunce and early flintlock mechanisms.  Shot armed skirmishers were used at army level (see below).

The Dutch fought very few full scale battles (at least in Europe) after Nieuwpoort, the strategic preference being to maintain an 'army in being' rather than risk loosing everything with one field engagement.  According to  Wikipedia only one pitched battle was fought in the period 1621 to 1648 (the second part of the Dutch revolt), that being Kallo in 1638.

2. Ratio of Horse to Foot at selected combats

In the table above I have also listed those sieges where one side of the other attempted to break the siege lines by force.  Most sieges were settled without any significant field action.  It's worth noting that from 1635 to 1648 the Dutch had French allies in the field with them.

Dutch organisation, tactics and deployments were copied by many of the Protestant armies in the early part of  the TYW and the Swedish Army further developed Dutch ideas.  For example the Danish Army deployed according to Dutch practices during the Danish phase of the TYW.  It's also worth noting that for the two major battles listed above Dutch infantry did not defeat their Spanish opposite numbers.  Nieuwpoort was won on the cavalry flanks and Kallo was a disaster for the Dutch who were caught attempting a sea borne evacuation by superior numbers of Spanish and Imperial troops.

THE INFANTRY

As noted above the infantry were deployed in battalions of 500 - 550 men in ten ranks in 1620 reducing to six ranks by 1650.  Initially these were made up of two pikemen per three shot armed soldiers, although by 1650 this seems to have dropped to one pikeman per two musketeers.  When this occurred I'm not sure, but Henry Hexham was recommending 25 files of pike and 25 files of shot drawn up 10 deep in his work 'The Principles of the Arte Militarie'  first published in 1637 and reprinted in 1642 and 1643 so I would guess at a change sometime between 1637 and 1650 (When Richard Elton describes Dutch formations in his work 'The Compleat Body of the Art Military').  At the start of the period the shot were armed with a mix of arquebuses and muskets in a ratio of 50:50.  The arquebus was phased out by no later than 1622, although Keith Roberts places the change as happening in 1609.  Where Arquebus were used the troops armed with that weapon were deployed as the outermost files of the two shot wings.

3. Dutch Infantry Battalion early 17th Century (from George Gush)

In the image above (from online articles by George Gush on Renaissance Warfare) P is the Pike centre and A and M are Arquebusiers and Musketeers respectively.  The battalion main body is deployed as 49 files 10 ranks deep, but note the musket screen across the front of the formation.  Gush gives the numbers in the unit as follows; the main body is 490 men plus 60 musketeers in the advance shot screen giving 550 men in total.  That would break down to 220 pikemen in 22 files and 330 shot in 33 files at the suggested ratio of 2:3.  The 330 shot loose 60 men (6 files) to the advance screen leaving 270 (27 files) in the main body.  That would suggest that the main body has 13 or 14 files of shot on each wing.  If the shot is 50:50 arquebus to musket armed there would be 16.5 files of each but as 6 musket files are detached to the advance screen the main body has 16.5 files of arquebusiers and 10.5 files of musketeers.  Ignoring those pesky half files (lets assume those are the Officers and Sergeants) then each wing of the main body has 8 files of arquebusiers and 5 files of musketeers.

The later deployments described in Hexham are easier to understand 25 files of pike and 25 files of shot (assuming 6 of the 25 shot files are deployed forward in the screen) equate to 9.5 files of shot on each wing.  Hexham seems to have been clear that he is talking about files of shot armed troops and is excluding Officers and Sergeants so lets call that 9 files one side and 10 on the other.  Or if you don't consider individual battalions were providing a screen (and neither Elton or the formations on Bouko De Groot's FB page show them) 12 or 13 files on the two wings.  Those period manuals I have read focus on having complete files of shot deployed to the flanks even where that creates an asymmetrical formation and any odd part files are used to create the colour guard or are deployed to ferry ammunition reserves from the supply train to the battalion. 

The Dutch were major manufacturers of firearms and it seems that they kept their troops equipped with the latest technology.  It is possible that by the 1630's all Dutch musketeers were armed with some form of firelock rather than matchlocks.  This made their shot more reliable in wet weather.  Like the Spanish the Dutch divided the shot formations into blocks of four or five files to allow troops to advance or retire using the gaps between these sub-divisions of the block. This had the advantage of not needing to extend a unit's frontage to allow men to retire to reload.  The normal Dutch firing system was to advance two ranks ahead of the main body.  One rank would fire while the second waited to replace them.  When they first rank fired it retired to the rear of the body to reload using the gaps between the sub-divisions and the second rank replaced it and then retired in its turn to be replaced by the next two ranks. Based on that,  I should use steady fire as the Dutch preferred firing system.  They do not seem to have used massed fire (volley or salvo fire) in the period to 1648.  Between 1649 and 1660 the Dutch were not involved in any major field actions so I can't speak to the actual tactics they practised. 

Dutch infantry were well trained both in weapon handling and in unit drills.  I would class them as trained and either raw or experienced.  They did not see sufficient major field action to class as veteran.  After 1648 the army was chronically underfunded and quality probably declined.

SKIRMISHERS

The Dutch made use of skirmishers and had a battalion of snaphance armed arquebusiers specifically for this role.  This is a role I glossed over when dealing with the Spanish but I have obtained some more detail (via the 80 Years War Facebook page Bouko De Groot runs) on how this worked.  The BCW didn't see much (if any) use of skirmish troops and they are not the same thing as a Forlorn Hope as seen at Marston Moor or Naseby.  Those were bodies of shot in the usual formation of ranks and files that we are used to seeing a foot battalia's wings of shot drawn up in.  Skirmishers seem to have had no strict formation, the Spanish termed it 'avanzar a la deshilada' or advancing out of the lines and another term used is 'a la disbandada' or in disorder.  During the 16th Century they were formed on an ad hoc basis and used as a way of shaping the battle or if required avoiding a decisive engagement.  The first true skirmisher regiments were raised between 1620 and Maurice's death in 1625.  By the mid 1630s they seem to have been used almost like Napoleonic skirmishers; as a way of shielding the main bodies of pike and shot.  Dutch skirmishers  seem to have been armed with eight foot long vaulting spears (Used to assist in crossing ditches and dykes as well as a weapon) and firearms, either arquebuses or Muskets depending on the date but normally employing some type of firelock ignition system.

In Dutch service they were either used as a screen across the frontage of the infantry brigade or to cover the flanks of smaller forces.  They also saw extensive use in scouting, small actions, and storming parties.

THE DRAGOONS

In the period from 1618 to the end of the TYW the Dutch had no Dragoons.  Two companies had been formed in 1606 totalling 350 men and horses, but their use seems to have ended by 1615.  One of those companies was armed in the same way as the skirmisher companies with vaulting spears and arquebus.  It appears that much of the role filled by Dragoons in other armies was covered by the infantry skirmisher companies, and the mounted dragoon was seen as superfluous post 1615.

THE CAVALRY

Cavalry were of little use in sieges, either as attackers or defenders and the Dutch army reflected that.  They never had the large cavalry forces seen in other armies which  intended to bring an enemy to battle and to destroy them.  In 1606 the entire cavalry force was less than 4,000 men and horses.  Of that total some 72% were armoured Reiters.  Only around 22% were Harquebusiers, with the balance being demi-Lancers.  Those numbers had changed very little by 1635, though the demi-lancers had gone and the force, still only numbering around 4,000, was now 75% cuirassier and 25% harquebusiers.  Cavalry seems to have been the minority force in Dutch Armies at Nieuwpoort they formed 12% of the army and at Kello it formed 20%.

Dutch cavalry armour was of good quality and was pistol proof for the chest and helmet (as a minimum), arms may not have provided such good protection.  However, Spanish (and other nations) cavalry were at a definite disadvantage when facing the more heavily armoured Dutch.  When used in open battle they seemed to have operated in much the same way as their Spanish opponents using firepower rather than shock tactics unless the enemy formations were clearly ready to break.

Cavalry formations seem to have been drawn up five ranks deep in the 1620s to allow firing by ranks. Throughout the period units were of between 200 and 300 horsemen.  Information for the period after 1648  has been hard to find.  Bouko de Groot has said that the split of cavalry types between Cuirassiers and Harquebusiers became 50:50 about that date.  I'm assuming (always a dangerous exercise) that formation depths stayed the same as previously due to the high proportion of cuirassiers. 

THE ARTILLERY

Like the Spanish the Dutch standardised their artillery into a limited number of shot weights.48pdr, 24pdr for siege work and 12pdr and 6pdr for battlefield use.  By 1622 a new lighter  shorter barrelled artillery type was introduced.  Known as Drakes these were 24pdr, 12pdr, 6pdr and 3pdr pieces.  Some secondary sources have suggested that Drakes were used for close range fire support firing some form of grape shot with the short barrels providing a wide cone of fire. At a muster in 1622 two of these new guns were deployed with each infantry battalion.  I would class the standard 48 and 24pdrs as siege guns, the 12 and 6pdrs, 24pdr - 6pdr Drakes as field guns and the 3pdr Drakes as very light guns.   By 1622 it was fairly common to deploy two very light guns to each battalion along with a 24pdr drake per two battalions.  I would treat artillery as being professionals and experienced to reflect the high level of expertise of the gunners.

ARMY DEPLOYMENT

The Infantry Centre

The Dutch deployed in depth commonly using three lines of infantry battalions rather the single line of massive Squadrons favoured by the Spanish (although see the images of Nieuwpoort where the Spanish also seem to be deployed in depth perhaps due to the constraints of ground).  Battalions were formed into Brigades and deployed in a chequer board formation to give depth.  Because of the formations used, a brigade could be split between the three battle lines and so a brigade commander controlled a sector of the battle lines frontage and had his own reserve in the third line.  It could be said that the Dutch Brigade was not dissimilar to a Spanish Squadron with its pike square and semi independent Mangas of shot except in the Dutch model all the component battalions had both pike and shot armed troops and were fully independent formations.  

The Brigade was intended to provide cross support between its component battalions and contained its own artillery which could be deployed at Battalion level.  This seems to have been on the basis of two  light guns per battalion.  A Dutch Brigade seems to have been deployed with six battalions until at least the mid 1630s, reducing to four by the time Elton was writing in 1650.  The gap between the first and second line was roughly 300 yards to allow space for the second line units to wheel 90 degrees.  The space between the second and third line was double that presumably to keep the third line out of any beaten zone from musketry or artillery.

A Dutch Infantry Brigade as shown by Elton

The Dutch favoured keeping some cavalry squadrons as a reserve or support to the infantry centre deploying these behind the second or third lines.  This was a tactic also used in the BCW (By the Royalist Army at Naseby for example).

The Cavalry Wings

The horse were deployed in a chequer board formation like the foot.  Bouko De Groot's 80 Years War Facebook page has some deployment maps comparing Dutch and Swedish deployments in 1632 which show the front line of the cavalry level with the second line of the Infantry, the second level with the third line of foot and the third line level with the cavalry reserve in the behind the centres third line..  There does not seem to have been any use of bodies of shot to support the horse.  All Dutch cavalry is shown as armoured to some degree  With 3/4 armoured Cuirassiers forming the bulk of the first and second lines but with their outer flanks covered by Harquebusiers.  The third line and reserve is entirely made up of Harquebusiers.  I would treat the Cuirassiers as mixed shock and the Harquebusiers as mixed firepower or mixed shock. 

CREATING A DUTCH  WARGAMES ARMY

As the Dutch only fought one field action in the period covered by my rules (1618 - 1660) I'd suggest that a skirmish level set of rules would be a good fit for wargames with them.  This would allow a focus on the raids and skirmishes.  After the end of the 80 years war in 1648 the Dutch applied military power mainly via their navy until the the 1680s.  However if you want to fight hypothetical battles with them here are my suggestions.  Bear in mind that I use Irregular Miniature's Horse and Musket 3 rank shot castings in pairs to represent a body of 100 or 50 men in six ranks and the Renaissance pike block to represent 100 pike in 6 ranks.  This means that exact numbers and formations can't be easily reproduced.

Dutch Army 1620 to circa 1640

Infantry formations consist of battalions of 500-550 men grouped into brigades of four to six battalions.  Using Irregular Miniature's 2mm blocks I would deploy then 12 ranks deep (4 castings).  Each battalion should have two very light guns attached as sub units.  Each pair of battalions may have a field gun.  The foot brigades must deploy in three lines of battalions.  I would give every brigade a general to represent the high quality of command and control the Dutch strived to achieve.  The standard Battalions should aim to be 3:2 shot to pike ratio.  Dutch infantry should be considered trained and either raw or experienced.   A battalion of skirmishers should be provided to screen the centre of the army and individual battalions may deploy a single formation of no more than 60 musket to cover its frontage (or not as it's unclear if this was common after 1620).  Standard Battalions should be treated as mixed firepower. Skirmisher battalions will be more mobile than the standard battalions and less disrupted by the dykes and drains of the low countries and deployed in a loose formation.  They should always be considered trained and experienced and firepower doctrine (to represent the fact that they have some limited ability to handle cavalry due to their vaulting spears and use of ground) or Skirmish doctrine and may be veteran as they were drawn from the most able men of the army. Mercenaries may be considered trained and veteran if recruited from Germany.  

You may treat all skirmishers as having firelock muskets throughout the period.  For ease of representation I would also treat all standard battalion shot as musket armed throughout this period (although purists could use 50% arquebuses until 1622).  The type of musket is debatable and I would consider that they were matchlocks until around 1630 and early flintlocks there after.  Firelocks of any type should not suffer deductions for  fighting in wet or windy weather (or at least not to the extent that matchlocks do). 

Cavalry should be be at least 75% cuirassiers with the balance being Harquebusiers.  They should never exceed 20% of the armies headcount (excluding artillery) or 4,000 men (whichever is lower).  These should be considered as trained and experienced and mixed firepower.  A minimum of 40% of the total cavalry should be deployed on each wing with at least 10% used to support the central infantry bodies.  I would deploy these in 6 ranks. 

Dutch Army post 1640

I'm going to have to make some significant assumptions about the later Dutch army.  The infantry formations become wider and narrower so are deployed in 6 ranks to maximise firepower from their flintlock muskets.  They are now 2:1 shot to pike ratio.  Advance screens of shot are no longer available to standard battalions but the army may deploy two battalions of specialist skirmishers.  Artillery continues as before.  The infantry still deploy each brigade in three lines.

Cavalry still deploys in 6 ranks and is still trained and experienced and using mixed firepower for harquebusiers but cuirassiers may be mixed shock.  By 1648 the split between the two types is 50:50 and this may have been the case earlier so to distinguish this version of the army from the previous one I would use that ratio throughout.  They should never exceed 20% of the armies headcount (excluding artillery) or 4,000 men (whichever is lower).  

Post 1648 funding for the army declined so I would consider the quality of troops to be lower with no use of expensive mercenaries.  Prior to 1648 I would rate troops exactly as pre 1640 but from 1648 I would reduce the ratings to raw or experienced at best and part trained or trained at best for standard infantry battalions.  Skirmishers and cavalry stay as before.

Dutch armies should never be deployed outside of the boundaries of the Spanish Low Countries or the immediate bordering German states.

Note regarding Ernst Mansfield's German Mercenary Army 

I'm going to include these in the post about Protestant German Armies as they were only in Dutch service for a very short period and the one battle they fought although technically in that service (Fleurus 1622) was on their own with no Dutch troops involved.