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.

It's Christmas (in a Noddy Holder voice)

And if you don't know who Noddy Holder is look up the 70's glam rock band Slade and their massive Christmas hit.

Just a short post to wish all my readers a very Merry Christmas and to confirm (in Granny Weatherwax's words) "I aren't dead".  I have been working on the next post on 17th Century armies covering the Dutch and it has taken longer than expected to pull the various strands together.  Especially post 1648 details.  Still I'm almost there and should be able to post the information before the new year (not saying which one though!).

Here's hoping that Santa is kind to you all and you avoid the dreaded lump of coal in your stocking.

A bit more about the Spanish Army

 While reading about the Dutch Army of the 17th Century I stumbled across the following image showing two stages of the Battle of Nieuwpoort in 1600.  What is interesting is that in the lower half of the image the Spanish infantry squadrons are advancing with their corner Mangas of shot ahead of the pike blocks. Notice how they are still in the same relative positions to each other though so that the pike only needs to keep advancing into the centre of their formation to create a traditional 'tercio' formation.

In the upper image the pike blocks have closed up on their Mangas and the shot have taken post to either side of the pike blocks.  in the very top right of the upper image there appear to be two mangas on each flank of the pike forming wings, while in front of them the shot are in columns on either side of the pike.

How accurate this image is is open to doubt as it was published in 1649 in the Atlas van Loon. So was created almost half a century after the event.  However Henry Hexham shows the Spanish Infantry exactly as depicted above in the lower image (probably in) in his "A trve and briefe relation of the bloody battel of Nievport in Flanders found betwixt Prince Mavrice of happy memory and Albert arch-duke of Avstria vpon the second of Iuly 1600" Published in 1641.  I'm saying probably as the images come from "Steve's Balagan" blog which you can find here Battle of Nieuport 2 July 1600 - Steven's Balagan.

I'm going to make an assumption here, Hexham served with the English Regiment of Sir Francis Vere in the service of the Dutch Republic.  He was certainly with him at the Seige of Ostend in 1601 (aged 16 or 17) so had first hand knowledge of events. In fact he lived most of his life in Holland serving in the regiments of Sir Horace Vere and then Sir George Goring after Francis Vere returned to England.  I'd tend to think that any sketch of field deployments would have some basis in truth.

So what this seems to be showing us is that the corner Mangas did operate semi-independantly.

Another sad day

Barney passed over the rainbow bridge this afternoon.  He was the first of our rescue dogs, arriving from Spain with George but coming to us before George needed a new UK home.  He had been unwell for a few weeks but nothing serious.  The vet gave him a course of Steroids to deal with an abscess in his ear where another dog had nipped him when playing.  He then developed a stomach but and was prescribed a course of antibiotics.  While he was on these he started to loose weight.  That didn't seem like a major issue as we were restricting his diet to cut out a lot excess calories from treats, in fact we were really quite happy as he came down to his target weight.  

Barney in the sun

The problem was that he continued to loose weight. We knew he had a liver problem which was responding well to a dietary supplement (with milk thistle extract what ever that is). It was when he started to be very quiet and not want to climb the stairs or go for walks that alarm bells started to ring. He was still eating though. In fact last night he ate a large part of my Pork Chop! What was really worrying was that he started to loose coordination in his back legs. Nothing major just occasionally skittering rather than standing straight up. That was until this morning when he didn't want to stand up and most concerning he had a nose bleed. So off to the Vets he went. They kept him in for some tests the results showed his liver function had improved, but his heart rate was high, he was running a temperature and his blood sugars were through the roof. we got a call to say that they were extremely worried. To carry out further tests would need him to be anaesthetised and they didn't think he would be able to cope with that. The incipient diabetes could be treated but the biggest issue was that he was probably had some sort of tumour in his nose or head which was causing his nose bleeds and general lethargy. We were given the choice of a lot of unpleasant tests he may well not survive and which probably wouldn't help or having him put to sleep. Not a great situation.

We drove over to the Vets, a drive of 30 minutes, and when we got there his condition had deteriorated even further.  His nose bleed was worse, he could only just manage to turn his head to look at us and couldn't summon up the energy for a tail wag.  His gums were very pale (which they hadn't been that morning) and generally he just wasn't in a good state.  The decision was as easy as it ever can be and he was PTS after we had time to say our goodbyes and give him a last cuddle.  He slipped away very calmly and quickly.  He was ten and a half years old.

Mrs E and I are very upset as you might imagine even though we know it was the right thing to do for Barney.  Whoever said 'Grief is the price you pay for love' knew what they were talking about.

17th Century Armies - The Spanish part two

THE INFANTRY

I left the infantry section on the Spanish army until last part as it's the most complicated to explain.  The Tercios of Spain, both those of the native Spanish and the other nations, were the best part of the Army.  Indeed the best of them were regarded as the best infantry in Europe until after Rocroi (1643).  The Infantry consisted of the Spanish Tercios, The Tercios of the Nations (drawn from other Hapsburg possessions in Flanders and Italy and lastly mercenary units tercios of Irish, Scottish and English troops and regiments of Germans and Swiss.

The Tercios

Tercios were infantry formations of Hapsburg subjects (Spainish, Walloons, Italians) and volunteers from other countries primarily Ireland.  The formations and tactics of the Tercios were emulated by both the Holy Roman Empire and the allied Catholic League until the 1630's.  They fought in Flanders in the 80 Years War (aka the Dutch Revolt), in Italy in the War of the Mantuan Succession, in Switzerland, in France, and in Iberia itself against the Portuguese and Catalan rebels as well as in North Africa and of course saw action in the Thirty Years War.  During the period I'm covering they went from being the traditional Tercio with the four corner bastions of shot to something more akin to the pike and shot formations recognised from the BCW.

1. Period illustration of a Tercio showing the four corner Mangas of shot

The long established view was that they were ultra conservative tactically, and struggled to adapt to the changes brought in by Prince Maurice of Nassau (the Dutch tactical style) or Gustav Adolphus (the Swedish tactical style).  Yet at Nordlingen in 1634 the Tercios destroyed a Swedish Army and previously they had done the same to the Dutch.  In fact many of the tactical changes brought about by Maurice were already used in whole or in part by the Spanish!  The basic story of the evolution of Spanish infantry  squadrons (the battlefield tactical formation) is that over time they became smaller, less deep but wider and with an increasing proportion of shot.  Of that shot a larger proportion of the shot became armed with muskets.  At some point the corner formations of shot (the Mangas) became the wings of shot at either side of the pike. What is less easy to tell is when these changes happened so as to be able to say that at a specific battle the squadron looked and fought in a definite way. 

A Tercio at the start of the century had an official strength of 3,000 men, although in reality they usually had less men than this, around 1,500 of all ranks in Spanish and Italian tercios and under 800 in Irish and other volunteer Tercios.  The Spanish preference for large infantry formations meant a single Tercio could form a squadron on its own or companies from two or more would be merged together.  Writing sometime in the early 1630's Gerat Barry (An Irish volunteer who served in the Spanish Army between 1602 and 1632 retiring with the rank of Captain in the Army of Flanders) states that:

"The 4. formes of squadrones moste acustomed and moste in use,is the square of men, the square of grounde, bastarde square and broade square, which the Spaniarde caule quadra de gente, quadra de tereno, prolongado, y gran frente"

(Gerat Barry - A Discourse of military discipline - published 1634)

Based upon Barry we can be fairly sure what the common formations were during the 1620s  and possibly until Nordlingen in 1634 as Barry was writing prior to 1633 (when his text was submitted for official approval!).  Barry goes into great detail on the arithmetic required to determine the number of ranks and files to form up in (square roots are a bit of an obsession with military writers in the period) but less on the other aspects of deploying a squadron.

The core of those formation was the central pike block, which throughout the period always had two small wings of Arquebusiers permanently attached, known as 'Garrisons'.  To that were added four bodies of shot (The Mangas) which were armed with either arquebus or musket.  In the mid 16th Century these formations were around 3,000 men strong as shown below (images of the formations are from Pierre Picouet's web site on the evolution of the Tercio via the Internet Archive).  The basic formation seems to have continued in use until at least the early 1620's but with a lower head count.

2. A 'Field Square' consisting of 2922 men of the mid to late 16th Century 

Other variations on the formation existed as noted by Barry. The extended square sacrificed depth for width to increase frontal firepower while the square of men was deeper than it was wide.  Again examples from Pierre Picouet’s now defunct website are below.

3. 16th and early 17th Century formations

By the early 1630's we are starting to see a more easily recognisable German style formation with a pike centre and two wings of shot but still with the garrisons of arquebusiers.  This may actually  have been the most common formation from sometime in the 1620's (see the section on sources below).

4. Deployment of 1,057 men from the mid 1630's with Pike 10 deep and shot wings 9 deep

The key thing to note is that arquebus armed shot are still in use in the above formation and this continues until at least the Ordinance of 1685 where a third of the squadron still had them, perhaps because an impoverished Spanish Crown had to make do with the firearms they already had!

Pierre Picouet provides some useful statistics in his book 'The Armies of Philip IV of Spain 1621-1665 (Helion 2019) on the size of battlefield squadrons and the weapons mix being used.  I also picked up useful stuff from the Osprey on the Spanish Tercios so other authors (other than Mr Picouet) are available!

This is where it starts to get complicated.  Tercios in Flanders, Italy and Iberia were organised in slightly different ways and were of different official sizes to each other in any given year.  I have no idea why this was.  German mercenaries brought a totally different organisation to the party (see below) and there were several reorganisations across the period.  It is possible to ignore this though, as the squadron was the fighting unit not the tercio, but the differences in manpower pools and weapon ratios could have had an impact.  Still for wargaming purposes a bit of standardisation can be applied.

The average size of the Infantry and Cavalry squadrons varied  by army and date but the following table adapted from Mr Picouet's The Armies of Philip IV of Spain 1621 - 1665 gives an idea of the formation sizes we should be using on the wargames table.

5. Average squadron sizes at major battles (source Pierre Picouet)

Bear in mind that these are averages taken from the overall size of the forces involved and divided by  the number of squadrons deployed, so some variation would not be unreasonable provided the average unit size stays close to the above.  

That's the easy bit, now onto the weapon's ratios within the squadrons, I have had to make some assumptions here the key one being that the ratios within combat formations are the same as the parent tercio, which is by no means certain.  Again the data is drawn from Pierre Picouet's Helion book.

6. Weapon splits and rough ratios

The percentages are from Mr Picouet's work the ratios are my (very) rough approximations based upon those splits.  Ordinances are the official instructions for how a tercio should be composed and muster rolls are actual head counts at pay musters.  Care has to be taken with the later as there was a tendency to claim pay for dead or deserted soldiers.  Muster data for the earlier periods tends to be in line with the ordinance requirements.

German Regiments

German infantry were recruited in the same way as was done in Imperial and Catholic League service, by issuing warrants to military contractors.  The basic unit for German formations being the Regiment.  These seem to have been organised in the same way as infantry formations of the Catholic League.  I take that to mean that until the mid to late 1620's they would be using the same formations as the Spanish (Possibly 'el Prolongado' as they were musket heavy formations) and then changed to the mid 1630's formation shown in image 4.  However Daniel S on his Kreigsbusch blog considers that German infantry (both Leaguist and Imperial) may have abandoned Spanish formations earlier in the century.  Giorgio Basta's military manuals recommend formations 10 deep as early as 1610 which is different to Spanish doctrine, I would use 12 ranks as that is the best I can do with the 2mm blocks I use.  At Lutzen (1632) Wallenstein deployed his German infantry in Battalia of 1,000 men deploying them 10 ranks deep (some sources state 7 ranks) which was probably also the formation used by mercenary formations..  As with the Tercios the actual numbers in field formations slowly reduced and formations became wider and shallower.  Between 1630-33 average size was 1,923 men falling to 1,500 men in 1640 and 851 men by 1643.  In the 1620's the split between weapon types was 40% pike, 10% Harquebus and 50% muskets giving a ratio of 2:3 pike to shot overall.  In general terms I would go with unit sizes and formations similar to Catholic League and Imperial  battalia and with the same weapon splits.  For training and experience I should start with Trained and Experienced and adjust upwards or downwards depending on the actual performance of the troops in the battle being refought.

CAVALRY PERCENTAGES

The Spanish never deployed the percentages of cavalry seen in other armies, depending on their infantry to win their battles.  In 1622 the Army of Flanders had 338 companies of foot but only 56 of horse.  By 1659 the numbers were 1,104 infantry companies compared to 219 of horse.   That's 14.2% and 16.5% cavalry respectively.  This is of course a small sample and takes no account of the number of men per company.  To try and get a better view I looked up troop numbers at major battles fought by the Spanish (via Wikipedia so perhaps not as accurate as I would like) which gave me:

7. Cavalry as a percentage of the army

 

The figure for Nordlingen (marked *) is actually the split at the Spanish rendezvous at Rheinfelden a few days prior to the fight.  Again these do not form a big sample but it does show  that cavalry was not normally a big proportion of the army.  In fact the average of the above table is only 26.5%.

ARTILLERY

The Spanish army standardised the different calibres of artillery at the start of the period and the result fits well to the normal wargaming split between siege artillery (Cannon and half-cannon), field guns (quarter-cannon; 10 or 12 pounders) and light guns (quarter-culverin and sakers of 4 to 7 pounds).  The number of guns varied a great deal with 18 at Rocroi to 38 at Lens.  The intention was to have 1 to 3 guns per 1,000 men in an army.  I would treat artillery as trained and professional throughout the period and as pure firepower tactics.

CREATING A SPANISH WARGAME ARMY

Bear in mind when reading this section that I use Irregular Miniature's 2mm castings which restricts the unit deployment to those possible with the castings.  I base infantry in blocks of 50 or 100 shot in 6 ranks and use the single pike block casting to represent 100 pike in 6 ranks.  For cavalry I use the three rank Armoured Pistolier casting of 15 horse in three ranks to create blocks of 50 horse (three castings plus five single figures as officers etc).  For the Garrisons I will use the horse and musket castings of infantry in three ranks but position them 'sideways on as it were along the flanks of the pike block.  If you are using 3D printed figures or Oddizial Osmy 3mm castings you will have to experiment with your basing to get the look of the formations correct.

1. Spanish armies 1618 - 1634

I would use the various versions of the infantry squadron with four corner mangas of shot as shown in Image 3 in this period.  Treat the corner mangas of shot as sub-units of the pike block to allow them to deploy without full edge to edge contact and to also allow them to operate at a distance from the pike if required.   As early as Nieuport (1600) it seemed to be normal for the shot mangas to operate at a distance from the pike.  Both the pike block and shot mangas deploy 12 ranks deep (two bases).  To keep things simple for calculating firing I suggest each manga have arquebusiers deployed on the edge of the manga closest to the pike block.

Spanish and Italian infantry squadrons will be a minimum of Trained and Experienced. They may be Elite, Veteran and Professional if drawn from the 'old tercios'.  Pike blocks (and attached garrisons) will be classed as shock and Mangas will be mixed fire power fighting style.  The standing order should be for mangas to use steady firing rather than volley fire.  Tactically Spanish tercios should be aggressive and attempt to close to contact with the enemy.  You might also want to reflect the all round defensive capability by counting the Pike block as being equivalent to a mobile pike stand so always without vulnerable flanks or rear.  Period engravings seem to show pike formations deployed both deeper than wide and wider than deep and with blocks of shot operating close by but not as corner bastions.  I have assumed these are the mangas operating semi-independently.

8. An example of how I might portray a Tercio

In image 8 I have drawn a rough plan of how I might construct a Squadron in this period.  P's are blocks of 100 pike.  A's are blocks of arquebusiers and M's are musketeers.  The Mangas are made up from castings of 50 shot (48 shot  plus a couple of separate officer figures) in 3 ranks giving a frontage of 16 men.  Placing two of these behind each other gives 100 Arquebusiers in 12 ranks and 100 Musketeers alongside in the same formation.  A total of 800 shot in the four mangas plus two garrisons of 100 Arquebusiers each and 400 pike.  This gives a total of 1,300 men split 4 : 10  Pike to Shot or 1:2.5 slightly too many shot but about as close as can be achieved using Irregular's blocks.  The shot breaks down to 3:2 in favour of Arquebusiers over Musket and not the 4:1 that actually existed.  Making the two rear Mangas entirely Arquebus armed would change the ratio to 4:1.  This is entirely conjectural for gaming purposes only though, but it has the feel of an early TYW formation.

Cavalry fight in 6 ranks using mixed fire power for both Cuirassiers (Reiters) and Harquebusiers.  Class as Trained and Experienced (if mercenary units) or Trained and  Raw if Spanish subjects.  Demi-lancers (if used) fight in 3 ranks as shock and class as trained and experienced.  Cavalry should not exceed 30% of the army head count.   There should be twice the number of Cuirassiers compared to Harquebusiers. 

No Croats (light cavalry) are available and native Spanish Jinetes light cavalry seem to have been abandoned in the early 16th century.  The first Dragoon units were raised in 1632 but you may only have one unit in an army counting as part trained and raw and firepower tactics. Harquebusiers may dismount to fight if there are no Dragoons available.

2. Spanish Armies 1635 - 1643 ( up to and including Rocroi)

After Nordlingen in 1634 switch to the more traditional pike and shot formation with two wings of shot similar to that shown in image 4.  I would remove the sub-unit status for the shot wings so they have to stay with the pike block. Infantry squadrons are of between 1,300 to 1,000 men in 1635, dropping to 800 - 900 by 1643.  Keep both German mercenary and Spanish subject infantry formations as 12 ranks deep.  A pike to shot Ratio of 1:2 is now pretty standard and the shot is now around 50-50 Arquebus to Musket apart from in Squadrons created from Provincial Tercios in Spain (Army of Extremadura) where there could be slightly more Arquebus armed shot.  Status and training stays as shown in the previous period until after Rocroi.

No Demi-Lancers are allowed.  Cuirassiers (Reiters) and Harquebusiers still fight in 6 ranks but now both have the option to be classed as mixed shock or mixed fire power.  As cuirassiers are shedding armour in this period the distinction between the two types is becoming less clear.  As a result there must be two Harquebusiers for each true Cuirassier in the army.  Dragoons are available but only one unit in an army and they should count as part trained and raw unless raised in Lombardy or Flanders where they are trained and experienced.  Harquebusiers may not dismount to fight where dragoon units are present in the army.  Croat Light cavalry appear after 1638 but there may not be more than two units in an army and only in armies fighting in Italy or Germany  Cavalry may not exceed 33% of the armies head count.

3. Spanish Armies 1643 (Post Rocroi) - 1660

After Rocroi infantry formations reduce to six ranks deep.  It isn't clear exactly when this occurred so it would not be incorrect to continue with deeper formations until the latter part of the 1640s.  They also become smaller between 900 and 400 men with a pike to shot ratio of 1:2.  There are still arquebusier armed soldiers forming 50% of the total shot in all armies except that in Extremadura where the balance is slightly in favour of Arquebusiers.  Class mercenary units as trained and experienced.  Troops from Tercios in the Armies of Flanders or Lombardy are trained and experienced and those from the 'Old tercios' may be trained and veteran.  Troops fighting in the armies of Extremadura or Catalonia are lower quality if recruited within Spain.  Class these as part trained or trained and raw or experienced.  There are now no elite formations but troops raised from Spanish Militia serving in the Army of Extremadura or Catalonia may be considered as unwilling.  All infantry squadrons of the armies of Flanders may be classed as mixed shock, those of other armies as mixed firepower to represent the lessening willingness to close on the enemy.

For the cavalry, accounts of Rocroi seem to suggest that the Spanish cavalry consisted of a large number of German Reiters.  This may be a holdover in terminology from the earlier periods and I would only allow a small proportion of horse to be classed as armoured.  Lets call that one in four for Spanish Hapsburg units and one in three for mercenaries.  Light cavalry availability remains as before. 

The cavalry at Rocroi still appear in Merian's engraving as being in deep formations but others seem to show them as fighting in three ranks.  By Lens in1648 they seem to be in three ranks in the engravings of the battle.   I consider it to be reasonable to allow 6 rank depth until the late 1640s but with an option to use three ranks.  That said this is not a case of start in one formation and change to the other.  The army must decide on the depth it intends to use and stick to it.

In terms of training and tactics Mercenaries should be considered better trained and experienced than 'Native' Hapsburg troops be those Spanish, Walloon or Italian.  Use the classifications from my previous article with mercenaries using the better classifications.  Note that from 1648 the bulk of the cavalry was recruited as mercenaries from Germany.

All of the three versions of a Spanish Army are conjectural and apart from where based on data from quoted sources are simply my attempt to create an army with the 'flavour' of the original.  This is especially true of the splits between the various types of cavalry which should be treated as extreme guess work on my part, so feel free to play around with any or all of the above suggestions.

SOURCES

Primary Sources

Giorgio Basta - Il maestro di campo generale...(Venice 1606), and Il governo della cavalleria leggiera (Venice 1612).  (OK I will admit my Italian isn't really up to reading the originals so I have relied on translated extracts in secondary sources).

Gerat Barry -  A discourse of military discipline -  (Brussels 1634).  Available through Early English Books Online free version but without illustrations.

Secondary Sources (contemporary)

Period paintings and engravings by contemporary artists (I have counted these as secondary sources as we can't be certain the artists were actually present or how accurate their depiction of fighting formations are.  These are all from internet sources.  Different artists sometimes portray the same battle with different infantry formations, one must be wrong, but which one?

Pieter Snayers' Paintings.  These over a lot of important TYW battles.  Although he was not present at them himself, he did use input from those who were and his patrons were military men who may have had an input to the technical details.  As a result his paintings are considered to be reasonably accurate.  I treat them as giving some indication of army deployments and possible unit formations.

Battle of The White Mountain 1619 by Pieter Snayers - note the infantry formations

A number of contemporary engravings ( for example those of Matthias Merian The Elder's) .  These do not always provide the detail of Snayer's paintings but they give a different view of the formations used.  Many are by unknown artists so the accuracy cannot be vouched for.

Secondary Sources (Modern)

The Armies of Philip IV of Spain 1621-1665 - Phillip Picouet - Helion & Company 2019

In the Service of the Emperor, Wallenstein's Army 1625 - 1634 - Laurence Spring Helion & Company 2019

Imperial Armies of the Thirty Years War (1) Infantry & Artillery - Vladimir Brnardic - Osprey

Imperial Armies of the Thirty Years War (2) Cavalry - Vladimir Brnardic - Osprey 2010

Pike and Shot Tactics 1590 - 1660 Keith Roberts - Osprey 2010

Plus various Wikipedia pages and websites on Battles of the Thirty Years Wars too numerous to list (or remember).

 

17th century armies - Part one The Spanish

Having done my best to define the key troop types used in 'Stand with me to fight the field' (I'm beginning to think that title might be a bit too long!) I had to think about the way the main armies of the period differed one from another during the period and how they evolved across it.  Before starting into defining them, there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

Firstly period accounts, including drill manuals and also modern sources especially wargame guides can be a bit 'loose' in their terminology!  They tend to mix and match Regiment , Battalia, Squadron, Troop and Tercio with no regard to what they actually represent.  The second thing is that the actual building block for tactical units was the Company for foot or the Troop (or it's equivalent) for horse.  These were not the actual tactical units but the parts which were assembled to make them.  Lastly seventeenth century generals seem to have had a liking for having infantry units of  the same size across their armies and to have a minimum number of them available to deploy, which means that they could be larger or smaller as circumstances dictated.  Plus different armies had different views on the optimal unit size and that could differ quite dramatically!

We are used to thinking about Regiments as the tactical unit but in reality these, along with Tercios were an administrative unit which were split or merged as required to create the actual tactical formations.  These tactical formations were described in a number of different ways depending on the nationality of the army and sometimes the time period.  Common terms used are Battalia, Battalion, Squadron, Escuadron and of course Regiment.

Cavalry also suffer from a change in terminology across the centuries.  I'm a child of the WRG ancient rules so I have distinct views on what light medium and heavy cavalry are.  I suspect Napoleonic gamers share a similar mental map to mine.  Seventeenth century writers seem to have had a different set of definitions.  Harquebusiers and Finnish Hakkapeliitta are defined as light cavalry in a lot of sources as they are not in three quarter armour!  I would define them as being the standard melee cavalry type used in the rules with Reiter's and Demi-Lancers classed as armoured to account for the three quarter armour.  Light cavalry are the likes of Croats and similar types who do not charge into melee as a matter of course.  So in my rules we have three categories of cavalry, Light Horse, Horse and Horse with the armoured dice modifier.  I hope that makes sense.

This is a big topic (actually a huge topic if I'm being honest) so I'm going to take a few posts to look at some of the main players within the timeframe 1618-1660AD within Western and Central Europe.  Starting with:

THE SPANISH

Why start with the Spanish?  Well in the early years of the 17th century this was the military benchmark every other European nation measured themselves against.  It was a multi-national force with troops not just from Spain but also drawn from  Italians, Walloons, Germans, Swiss and Catholic volunteers from England and Ireland as well.  The Spanish Army was a professional force with some excellent infantry.  Their cavalry was not so well regarded and they made use of mercenary troops to offset this.   

It's a difficult force to define as it evolved steadily across the period and the army of 1618 looks very different to that of the 1650's.  This isn't helped by a lack of sources in English (well a lack of any sources on what formations were used in which battles is pretty scarce full stop) and a number of web based sources having disappeared, Pierre Picouet's excellent site  on  the Tercios being a prime example, (although I have found bits of it on the Internet archives way back machine).  Other printed sources are hideously expensive as they are out of print.  So what follows is the best I could come up with from those sources available to me. 

The Spanish army was a conservative one which stuck with large formations deployed in depth longer than most of their contemporaries.  They also continued using large numbers of Arquebus armed shot well into the 1640s.  Despite being conservative in some regards their tactics were exceptionally flexible with their shot acting almost as semi independent bodies capable of acting separately to the parent body of pikemen.

THE CAVALRY

I'm starting here as it's fairly straight forward.  In 1618 the Spanish cavalry consisted of just three types:

• Cuirassiers (Reiters)
• Demi-Lancers
• Harquebusiers 

Light Cavalry was added in the late 1630s.  Most of the heavier cavalry were supplied by German or Italian mercenaries.

 Painting by Sebastiaen Vrancx cica 1610- 1615 Showing a Harquebusier, Demi-Lancer and Reiter (from Wikipedia).  Probably the Siege of Ostend.

The quality of Spanish cavalry was lower than the infantry and did not improve until 1648 when large numbers of experienced German mercenaries became available at the end of the Thirty Years War.  Both native Spanish and Mercenaries fought in squadrons of around 150 - 250 horsemen.  Although on occasions much larger formations were fielded to maximise the number of ranks for firepower attacks.

Demi Lancers 

Armed with Lances and melee side arms.  These were only available in small numbers as General's Lifeguards.  I'd suggest deploying as single troops of 50 horse. They were formally abolished in 1633.  They seem to have fought in shallow formations to maximise the effect of the charge.  Reiters and Harquebusiers would provide fire support prior to the charge.  Give a weapon reach advantage for being lance armed and the melee bonus as armoured.

Experience: Veteran & Elite

Training: Trained

Fighting style: Shock

Cuirassiers (Reiters)

Cuirassiers aka Reiters

Armed with pistols and melee side arms. These were the commonest cavalry type in Spanish armies.  Fought in 6 - 12 ranks using fire by ranks although not in the caracole style.  Instead they stood and fired one or two ranks at a time before retiring to the rear of the body.  After 1635 they may reserve pistols for use in melee rather than shooting from a distance.  From 1635 to 1640 they started to reduce the amount of armour worn.  Between those dates they may have the armoured melee trait or not. After 1640 they can no longer count as armoured as their armour was on a par with Harquebusier armour.   Unit sizes of around 250 up until 1630 and 150 - 200 there after.

Experience: Before 1648 Raw or Experienced.  From 1648 Experienced or Veteran

Training: Trained

Fighting style: 1618 - 1635 Mixed firepower, 1635 - 1660 Mixed shock

Harquebusiers

Harquebusier or possibly a Light Horseman (Note the lack of back and breast plate)

Armed with an Arquebus or carbine, pistols and a melee side arm and commonly armoured with a buff coat, helmet, and back and breast plates.  At the start of the period their main role was to provide fire support to the Demi-Lancers or Cuirassiers and fighting in melee was a secondary role.  As cuirassier armour was reduced they became more capable of fighting in melee on an equal footing.  They could also dismount and fulfil the same role as dragoons albeit with less effective fire arms.  As Cuirassiers began to disappear the Harquebusier became the primary cavalry force, probably from the 1650's onwards.  Unit sizes were probably the same as for Cuirassiers.

Experience: Before 1648 Raw or Experienced.  From 1648 Experienced or Veteran 

Training: Trained

Fighting style:1618 - 1635 Mixed firepower, 1635 - 1660 Mixed shock (if dismounted post 1635 count as mixed firepower.  

Light Cavalry

17th Century engraving of Croat light horse

Spanish armies started to use light cavalry later than most other participants in the Thirty Years War.  This was due to the nature of the warfare they engaged in which mainly consisted of sieges until 1640.  It was not until 1638 that they hired similar mercenary light horse types to those in use in Imperial armies.  These were sourced from Eastern Europe and would have consisted of Croats and Huzzars (Hungarian or Polish).  These would be unarmoured hussars rather than the Winged Hussar heavy horse.

They were armed with arquebus or carbines, pistols and melee side arms.  A lance was an option in Imperial service so this may have carried through to Croats and Huzzars in Spanish service.  Count as poorly equipped horse for melee purposes.  If they entered into melee they are at a disadvantage so would only do so against flanks or rear of units already engaged frontally or against a fleeing enemy.  They were hired in regiments of around 500 men but these seem to have been split into 2 or 3 squadrons in combat.

Experience: Experienced

Training: Trained

Fighting style: Skirmish

DRAGOONS

Armed with a musket and sword.  The Spanish only started to raise Dragoon units from 1632 onwards.  Prior to this Harquebusiers had provided dismounted fire support if required.  Like Harquebusiers Dragoons can shoot while mounted.  They may charge and fight in melee while mounted as described in the rules.  The quality of these troops was not particularly good and those engaged in fighting in Spain and Portugal had a very poor reputation.  Units were around 500 strong.

Experience: Raw or experienced

Training: Part trained or trained

Fighting Style: Firepower or mixed firepower

As this post is getting a bit lengthy I will look at the Spanish Infantry in my next post.

I'm not a well man, Carstairs!

Back in the far off days of my youth I read a set of humorous short stories about mountaineering which I can now find no trace of using my Google-Fu.  The two central characters were a pair of Brits; Carstairs and Carruthers.  One of the running jokes was that Carruthers was always complaining of various ailments while actually having the constitution of an ox (do people still say that?).  His running refrain being "I'm not a well man Carstairs" before successfully performing some herculean feat of physical performance.

Well here is the thing, unlike Carruthers, it turns out I actually am not a well man at the minute (Carstairs).  Out of the blue last Friday evening  I had a 'significant cardiac event' which is medic code speak for a heart attack.  On Friday the thirteenth for God's sake how unoriginal! As a result, I was rushed into the local cardiology unit where I was fitted with two stents as soon as they wheeled me through the door.  Well not immediately they had to have a bit of a look see and poke around first, but certainly within 15 minutes of arrival!  

Thanks to the wonders of the NHS I'm now back at  home and on a recovery plan and lots of tablets ( I swear I rattle if I move about too much) but I have to avoid sitting for too long.  I have to take things easy for a week or ten days to allow the stents to bed in which will have an impact on research and blogging,  Tabletop gaming is right out for the present as well.  Oh the joys of getting old ....... getting, be honest you are there already - it's the joys of getting even older now!  

But fear not dear reader I feel fine as a result of the stenting and will be back in full harness before too long.

Defining the troops in 'Stand with me to fight the field'

2mm Infantry Battalia 2:1 shot to pike so classed as mixed fire power
Now this looks like a big body of troops

Because I started these rules with a single battle in mind (Naseby 1645) I didn't give a great deal of thought to any troops other than the basic British Civil War types. As time passed and the rules started to take on a life of their own other troop types started to make their presence known! This started with the Scots at Marston Moor, led me to the 1645 campaign of Montrose and onwards to Cromwell in Scotland. Then other wars and campaigns started to impinge, what about Irish troops for Montrose or the Thirty Years War or the Irish Confederate wars or ..... well you get my drift!

I realised that when I started drafting the rules the definitions and traits used to calculate a units combat effectiveness (CE) actually acted as a 'pick n mix' troop generator and with only a little tweaking I could use them to create almost all of the 17th Century troop types found in Western and Central Europe.  Whether it will also work for Eastern Europe remains to be seen as I haven't considered the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and their enemies or the Ottoman armies as yet.

I will start with a recap on previous posts on the rules, A units ability to stay in a fight is measured by it's initial Combat Effectiveness (CE) rating.  As this reduces they become more brittle until they eventually break and flee on a CE of zero (assuming that they are not replaced with reserves before that point.   A unit’s CE is reduced by one step once one hit per base has been inflicted on the unit.  This makes larger units more robust than smaller ones as they have more bases. To offset that advantage large units suffer movement penalties. 

In turn CE is calculated by starting with a base value of five and adding or subtracting from that based upon training, experience and status.  That latter factor is based on whether the unit is elite or unwilling.  The resulting value is the units CE and has an impact on reaction tests and is reduced by combat outcomes and reaction test results. On top of those factors a unit may have a trait of being armoured, poorly equipped and for melee have a weapon reach adjustment.  Basic weapons differences for ranged combat are also included.  All units have a combat style ranging from Shock to Skirmish which create different combat adjustments and impact willingness to enter melee.

A units Experience, training and status will be tied into the army they are part of, based upon historical performance.  More on that in future posts though.

At the moment I have:

Reiters/Currassiers are defined as armoured with a weapon reach advantage for pistols in melee.  They fight as shock, mixed shock or mixed fire power.  They tend to deploy in deeper formations than either Lancers or Harquebusiers 

Demi-Lancers are Reiters armed with a Lance and close combat weapon but no firearms.  They are classed as shock.  Just about unknown in Western Europe in the period.

Harquebusiers are defined as cavalry with a weapon reach advantage for using pistols in melee.  They may also be able to stand off and shoot in support of Reiters if armed with carbines or similar early in the period.  Later they replace Reiters as the mounted melee arm.  As a result their fighting style may be mixed fire power, mixed shock or (pure) shock.

2mm Irregular Miniatures Horse using their Armoured Pistolier castings
These could be Reiters or Harquebusiers depending on the paint scheme

Poorly armed horse are defined as Harquebusiers who lack back and breast plates and rely mainly on close combat weapons such as swords.  They have the poorly armed combat adjustment and have no reach advantage in melee.  These represent units such as the Royalist Northern Horse.  They will count as mixed shock.  They are not classed as light cavalry as they are still a melee type.

Scots (and other) unarmoured lancers are treated as having a melee reach advantage for using lances.  Otherwise they count as Harquebusiers or poorly armed horse depending on the level of equipment.  In all cases they will be shock or mixed shock.

Irregular Miniatures 6mm Covenanting lancers

Light Horse are defined as skirmishers.  They have carbines, or arquebus, pistols and close combat weapons.

For Infantry I have;

Bodies of pike and shot are classed as mixed shock if pike outnumber shot or mixed firepower if shot out number pike.  Pike bases (only) gain a bonus in melee and a reach advantage.

6mm mixed fire power infantry, these are later Irregular Miniature sculpts

Same again but in 2mm and a deeper (Dutch style) formation

Musket only units will count as mixed firepower or firepower depending on their willingness to enter melee.

6mm Musket only formation

Scottish Highlanders are given mixed shock as a combat style and all fight as if pike armed in melee but with a pole arm reach advantage.  If they lack firearms they count as having bow support from the rear ranks which gives a melee bonus in the first round of combat.

6mm Highlanders from Irregular Miniatures (some of my earliest 6mm)

That about covers the main troop types.  Play tests will tell me if it all works as intended.

Stow on the Wold 1646 using 'Stand up with me to fight the field'

'Stand up with me to fight the field' is the name I have chosen for my home brew pike and shot rules.  These rules started way back when I was living a lot closer to the Naseby Battlefield than I do now.  Looking on my computer it seems that the first draft I saved was back in December 2002, clearly I'm not one to rush these things!  My original objective was to create a set of rules which would allow me to refight Naseby using 2mm figures.  To date that hasn't happened due to life and , well you know, stuff!  

I'm now planning on trying them out for the refight of Stow on the Wold, which I posted the scenario for in the previous post.  I have played a number of other battles solo using these rules and the they have gone out to various play testers but I have never inflicted them on real live opponents before! 

Having real live opponents has forced me to edit the final rules draft to create something other people will understand more easily.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that mostly the editing has consisted of adding cross references and moving sections around so they sit in the logically correct place.  There is actually very little amending of the text going on.

All of which is very reassuring but one thing it did remind about is that I haven't actually generated any traits for the commanders or calculated the over all combat effectiveness value (CE) of the two armies.  In turn that made me complete the army calculator spreadsheet I had left in limbo for a few years.  The value of an army is essentially the initial CE value of all of it's units, essentially the measure of the robustness of the army, sort of like hit points.   It's a rough and ready guide to the fighting power and resilience of an army for players who might not want to fight purely historical battles.  

I have also created a mechanism to give armies who historically had better or worse command structures restrictions on the quality of generals available.  I allocate a point budget equal to 10% of the army CE total for players to spend on generals and their command factors.  Each general has an initial point cost which is dependant on the overall command quality of the army.  That cost is higher for the less able armies.  Which leaves less points to spend on command traits!  So the Swedes at First Breitenfeld might have a base command cost of 4 points while their less able Saxon allies might be on 6 points and the League army under Tilly would be on 5 points.  

Bigger armies generate a larger command budget as the troops CE value is higher but they normally need more commanders so it sort of balances out.  Of course for historical refights I'm going to simply pre-set the ability levels to something which seems correct for each general on the day of the battle.

So for my Stow refight here are the runners and riders.  Parliament first.

The Army total CE is 382  plus another 35 points for the three generals coming to a total value of 417.

The Royalist army totals 311 CE and it's three generals add a further 31 points for a total value of 342 points.

The Royalists have a a seemingly huge disadvantage, as they did in reality.  The actual battle was over and done in about an hour.  So if the Royalists can hold off the Parliament juggernaut for an hour they have done better than was the case historically.