Apologies for not pressing on with the information on early 17th Century armies. I needed some time to get my head around the variety of different German organisational details. Plus you all know I'm really, really bad at following stuff up!
I'm going to have to break up the information, if I don't it will be really confusing (for you and for me). This is because, like the Spanish, these armies went through a lot of changes during the period covered. So my game plan is to cover these armies by date and affiliation. You might want to reread this post before starting into this one though :- Small but Perfectly Formed: Deploying foot battalia in the Thirty Years War.
As with the other armies the overall trend across the period was for infantry units to become smaller and to have a higher proportion of firearms. Their depth also reduced as the proportion of firearms increased. Cavalry units reduced the amount of armour worn albeit not to the same extent as some other nations and again battlefield units drew up in shallower formations as time went on. Initially the Imperialists seem to have been heavily influenced by Spanish military doctrine, although there is some evidence from military manuals to suggest that this may have waned by the 1630s. The Protestant states seem to have followed Dutch ideas, then Swedish before finally settling on a specifically German style which merged elements of both.
When I started these posts describing armies I grouped them as if each nationality had it's own distinct style of formations and tactics. However, that isn't a fully accurate way of looking at things. The differences one from another, are as much a reflection of the army commander's views as a national style. So Dutch formations and tactics are only "Dutch" in as far as they were devised by Maurice of Nassau, Swedish are the brain child of Gustavus Adolphus and the changes after he died derive from Horn and others. Ideas spread as senior officers changed allegiances or drew from opponents tactics. This is particularly true of the various German combatants. So bear this in mind in what follows.
The Catholic League under Tilly (1620 - 1632)
The Catholic League and the Bavarian army were largely one and the same. The bulk of the League's forces were Bavarian with much smaller contingents being provided by other Catholic German states, often these latter troops were mercenaries. So any discussion of the League's military is almost by default going to cover the Bavarians.
The Infantry
As I wrote in the post I linked to above Tilly was 'old school' and had a liking for deep formations derived from his service with the Spanish army and like a number of contemporary military theorists he had a mathematical basis for how he drew up his infantry. Initially it seems likely that he draw up in the same formation described by Gerat Barry with a square of pike surrounded on all sides by shot. Certainly the Snayers' painting of the Battle of the White Mountain shows troops in this formation. By the time of the Battle of Breitenfeld he seems to have decided to go for some extra width, the double battalion deployment.
 |
| Breitenfeld 1631 from behind the Swedish lines (Matthäus Merian the Elder) |
Unfortunately all of the above makes it difficult to be definitive about the exact width and depth of infantry formations as those were related to the headcount of the unit! What makes it easier for us wargamers is that we can assume that formations were of around 2,000 men (based upon numbers at Breitenfeld in 1631). If that's incorrect at least it gives a point of individuality so Catholic League troops are that bit different to other armies. Everything I have found shows that Tilly's Infantry would have been 1:1 pike to shot ratio formations with at least the front ranks being equipped with the lighter Arquebus (caliver in English usage). I rate the Infantry as well trained and experienced
The Cavalry
The cavalry is easier to deal with. During this period the main strike force would be Cuirassiers supported by Harquebusiers. Tilly did not consider Harquebusiers as 'Battle Cavalry' and was shocked by the aggressive use of these more lightly armoured horse by the Swedes. Tilly saw the role of Harquebusiers as providing fire support, shooting at the enemy so as to soften them up ready for the Cuirassiers to charge home. That said the Cuirassiers could also be used in the same way and standing off using fire and retire tactics was very common, while Harquebusiers would charge home if the enemy looked to be weakened.
Cuirassiers deployed in deep formations of between five or six ranks according to Basta increasing to ten ranks if you accept Wallhausen's opinion. Unit sizes varied but seem to have averaged between 200 - 400 officers and men, although some larger units are recorded, of up to 800 or so. This doesn't mean units fought in those larger numbers more likely they would be split to form two squadrons.
Although the tactic of caracoling is often mentioned it was not the equivalent of the ancient Cantabrian Circle or a Parthian Shot. Instead it was more like infantry firing by Forlorn Files, a file or a rank would advance from the main body turn to the left to present their right hand to the target and fire as they were trotting past. Firing was done with the right hand at right angles to the horse's body to minimise the risk of powder burns to the mount.
Harquebusiers could be armed with pistols and a carbine and formed amongst the cuirassier squadrons squadrons. Their primary role was to provide additional fire support to the heavier cuirassiers but they could close to melee in support of the cuirassiers if required. As described above they would use fire and retire tactics. Formation sizes seem to have been similar to Cuirassier squadrons
Tilly preferred his cavalry to be in squadrons that were all of a single type. Others commanders could have cuirassiers and harquebusiers in the same body with the more lightly armoured troopers in the rear ranks. Whether Tilly's preference was enforced upon allied formations within armies he commanded I can't tell. For wargaming purposes I would go with cavalry squadrons all of one type for Tilly as it gives a point of difference from other armies.
While light cavalry (Croats and Hussars) was available they were definitely not used as battle cavalry and instead covered flanks and pursued any broken enemy. Imperial forces were more likely to have light horse deployed on the battlefield than Catholic League forces. All references I have found to light cavalry being used on the battlefield are referring to Imperial forces. So I will deal with these when I get round to discussing the Imperial forces.
Dragoons
The Catholic League did have at least two Bavarian dragoon regiments but I'm struggling to find any account of them being used on a battlefield. Given the lack of light cavalry it seems likely that they were commonly deployed away from formal battle situations fulfilling traditional light cavalry scouting roles.
Army make up and deployment
At Wimpfen in 1622 Tilly's part of the Catholic forces consisted of four large bodies of foot (2,000, 1,800, 2,200 and 2,700 strong). Two were amalgamations of two smaller regiments to bring them up to the size Tilly wanted. He only had two bodies of horse one of Cuirassiers and one of Harquebusiers both of around 400. He had eight pieces of Artillery in his train 7 x 12pdrs and 1 x half-culverin.
A decade later at 1st Breitenfeld (1631) the Catholic League contingent consisted of six bodies of infantry five of which deployed 10 companies while the sixth we have no details of, other than it consisted of companies from two different regiments. Given that there are considered to have been 14 battalia of foot present I have assumed each of the six deployed as an independent battalia. This plus the eight Imperial infantry formations would work to give 14 separate bodies of foot.
Daniel S on his excellent blog page The Imperial & Leaguist army in the Battle of Breitenfeld 1631 | Kriegsbuch states that the only period account which mentions formation depth evidence clearly says they deployed 12 deep. This matches Basta's preference in his manuals. If deployed in double battalia they would have been 24 files wide giving a total head count of only 288 men each which does not seem viable. on the other hand if each company mustered between 150 and 200 men the battalia would have been in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 men each closer to those deployed at Wimpfen. We do know that one Imperial battalia of 10 companies mustered 1,800 men so that range seems reasonable. This would require 150 files if they deploy 12 deep. Which gives a much more linear formation than the woodcut images suggest. Something seems wrong here.
Starting from the other end and assuming double battalia was used by Tilly at Breitenfeld and that each battalia was in the close order of 1,800 men we get 60 files by 30 ranks (i.e. double frontage to depth) still far deeper than the reported 12 ranks. On the other hand the old system of using square roots would give each company of 180 a square root of 13 so 13 files by 13 ranks (with the usual handful of spare bodies left over to guard the colours). However that still gives a frontage of 130 files. I'm beginning to wonder if the stated depth only covered the pike block and discounted any shot deployed across the front and rear of the formations. The simple answer id we will never know for certain and so will have to use abstractions when drawing up our little lead infantrymen!
As for the cavalry the League had four regiments of Cuirassiers and one of Arquebusiers at Breitenfeld. Again my reading lists the number of companies in each but not the total headcounts. Assuming an average of 50 troopers per company it would give formations of an average of 350 men each but a range of between 450 and 250.
Fortunately for me my new favourite rules Through the round window take a very broad brush approach to formation sizes, and I'm beginning to see why!
The Catholic League after Tilly (1632 - 1635) and the Bavarians from 1635
After Tilly died of his wounds in 1632 command of the Catholic League's forces passed to Johann von Aldringen. He was was killed in action in 1634 and the League itself was dissolved in 1635 following the Peace of Prague. Thereafter all Catholic German forces were to be united with the Imperial Army although the Bavarian's, who had been the core of the League, continued to operate semi independently.
Accounts of battles after 1st Breitenfeld in1632 show that with Tilly's death the use of big infantry formations waned. Wallenstein was on the rise and so his tactical ideas became more influential. Which I will cover in the next blog post on this strand (honest I will get around to it at some point).
Other Catholic German state's forces after 1635
I'm assuming that they followed the same general pattern as the Catholic League until it was dissolved and then like the Imperial forces they evolved into what Roberts calls the Hybrid German style. The first stage was probably to move to the formations used by Wallenstein.
All for now as my brains are starting to dribble out of my ears after all of the above!
Sources
Primary
A Discourse on Military Discipline - Gerat Barry published 1634.
Scanned version (with illustrations at A DISCOURSE OF MILITARY DISCIPLINE, ... 1634 : G. BARRY. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Count Mansfields Directions of Warr - Ernst von Mansfield London 1624
No comments:
Post a Comment