17th Century Armies - Part 4 Catholic League, Bavarians and other Germans

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)

The image above shows the Catholic League foot pushing forward on the Swedish left (where the Saxons had been deployed). This near contemporary engraving of The Battle of Breitenfeld shows that the Catholic League infantry formations all seem to be wider than they are deep while the Imperials seem to be almost squares.  This may be artistic license but it does support the idea that by 1631 Tilly was deploying his foot in double battalions with twice as many files as ranks.  What this means is that the depth of a formation (Ranks) would determine the width of the formation (Files).  He also appears to have continued with the tactic of having some shot deployed across the front of the pike block.   Whether he continued with shot lining the rear of the pike is unclear,  I'd be tempted to say that he did though.  I have read in a couple of tertiary sources that Tilly said that the wings of shot should not be wider than 20 files but I have not found a primary source to confirm this.  

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

Fighting the Thirty Years War - Battle of Wimpfen 1622

The Through the Square Window rules include a lot of useful additional information including some orders of battle.  One of those is The Battle of  Wimpfen 1622.  The orbat is in Guide 3 covering the forces of Margrave George Frederick of Baden Durlech (No, I hadn't heard of him before either).   What intrigued me was that it involves the use of "Battle Wagons".  I immediately thought of Hussite style war wagons and well, you know, the 'ooh shiney' complex kicked in and I found I really needed some war wagons.  The orbat only includes estimates for Baden Durlech's army so I started digging.  When I started to look a bit deeper into things I found the painting below (via Wikipedia).

The Battle of Wimpfen 1622 By Sebastiaen Vrancx (original in The Hermitage Museum)

This seems to show something more like a protected camp with a defence of wild west looking covered wagons rather than Hussite style armoured and garrisoned mobile forts.  What I did like was that the wagons are not all covered in boring off white canvas.  No, there are some boring brick red and black (or at least very dark grey) covers as well.  On the plus side the painting seems to show cannon muzzles pointing out of the rear of some of them. The orbat in the rules describes these as grape shooters and gives special rules for their use.  The period images I have found term it a 'wagonburg'.  As an aside, the Wikipedia image of the Vrancx painting is worth a good look as it can be magnified and there is a lot of interesting detail in there.  

Wood cut of the battle by the workshop of Eberhard Kieser  The 'Wagonburg' is at points D on the left side

Next up (above) is a woodcut image of the battle.  I'm not clear when this was created although Wikipedia says it was scanned from a 1960 tourist guide!  Keiser himself died in 1631 so it is likely to be near contemporary to the battle.  The nature of the wagons used in the wagonburg isn't incredibly clear in the woodcut but again it looks like covered wagons.  It does give a nice overview of the battlefield though along with some information on the number of units deployed by the two forces.

This version is by Matthäus Merian and shows the Catholic League formations clearly

Merian's engraving above lists the wagonburg in the key but I cannot actually find them in the image.  It is a view from the Catholic/Imperial side and clearly shows Tilly's Baggage train around Wimpfen itself.   My feeling is that the infantry formations depicted are more accurate than those shown in the Kieser woodcut.  Flags are inside the pike blocks and the catholic blocks look to be deployed in double battalia style which Tilly preferred to use.

Double battalions were a style of infantry formation where the usual practice of deploying twice the number of files as there were ranks (and using those pesky square root formulas to determine the formation depth and width) gave the theoretical layout for a single battalia of any given number of men.  A double battalion doubled the number of ranks arrived at using the square root model at the expense of the number of files.  The idea was that it gave more resilience and the pike block had more 'punch' as it had more weight when it came to 'push of pike' (no not a rugby scrum with sticks but the point at which the two blocks were in close combat.  I will discuss what this actually was compared to the modern re-enactors push in a future post). 

The Armies

Baden Durlech's force was a mainly mercenary force and included some cavalry from the army commanded by Ernst von Mansfeld who was campaigning alongside him.  They seem to have been well trained and to have had good morale. However Mansfeld had taken the bulk of his command to join up with Christian of Brunswick to carry out a siege leaving Baden-Durslech on his own. Opposing Baden Durlech was Tilly with Catholic League troops and allied Spanish troops under Don Gonzola Fernandez de Cordoba.  These were experienced well motivated troops and in the case of the Spanish Infantry probably veterans.  This wasn't known by Baden durslech who thought he was only facing Tilly's Catholic League forces.

The order of battle in the rules only gives the Protestant side's forces but I found Nazfiger's order of battle on line, which fills in that lack.   According to him we have the following:

I made some notes and some assumptions on the above that might help.  The number s are the headcounts for each unit as listed by Nazfiger.  For the Spanish the nationality listed is where the unit was originally raised this has an impact on their quality.  

For the Catholic League it looks like Herzog Holstein's and Wangler's foot were brigaded together under von Scharfenburg.  That would bring them up to roughly the same size as the other League units.  I'm assuming that a half Kartaune is similar to a demi-culverine.

Baden-Durlech's 20 x 8-3pdrs are probably the grape shooters in the wagons.  The wagons are not listed but the rules give 10 bases of wagons and the illustrations show a minimum of eight (in the Vrancx) and could be showing 20 -30 plus in the Keiser.

The style of the cavalry is a little more difficult (apart from where it is clearly described).  As a default I'd say treat them as Kuirassiers except from the baden Foot Guards who you might want to consider as Dragoons or Harquebusiers in keeping with the fact that they are infantry who have been mounted on horses.

I'm assuming the Spanish foot are well trained with good morale and the Spanish raised  tercios could be professional with the cavalry being lower rated than the foot.  Accounts say that Baden-Durlech's troops were well trained and had good morale and Tilly's would be at least as good.

The battlefield

The table divided into 305mm (1 foot) squares.  Ground scale is roughly 1mm to 2 paces

The table is shown with the right hand short edge being the North.  Red lines are roads although these are at best gravelled.  Wimpfen was walled and had 'modern' earth work defences.  Obereisheim seems to have had some sort of ramparts from the Keiser print.  Biberach also seems to have had some defensive works although it is hard to be sure from the period prints.  Biberach lies on a tributary of the River Neckar called the Bollinger Bach.  As there are bridges over this and the Neckar I'm assuming they cannot easily be crossed.  The brown line running through Wimpfen denotes an area of raised ground.  probably not more than 50 feet higher than the rest of the table at it's highest point.  Black blocks are villages and towns, Green 'splodges' are woods from the prints they seem to be medium density so I would treat them as passable but disordering for foot and not allow cavalry to fight within them.  Lastly the dark yellow curved line shows the rough position of the Protestant wagonburg.

The Protestant forces deploy to the north of the Bollinger Bach and above (west) of the River Neckar but no further forward than Obereisheim.  The Catholic League deploy in the squares containing Wimpfen and the village below Wimpfen on the Neckar.  The Spanish contingent must form a second reserve line.  Tilly's camp and baggage train was close by Wimpfen while the Protestant baggae was in and around Biberach (except those wagons used in the defensive line).

The events of the actual battle

The Battle commenced around 11.00am and was closely fought.  It seems that sheer luck played a large part in creating a Catholic victory.  This was from a random artillery shot detonating the Protestant magazine after around seven hours fighting.   This panicked the Protestant forces and allowed Tilly's men to force the Wagonburg line of defence.   How to create this as an event on the tabletop is a tricky one. Some kind of random event, but without knowing the chance of it happening it is hard to say how to do it. Perhaps draw a card from a standard playing card pack every time a League/Spanish artillery piece fires and if a specified card or cards are drawn we have a big Boom!  The number of trigger cards I leave up to you but I suggest this mechanism doesn't come into play before the equivalent of 2 game hours of fighting has elapsed.  Once the magazine explodes all Protestant foot should be penalised by reducing their morale state.  I'm not being very specific as you would have to tailor this for your rules of choice.

Easier to deal with was the fact that Tilly kept the Spanish in reserve in case Mansfeld's army returned to link up with Baden Durlech.  I would have a random number count down system to trigger Tilly releasing the reserve.  Probably rolling a dice each turn and counting the  cumulative total until a predetermined number is reached.  I would make the trigger number a multiple of 3.5 (average roll on 1D6) with the multiplier being determined by how many game turns (on average) I want Tilly to wait before releasing the Spanish.  I'd also suggest that they are automatically released if the protestant magazine explodes. 

Refighting the battle

I probably won't get to have a crack at this until after Christmas.   I need to obtain some wagons for Baden Durlech, a few more pike and shot units to represent the Catholic army's large battalions and some more Kuirassiers.  That's more lead  added to the unpainted mountain (sigh!).  If anyone gives this a try before I do please make a comment on how it went.                                                                                                         

Deploying foot battalia in the Thirty Years War

 At the point where I sat down to write this post I had two other posts part completed.  One about the various German and Imperial armies in the TYW and one about a particular battle.  Part way through the first drafts of these I realised that a key point in both was a need to understand how the Infantry formations of the period were drawn up.

As I'm interested in the various German and Imperial forces at the moment, lets start by looking at what we know about the major influence on Early Imperial and Catholic League infantry formations: the Spanish.  My main source here is Gerat Barry and his work 'A discourse on military discipline', published in 1634.  Barry goes into a lot (and I do mean a LOT) of detail on the use of square roots to determine how to draw up an infantry escuadron (aka a battalia).  Seeing that we can now work square roots out on a smart phone I will not bore you with the excruciating depth and detail of using the period square root tables.  If you are desperate to know there are facsimile copies of the work on a couple of free to use academic sites.  For our purposes lets just slim the process down.

Barry's basic formation starts with a square  of pikemen, by which I mean an equal number of ranks and files.  This is considered the core of the Escuadron  and it is a square so it can fight with equal ability to the front, rear or sides.  This body is then surrounded with musket or caliver armed men to an equal amount all around, for example it might be four files on each wing plus four ranks ahead and behind (of both the pike block and the shot wings.  He recommends that the depth of shot be no more than 5 ranks or files as that is the maximum number who can shelter under the pikes.  Barry uses square roots to determine how many ranks and files of shot are required to fully enclose the pike centre.  This formation is called a squadron square by Barry but it isn't one of the four tactical formations he states were most often used by Spanish Infantry (see this post for details Small but Perfectly Formed: 17th Century Armies - The Spanish part two  ). I'm assuming that it is the default starting formation that is adjusted to create the actual tactical formation desired.

Battle of the White Mountain 1619 by Snayers

You have seen this painting of the Battle of the White Mountain before, as it is used in the article I linked to above.  If you look at the infantry in the foreground they seem to be deployed in the formations Barry is describing as a Squadron Square, so perhaps it isn't a starting formation but one used in combat.

Barry then describes how to amend the basic squadron Square to create formations which are wider than their depth or alternatively deeper than their width.  Again this uses a set of tables (the man did like a complicated set of arithmetical tables) but we can ignore those and just accept that the Spanish could and did form bodies of various depths and widths and these were all encased in a ring of shot in Barry's time.  As an aside Barry also notes that excess soldiers who don't fit into the neat formations are to be used to guard the colours.  This suggests that officers and colour parties etc are additional to the men in his formulas and possibly they formed a rank in addition to those arrived at by his tables.

I have looked at two versions of Barry's work one is converted to a modern type face and lacks the images while the second is a scan of an original copy which includes them.  In neither version can I find  any evidence for the use of the four corner mangas of shot.  Plus he only touches on the four standard formations in passing.

Faced with all the tedious business of calculating all those square roots I can begin to see the appeal of a system with a fixed number of ranks as devised by the Dutch.  As these formations only had shot on the flanks of the pike block it was probably easier to devise tactics which focussed on fighting to the forward arc of the formations   This in turn means that you need a different way of defending in depth and this gives birth to brigade formations.  This may also go some way to explaining why Tilly drew up his large battalia in a single line rather than in a chequer board (but I digress, but I will return to that point later).  

One interesting formation is discussed this is the "Cross Battell".  Essentially the main body of the Escuadron's pike is divided into four bodies.  As shown below.  In the worked example given by Barry this consists of 512 pikemen and 904 musketeers.  The Pike being drawn up in blocks of eleven ranks and eleven files each, which gives 121 pike men in each of the four blocks.  The mathematically inclined amongst you will have worked out that 4 x 121 = 484 pikemen, which means 28 pikemen seem to be getting the day off!  I'm assuming they are being used to guard the colours somewhere within the formation.  Barry shows the four blocks in corner to corner contact as below, this gives problems when he discusses deploying the shot though.

Here is the text from Barry on dealing with the shot, complete with period spelling:

"Nowe for the divison of youre propounded number of shott.  Double the one flanke of eache one'of the 4 batteles of pikes, whiche double will by 88. this 88. = the double flanke of the 4. batteles of pikes divide by 904 youre propounded number of musketes, and the number in the quotient wilt by 10:.and 24. musketes remayninge, and say that the two flankes of eache of youre 4 batteles of pikes are to by lined withe 11; rankes of ten musketes in eache ranke as by the figure; deutiones folowenge yove may playnely ce, and withe the observation of this rule withe any other, number eyther greate or smale yove ſsall withe facility kno, we how to proportionably divide yovre shott for' to guarinsh the two flankes of yovre squadron of pikes."

I have highlighted the part which causes me to wonder how a cross battell was actually deployed.  Working through the above text it creates eight blocks of 110 shot deployed in blocks of 11 ranks by 10 files.  That leaves 24 musketeers joining the surplus pikemen guarding the colours .  Placing a block to each flank of the four pike blocks with the pike in corner to corner contact means we are trying to get two musket blocks into the central space, but there is only space for one of them, and Barry previously says that space is useful for holding baggage and injured men. So something has to give!

This seems to be what Barry means.  Red blocks are bodies of shot

The above is entirely my supposition so it could be complete spheroids!  It looks remarkably like a four squadron Swedish Brigade in layout but with smaller component parts as each pike and shot is only 220 shot and 121 pike.  Given that Barry was writing after Breitenfeld he may just be theorising on what the Swedes had done or he may be trying to claim the idea was a Spanish one, or perhaps it actually was their concept all along!

The one thing we can take from Barry (and the Snayers painting) is that Manga formations deployed on the corners of pike blocks were not a thing for the Spanish armies in the TYW. and formations were probably rectangular with shot all around the pike until at least 1633.  For me the Jury is definitely out on the existence of the cross battell. However, it does give a starting point on looking at the other combatants infantry deployments.

So lets move on a little.  The Catholic League forces under Tilly used what I have seen called a double battalion formation (Guthrie uses this term so spheroids may come into it again).  A double battalion had twice as many files as ranks which gave them more combat capability in the forward arc., so was wider than the basic Spanish Infantry formations.  

I have read that Guthrie (I can't afford to buy his works) states that Spanish Musket and by association Catholic League ones under Tilly didn't form in neat ranks and files but instead operated in a loose swarm around the formed pike centre.  This seems to be more spherical rubbish to me.  Barry goes on (and on, and on) about how to form shot in ranks and files and the duties of NCOs in keeping formations of shot in their proper ranks and files.  I'm comfortable in saying that Tilly was at least as obsessed with maintaining formations in good order as Barry was.  Tilly is also supposed to have said that the shot wings of an infantry should not exceed 20 files as more than that meant the outermost musketeers couldn't easily run for shelter under the pikes.

Steven's Balagan blog (William Guthrie on Tilly's Big Tercios - Steven's Balagan) has a useful comparison between Tilly's big battalia and the equivalent Imperial formation showing how he considers these two formations were drawn up at around the time of Breitenfeld in 1632.  I won't steal Steven's thunder by repeating all the detail of his analysis, I recommend following the link and reading it for yourselves.  In a nutshell Tilly deployed units that were double the size of the Imperial formations but as they were far deeper they had almost the same frontage as you can see from his illustrations below (Imperials at the top and Tilly's Catholic League at the bottom)

Here are Steven's rather nice images of how the two formations were deployed
Yellow area shows the pike block, red musketeers and the sand tone the arquebusiers

I'm still of the opinion that Tilly was slightly stuck in the past and after his death the Catholic German states moved to smaller battalia as had Wallenstein.  That doesn't mean he stuck with the Spanish formations detailed by Barry I think he did adapt but probably not fast enough.  But more about that when I discuss the Armies of Germany and the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire in a future post.

Helion's Bavarian Armies during the TYW - a review

I'm a bit of a fan of the Helion Century of the Soldier series as it covers one of my core periods of interest, the 17th Century.  I have three or four on my bookshelf already including another by Laurence Spring the author of this book.  It is only cost which prevents me having many, many more.  They are best thought of as an step up from Osprey's offering as they are of a higher page count so can go deeper into their subjects.  I'd normally go with Osprey as an introduction on a topic and then the Helion if I then want to delve deeper.  As a bonus Helion have opened a second hand section to their webstore where books both second hand or with minor cosmetic damage (as was the case for this purchase) are offered at a discount.  With this book I made an offer of £7.50, which included postage, against a list price of £25.00 for a new copy and it is the latest updated second edition.

Looks interesting

I have wanted this particular volume for a while now as my re-enactment unit within the Sealed Knot has a connection to Bavaria in the Thirty Years war due to our links with the Memmingen Pikeniere who invite us to join them in the four yearly 'Wallensteinfest'.  If I'm going to take part in a Bavarian Thirty Years War event I felt that it would be nice to have some background information.  This book gives me that, in spades.

My copy is softback but quite robust.  Excluding the rather useful bibliography the main text runs to 212 pages including 16 pages of colour illustrations.  the contents page shows the main areas covered.

There is a lot of information crammed in here

From a tabletop wargamers perspective not all of those chapters are of key importance although for creating a living history background for a re-enactor the information is a gold mine of detail.   So for example Chapters 8,9 and 11 and 12  cover things that don't see much coverage when the dice are being rolled but will add a lot of depth to a living history persona.  On the plus side the plates have some lovely illustrations of colours carried by the Bavarians.  The chapters on "The rank and file and "Organisation" give clues on unit headcounts at various points in the war.  The appendix on Regiments of the Bavarian army gives a potted biography of every unit, even the minor unit we recreate (not brilliantly it has to be said) when over there.  The bibliography is useful even if it does cite a couple of Osprey titles amongst the primary sources.

Now for the not so good points.  For a book subtitled 'The backbone of the Catholic League" it doesn't give a chronology of the League or any information on it's composition.  I had to turn to Wikipedia to for that.   There isn't an index, to me this is a major omission in what is significant reference work.  Then, despite having chapters on Organisation and Tactics it doesn't give me all the detail I had hoped for to allow me to create a table top representation of the units that make up the Bavarian army and to show it's combat deployments, unit formations and battlefield tactics.  I was hoping to have a run down on how Tilly organised and fought his forces and how those things changed after his death.  After all we know Tilly favoured larger infantry combat formations but very little detail is provided.  In fact Tilly is hardly mentioned after the short biography in Chapter 1!  I'd tell you exactly how few but there isn't an index to let me easily do that.  Some information on how the Army fought is there but it is a pretty broad brush approach over all.  We do get some data on unit sizes and pike to shot ratios but very little of the depth and width of infantry formations.  Period military textbooks are quoted but these range from late 16th century material, Gerat Barry's description of the Spanish formations from the early 1630's, through to English sources and post Thirty Years War material without any explanation of what might be relevant and why.

I know hard information is difficult to come by but it would be nice to have comments to say this author writing in 1600 gives us an idea of where tactics stood at the outset of the war, this from 1632 despite detailing Spanish doctrines may show what influenced Tilly.  Such and such a source although written in 1650 may be showing us the final tactical developments.  From a wargaming perspective I have seen this stuff done in much better ways.

Like the other Helion book I have by this author (In the Emperor's Service which covers Wallenstein's armies) it has the feel of an academic paper rather than a book aimed just at wargamers alone.  For anyone doing living history it is a treasure trove of background information on Bavarian forces.  For the pure wargamer it is a little light on the nitty gritty of formations and tactical usages, but still a good source.  I suppose I bring my own bias to the book as what I really want is guidance on how to portray the army on a wargames table and which tactics to use with it.  After reading it I'm still unclear on how (for example) Tilly deployed a foot Battalia and how this changed after First Breitenfeld, There is too great a relance on sources that even at the time would have been considered a secondary source and there are sources used that have no direct bearing on the Bavarian army.  Those are used to show general trends in tactics but if you are buying a book about a single army in a single period it's likely that the reader knows that stuff already. Overall I'd score this book as a 7/10 and I'm glad I obtained it at a deep discount.

Through the square window QRS

 I'm a big fan of a QRS, I suppose it goes back to those days of orange card WRG ancients QRS.  I find that once the core rules are well established all I really need is a set of the relevant charts and tables in one place.  So with TTSW not having an official QRS I set to and tried to make my own.  

This is the current version.  I can't post it as a link so I'm placing an image here and I will post a file on the Face Book 17th century wargaming page.  If you want a copy as a Word document, but don't do Face Book put a comment on this post with an email address I won't publish the email address or keep it on file.

Through the Square Window – QRS

Sequence of Play

1.     Test Army Command (both players) [s8 p5]

1.1.  Mark units which are out of command range (15cm 30cm for Cin C to subordinates)

2.     Test Army morale (both players) [s9 p5]

3.     Take tests to rally routers [s15 p12] and pursuers [s16 p13]

3.1.  If passed - mark as rallying for the rest of this turn

3.2.  Make any pursuit moves where routs continue (unless rallied from pursuit)

3.3.  Test for return of off table units

3.4.  N.b. Any resulting melee is worked out at step 7

4.     Test for initiative. 1D6 each. Winner chooses to act first or second

5.     First player moves and shoots

5.1.  Declare charges, chargers take reaction test.

5.2.  If permitted chargers may shoot before making charge.  N.b. Melees are fought at step 7

5.3.  Test target reaction to being charged.

5.4.  Player two makes any available emergency actions [s11-j p7]

5.5.  Make any resulting rout or retirement moves required of target of a charge.

5.6.  Make all Player one moves including charges and follow ups/pursuits if target routs, retires or evades.

5.7.  Player one shoots and targets take resulting reaction tests. N.b. Pursuers and chargers and may not shoot even if the charged failed.  Make any required pursuit or follow up moves.

6.     Second player acts as outlined at step 5 above.

7.     Melee combat.  Both players units fight with results applied simultaneously.

7.1.  Adjust strength points

7.2.  Make any rout, retirement pursuit or follow up moves.  Mark pursuers.

7.3.  Pursuers who have contacted a new enemy fight melee again

Actions (s11 p6-7)
1.     Move up to 10 cm (except Heavy Guns)	5. Shoot	9. Take emergency action if charged.  See below.
2.     Foot/cavalry retire up to 5cm maintaining facing	6. Limber/Unlimber light guns	10. Act in difficult terrain.  i.e. all actions cost a second action
3.     Change formation	7. Re-lay Heavy Guns (may not advance or retire more t)han 2.5cm
4.     Turn about	8. Dragoons mount/dismount

Emergency actions. Require an action to be available. Player one would have to have saved actions from their previous movement phase (charged after their movement phase), while player two would have to use actions from it’s coming movement phase (as they are charged before moving this turn).

Available Emergency Actions [s11- j p7]
Troop type	Available Action
Pike and shot units	Form a defensive ring
Cavalry (including those who have the evade option) and charging infantry (e.g.Highlanders)	Counter charge
Skirmishers, gunners, mounted arkebusiers or light cavalry	Evade

Morale tests

Trigger Morale Events - roll 1D6 for each [s18 p14]
1.     Attempting to charge, except non skirmishers into skirmishers	2.     Being charged
3.     For each hit from shooting this turn but see rules for units of initial strength 16 or more	4.     Under close range musketry fire (except from skirmishers)
5.     General KIA within 15cm or their corpse being removed from field passing within 15cm

 

Roll an additional D6 for any of the following which apply
1.     Fired on from behind flank		2.     Charged from behind flank
3.     Foot attempting to perform an emergency action (except skirmishers)		4.     Any Friends routing or destroyed within 10cm this turn or last
5.     At half strength or less		6.     Tercio pike block within 10cm advancing on testers
7.     Cavalry attempting to charge/charging the front of a unit with pikes		8.     Poor quality troops
Deduct 1D6 for any of the following which apply
1.     Cavalry with general attached		2.     Well trained troops
3.     Tester in cover or defending works		4.     Testers are stationary and uphill of all enemy with 20cm
5.     Tester is in a defensive ring (units with pike bases only)
Morale test result – use the lowest scoring dice.  Scores of one are cumulative [p14]
Score	Effect
3 to 6	No Effect
2	Well trained troops – No effect. All other troops.  Chargers fail to charge.  no advance this turn or next but may retire.  Otherwise, retire 10cm facing the enemy, no advance next turn but may retire
1	Chargers fail to charge as above.  Others if advanced at least 5cm last movement phase halt, no advance this turn or next, but may retire.  Otherwise rout.

Firing [s12 p 8]

See unit cards for number of D6 rolled per stand but note that poor quality infantry cannot salvo or counter march so only get 1D6 per stand.  Only the front rank stands of an infantry unit may fire. Caracoling cavalry may fire outermost stands of the second rank to the side.

Shooting dice modified as below
Well Trained musket only stands in either a linear battalion or a Spanish Tercio	Plus 1D6 per stand
Salvo Firing	Plus 1D6 per stand
Target is more than one stand deep	Roll one extra D6
Target in cover or skirmishers or deployed artillery	Roll half the total number of D6

 

Ranges and to hit values
Weapon	Close 5-6 to hit	Long 6 to hit
Muskets etc	10cm	20cm
Early Cuirassiers	10cm	N/A
Charging Cavalry /Late Cuirassiers		10cm
Other cavalry	10cm	20cm
Heavy Artillery	20cm	70cm
Light Artillery	10cm	40cm

Melee [s13 p10]

Only front rank stands fight except in Tercios where the first two ranks of the pike block fight but the musketeers don’t.  Roll 1D6 per strength point of the engaged stands.  Tercios only take off hits to the pike block.  A score of 6 on any D6 rolled is a hit.

Each stand adds or subtracts D6 as follows
Add 1D6	Lose 1D6
Won last round of same combat	Not rallied
Charging cavalry charging or counter charging (including during pursuit)	Attacking works/town/defended terrain/opposite bank of stream etc
Charging Cavalry’s first charge or counter charge of the game	Poor quality
Well trained cavalry not halted or retiring through morale	Halted or retiring through morale result
Add 2D6 for each of	Lose 2D6 for
Attacking flank or rear	Cavalry attacking a pike ring/Tercio pike block

 

Outcomes after melee [s13.2 p10-11]

The side scoring the highest number of hits wins.  If the outcome is a draw a cavalry attacker withdraws 10cm

Combat type	Looser	Winner
Cavalry vs Cavalry	Retire 10cm or 20cm if LC.  If retiring unit is blocked by a friendly unit halt and both units take a hit unless LC. Halt facing the winner. If beaten by Charging Cavalry or Later Cuirassiers who charged or counter charged: rout 20cm if doubled and received 1 hit per stand or more.	May follow up & melee again next turn.  If contact a second enemy unit while in pursuit
Infantry vs infantry	Retire 10cm unless defending an obstacle.  If outscored by three times rout 15cm.	Follow up if possible.
Cavalry vs Infantry (and vice versa but only if foot with pike stands))	Cavalry outscored or drawing retire 10cm.  If cavalry outscore foot by 2:1 (3:1 if pike bases present) infantry routs 15cm.  On lower margins Cavalry may retire 10cm or stay in contact and fight again next turn	Infantry do not follow up or pursue cavalry.
Artillery (special case)	Artillery crew will run up to 10cm to the nearest friends or cover on being contacted in melee unless the attackers are skirmishers.  They may choose to fight only if defending an obstacle where they are treated as skirmishers

Rout and pursuit [s14-17 p12-13]

All rout moves Initial pursuit moves Infantry 15cm Infantry & Cuirassiers 10cm plus 1D6cm Cavalry 20cm Charging Cav & Arkebussiers 15cm plus 1D6cm   Light Cavalry 20cm plus 1D6cm

Skirmishers, dragoons, Lt cavalry and all infantry except poor may halt pursuit at any time.  Otherwise test

Rally from Rout			Rally from Pursuit
Score 1D6	Result		Score 1D6	Result
1,2 or 3	Unit disperses		3 or more	Well trained cavalry halt
4	Rout continues, test again next turn		4 or more	Trained cavalry halt
5 or 6	Halt, spend rest of turn rallying.		6	All troops halt
Well trained add 1 to di roll.  Poor troops never rally			Charging cavalry deduct 1 from di roll