CUIRASSIERS (and cavalry in general)

[Stauffenberg]

It's an interesting topic. What I was indirectly getting at in noticing the preponderance of heavy cavalry in this time period (or at least in the TYW modeling of it), was the lack of light (scout) cavalry. The armies seemed pretty much "all in" with heavier armored men on horseback and one assumes only the nobility and minor nobility had the means to show up with this.... or?

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Yeah, I suspect the scenario setups are a bit ahistorically biased towards heavy cavalry. The recruitment pools don't seem to be, though.

[aryaman]

Charles, sorry I misunderstood your statement, you wrote "the importance of cavalry" so I took it measured in numbers, not in effectiveness.
Effectiveness is much more difficult to asses than raw numbers, however you can be sure that cavalry was much less effective against infantry in the 1500-1600 period than in the 1600-1650, when infantry deployed increasingly in less ranks. David Parrott notes that in the late TYW battles infantry were very vulnerable to flank attacks, while in the early battles of the war they had been capable of withstand them. In fact most battles of the late period were decided by cavalry wining the flanks of the enemy infantry after defeating the opposite cavalry, so I am not sure why are you so sure that cavalry was less effective in that period.

[aryaman]

It's an interesting topic. What I was indirectly getting at in noticing the preponderance of heavy cavalry in this time period (or at least in the TYW modeling of it), was the lack of light (scout) cavalry. The armies seemed pretty much "all in" with heavier armored men on horseback and one assumes only the nobility and minor nobility had the means to show up with this.... or?

Equipment was supplied by the contractor, the ammount discounted from the soldier´s pay

[aryaman]

Regarding the relative value of infantry and cavalry, it should be noted that accroding to Redlichthe Imperial Kuirassier received a pay of 15 florins a month, while a Horse Arkebussier received 12 florins. The pay remained the same up to 1640. On the contrary an infatryman was paid 9.6 florins in 1619, 7.5 in 1629, 6.67 in 1630 and 6.5 in 1640 (no data for later period).

[veji1]

Charles, sorry I misunderstood your statement, you wrote "the importance of cavalry" so I took it measured in numbers, not in effectiveness.
Effectiveness is much more difficult to asses than raw numbers, however you can be sure that cavalry was much less effective against infantry in the 1500-1600 period than in the 1600-1650, when infantry deployed increasingly in less ranks. David Parrott notes that in the late TYW battles infantry were very vulnerable to flank attacks, while in the early battles of the war they had been capable of withstand them. In fact most battles of the late period were decided by cavalry wining the flanks of the enemy infantry after defeating the opposite cavalry, so I am not sure why are you so sure that cavalry was less effective in that period.

efficient infantry tactics against cavalry required discipline, drilling, cohesion, etc... things that degraded progressively during the TYW,, whereas degraded tactics and drilling in cavalry had less of a negative impact on how it worked.

[Konrad von Richtmark]

On the topic of (mis)using cuirassiers for outrider duties and other jobs usually left for light cavalry, does lighter cavalry actually perform better at such jobs in the game? Are they better at evading combat? When I've used lone cuirassiers for such jobs, they end up in combat against enemy field armies with unfortunate frequency. That while I've set them to offensive stance (for establishing military control), feint/probe attack, and evade combat.

[Charles]

Charles, sorry I misunderstood your statement, you wrote "the importance of cavalry" so I took it measured in numbers, not in effectiveness.
Effectiveness is much more difficult to asses than raw numbers, however you can be sure that cavalry was much less effective against infantry in the 1500-1600 period than in the 1600-1650, when infantry deployed increasingly in less ranks. David Parrott notes that in the late TYW battles infantry were very vulnerable to flank attacks, while in the early battles of the war they had been capable of withstand them. In fact most battles of the late period were decided by cavalry wining the flanks of the enemy infantry after defeating the opposite cavalry, so I am not sure why are you so sure that cavalry was less effective in that period.

no problem, where else can you have a good groggy debate about the Thirty Years War.

Yes, Cavalry could be deadly in the right circumstances like at Rossbach in 1757 where Prussian cavalry caught the French/Imperial army on the move and basically won the battle on its own.

However, you go back to the early middle ages and cavalry was always dominant on its own against the untrained peasant armies. Once muskets, trained infantry and proper tactics (i.e. the square) arrive, cavalry can no longer defeat on its own properly deployed and organised regular infantry like the Spanish Tercios or Swedish infantry. Cavalry now has to act as part of a combined team with infantry and artillery and wait for the right opportunity to strike, i.e. attacking the flank/rear, attacking broken or poorly trained troops, capturing artillery, pursuing retreating troops, etc.

[aryaman]

Ok, then I understand that you say that cavalry was less efective in the 18th century that it was in the Middle Ages, no problem there. However you seem to imply that it was a linear progression, in which cavalry was less and less efective as time passed, and I disagree with. I will elaborate a bit.
In the 16th century armies in Western Europe fielded large infantry formations of pike (mainly) and shot. Those formations were able to withstand any cavalry charge unless they were previously disrupted. But then cavalry started an evolution of its own.
During the late 16th and early 17Th century cavalry became more and more disciplined, experimented new tactics and drills, new weapons, so it became more effective, not only in campaign duties, but also in pitched battles. At the same infantry in the 17th century evolved towards maximizing firepower, reducing the proportion of pikemen and the depth of ranks in formations. The net result of those evolutions was that by c.1635 infantry presented a strong fornt of firepower supported by pikes, but was very vulnerable to flank attacks, so it relied on the cavalry to provide flank protection, but if the friendly cavalry was defeated the infantry was lost.

So, to take the argument to the other side, was infantry, by 1640, of any value in pitched battles?

In 1648 the Swedish army had 63.000 soldiers in Germany, of them 22.000 was cavalry. However the main Swedish field army under Wrangler had 12.000 cavalry but just 5.000 infantry. There was no shortage of infantry, it was just that the main role of infantry in the war was garrison duties.

So, what did infantry in those late TYW battles in cavalry was in proportion more than 2 to 1?

Basically, it was protecting the artillery. Field artillery was the other arm that grew in importance. At White Mountain the Catholic army 24.000 strong had just 12 guns, Wrangler had 60 guns. Infantry in battle was deployed in the center of line, just behind the guns, to protect them from any frontal attack. In battle the role of infantry was a passive one, no longer massive assaults of infantry, like those that won for Tilly battles in the early period. Just keeping under fire the enemy infantry until the friendly cavalry demolished the enemy cavalry and then attacked the flank of the enemy infantry.

That is why field armies took very little infantry with them.

Of course, infantry had other roles, battlefields could be dotted with obstacles, like ditches, villages, stonewalls, all those could be garrisoned with infantry.

And sieges. In the late TYW there were few sieges, army relied on blockades, trying to control the countryside, rather than actually taken fortresses and cities, so they didn need large forces of infantry. In the Low Countries the nature of war, with a broken countryside and plenty of fortified cities, always required larger numbers of infantry.

So, to sum up, in this period cavalry became very effective, infantry was trapped between a quest for increase firepower and the need to protection against cavalry. The invention of bayonet and more effective drill that allowed for the change of formations in a battle were partial solutions, but those were in a later period, for a number of years infantry remained very vulnerable in pitched battles and field armies deployed large numbers of cavalry in battle.

[Baris]

And sieges. In the late TYW there were few sieges, army relied on blockades, trying to control the countryside, rather than actually taken fortresses and cities, so they didn need large forces of infantry.

That's what happens in PBEM game. Bigger force gain enough MC to starve smaller force outside city walls without any battle, if postures are not offensive for both sides. Long delay for battles may also help.

[Charles]

The net result of those evolutions was that by c.1635 infantry presented a strong fornt of firepower supported by pikes, but was very vulnerable to flank attacks, so it relied on the cavalry to provide flank protection, but if the friendly cavalry was defeated the infantry was lost.

well no, that is a misunderstanding of 17th-18th century tactics. Tactics on the battlefield where a "rock, paper, scissors" proposition. If infantry was facing cavalry alone, it would form a square and be impervious to cavalry. OTOH infantry in a square/column was more vulnerable to artillery/musket fire.

cavalry alone could not defeat infantry, but it could as part of a combined arms with infantry and artillery.

So, what did infantry in those late TYW battles in cavalry was in proportion more than 2 to 1?

The simple answer is that it was not. At Thionville (1639), Honnecourt (1642), Rocroi (1643), infantry outnumbered cavalry 2-3 to 1.

[Charles]

Since there seems to be confusion about this, here is a primer on the anti-cavalry formations used by 17th century infantry. The Spanish Tercios were the first to use it:

Although it is possible to trace the evolution of square infantry formations back to ancient warfare. The hollow infantry square developed more directly from a formation used by the Spanish called the Tercio or ‘Spanish Third’ during the 16th century. The Tercio was comprised of 3,000 pikemen and musketeers who were usually fielded with two other Tercios - making up a division of three Tercios/Thirds totalling approximately 9,000 men. During the 16th century the Spanish Tercio formation dominated battlefield tactics with many European armies emulating it.

Used throughout the 17th century during the Thirty Years’ War and the Franco-Spanish War. The Tercio was made up of several kinds of infantryman; the Pikemen - who formed the Cuadro - a hollow square which provided protection from cavalry and met enemy pikemen in push of pike, the Arquebusiers/Musketeers who fought at the edges of the pikemen’s Cuadro and would retreat within when attacked, and the Swordsman - who fought both with the pikemen and outside the Cuadro with enemy swordsmen.

Famously a lone Spanish Tercio withstood numerous attacks by French cavalry and artillery at the Battle of Rocroi in 1643, the battle only ended when the Spanish were allowed to leave the field with their weapons and standards.

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/86050072294/the-infantry-square-the-infantry-square-became

However, the Spanish Tercio was an unwieldly formation on the Battlefield and Gustavus Adolphus was the first to implement more modern infantry tactics which would rule the battlefield until 1815:

The tactics of the Swedes were a further development from the Dutch model. The musketeers, drawn up only six ranks deep, were trained both to fire by countermarch, two ranks at a time, and to double the files extending into three-deep formation to deliver concerted volleys, every man firing at once, the front rank kneeling, the second crouching and the third standing upright.

To the weight of fire which this gave (it enabled Scots musketeers at Leipzig, 1631, to break an attack by Imperial cuirassiers-by their fire alone) was added the fire of up to 12 light regimental guns attached to each brigade - a much closer combination of artillery and the other arms than previously attempted. After abortive experiments with copper and leather 11/2 pounders had been dropped (unkind Germans accused the hungry Swedes of having eaten these weapons!) Gustavus Scots artillerist Sandy Hamilton evolved light 3 pounders, which with the aid of pre-loaded cartridges could fire (usually 'hail shot') more rapidly than the musketeers, while keeping up reasonably well with an infantry advance (they were, incidentally, Bofors' guns),

A 'fire-shock' was thus achieved, to be exploited by the Swedish pikemen, trained to charge in after a volley rather than passively defend the 'shot'. They could then fall back to allow the musketeers a second volley (volley-firing of course meant a fairly long interval between bursts of fire). Michael Roberts, in Essays in Swedish History, points out that the offensively-minded Gustavus had actually increased the proportion of pikes compared to that in the essentially defensive Dutch army. However, it must be pointed out that the actual pike strength in the Swedish army was below the theoretical - in the Thirty Years' War by up to 25 per cent - whereas the musketeers were much closer to their establishment (perhaps the earlier Swedish anti-pike attitudes persisted?).

http://home.mysoul.com.au/graemecook/Renaissance/20&21_Swedish.htm

Gustavus initially sought to increase the firepower of his infantry in order to compensate for the inferiority of the Swedish horse. Swedish squadrons maintained the central pike block flanked by musketeers, but the formations were shallower than in the Dutch system, with ranks six men deep. This presented a broader front which brought more firepower to bear on the enemy. Like the Dutch, Swedish musketeers were drilled to maintain a continuous fire by use of the countermarch. However, Gustavus added the tactic of "doubling the files" when the enemy drew near, in which the rearmost ranks of shot moved up to fill the gaps between the frontline ranks, thus transforming a six-rank formation into three ranks. The front rank would kneel, the second rank would crouch and the third rank would stand. When commanded, all three ranks would fire simultaneously to deliver a devastating salvo, the "Swedish salvee". If the enemy stood firm, the musketeers would reload behind the shelter of the pikes to fire another salvo. As soon as the enemy faltered, the Swedish infantry charged forward to break them in hand-to-hand combat.

http://bcw-project.org/military/tactics

The Musketeers (and artillery, if present) provided enough firepower to defeat enemy infantry and cavalry. The Pikemen protected the Musketeers against enemy cavalry. Once the Pikemen were deployed in a 360 degree defensive position, cavalry could not approach.

The only way cavalry could defeat infantry (assuming equal skill levels) was to catch them in the wrong formation or attack when their morale was already fragile.

[aryaman]

WE are not in disagreement here. I agree that cavalry alone usually could not defeat infantry. I disagree with the issue of cavalry becoming less and less efective along the 17th century. The improvement in cavalry drills and tactics made it more effective and more valuable, so it was fielded in larger numbers in field armies.
Of course, the combination of infantry and cavalry was the usual factor in victory, in most battles after 1635 the victorious army was able to defeat enemy cavalry in the flanks, then turn the enemy infantry flanks while the friendly infantry pinned it to the front. Usually that was enough to break the enemy, if it tried to form a square it would be deswtroyed by infantry/artillery fire.
Certainly Rocroi was an exception in the period, because armies in the Low Countries did have more infantry, by reasons I already wrote, so it was easier for a first class infantry like the Spanish Tercios to resist in a square formation.

[Straight Arrow]

A key point to remember concerning cavalry is the percentage of horsemen in Western field forces continually dropped in the 1500's and 1600's. Contemporaries saw a clear link between this development and the proliferation of artillery fortresses. A working example of this would be: if the campaign was in Flanders, more infantry was needed; if it was in an area lacking in modern fortifications, ie France or Germany, more cavalry.

[Stauffenberg]

Well it's all moot really, in TYW they are all going to starve to death for lack of supplies anyway.

I am half serious...

[Charles]

Well it's all moot really, in TYW they are all going to starve to death for lack of supplies anyway.

I am half serious...

you are talking about the game? Supply is more stingy, but once you get the hang of it and optimise your strategy in fonction of supplies, I have not had any problem keeping all my troops fully supplied.

a few tips:

1. always plan your campaigns based on where you will get supply;
2. don't have more than 1,000 point stacks in any one region unless required;
3. make full use of major, i.e. 20+, supply centers to replenish your troops/supply carts;
4. if possible, break up your forces (and carts) over several cities during the winter when supply is at its lowest;
5. do not build too many depots. They use up carts you will have difficulty replacing later;

[Stauffenberg]

Yes I was, and good advice.
I still think it's a bit too harsh but more time, and turns, will tell. Probably has a lot to do with it being my first pre-RR supply grid game with this system.

[Ardashir]

The Croats provided superb light cavalry.

Schooled by harsh border raiding with the Turks, they were renowned for their skill in scouting, skirmishing and raiding.

Some old histories compare the Croats to the Native American horse cultures.

The worst atrocities in the 1631 Sack of Magdeburg are often blamed on them. An old prayer runs: "God save us from the plague, hunger, war and the Croats".

Certainly true. Croats and Poles were by all means the best light horsemen of the war.