Transition from swords to guns

[Easy-Kill]

I seem to recall that as late as the war of Spanish succession this was the case, with dragoons under the command of Churchill receiving 3 bullets for the entire campaign (admittedly dragoons are not infantry) with little chance of being resupplied at any point.

Dragoons are mounted infantry; rather they are mounted musketeers (who ride into battle, then dismount and fight). The term dragoon comes from Dragon, because 'the Musketeer on horseback with his burning match, riding at a gallop, as many times he doth, may something resemble that beast which naturalists call a Fiery Dragon' (Pallas armata, Military essayes of the ancient Grecian, Roman, and modern art of war vvritten in the years 1670 and 1671 / by Sir James Turner, Knight.). In the English Civil War, Dragoons were issued with a shorter musket, but firing a shot of 12 bullets to the pound (presumably to ease logistics). While I have no source to confirm, I see no reason why they would not be issued with the same 12 box bandoleer as their contemporary musketeers in the English armies.

While the War of Spanish succession was 50 years later, the formation of the English army as a standing army would have drawn strongly on lessons of the Civil War and New Model Army. This highlighted specifically, the use of terrain features such as hedgerows in conjunction with ambush/skirmish tactics using the Musket (and not pike) as an effective defence against a mounted weapon (I believe that Bayonets were already issued to the Royal Fusiliers when they were formed in the 1680s). I therefore, find it difficult to believe that a step back would be taken with only 3 rounds issued per man to a standing army (I might believe it if it were a levee or conscript army).

Hell, I bough a lot of my own kit for the armed forces, if someone only issued me 3 shots to go to war, I would purchase a couple of thousand out of my own money

 

[Lord Tim]

My understanding is that formations of Spanish mercenaries featured very strongly in the armies of the Catholic League. Furthermore the Spanish Terico system was used extensively within the catholic league throughout the 30 years war and in the earlier stages, with great success. It was the Swedish (and Dutch) who sought to use more linear formations and used them with great success against the Terico formations (including Spanish Mercernaries) at the battles of Breitenfield, Lützen and Lech. The ultimate result was that following the 30 years war, battle formations moved towards more linear formations and highlighted the growing obsolescence of the Terico.

However, my interest in this area is relatively new, so if you are able to expand on this and correct me, please do.

The Catholic League certainly used "tercio" style formations, and recruited rather widely including in Spanish-controlled territory (mostly in Italy). Whether that made the mercenary units in question as good as Spanish tercios is rather doubtful - their battlefield performance doesn't seem to have been as good, and that's apparent both in the 30YW and in the Dutch wars where the German mercenaries were not exactly regarded as the elite of the Spanish army.

It's also worth noting that the tercio of the 17th century was already a shallower formation than the 16th century one. The major difference that was still there was that Dutch and Swedish infantry had a higher proportion of musketeers than the Spanish, who retained a higher proportion of pikemen - c.40% in the tercio compared to the 33% that was normal Swedish practice. That provided an advantage in the firefights that developed as the main form of combat, but how large that advantage was is difficult to say. It wasn't decisive at Nordlingen, for example.

- There were no pike formations when there were crossbow formations.

- Most of the musketeers fought in formations but there were also "skirmishers"' who fought in the "no man's land" between the two opposing forces. They fought in loose formations, used terrain as cover and chose individual targets. They were the first forces to be issued early rifles when those became available.

Not absolutely true, since pike formations became significant on the battlefield with the rise of the Swiss, which was in the mid-15th century for their wars with Burgundy. Whereas battlefield firearms were a little later, early Italian Wars period. Hence there was a period of overlap between pike and crossbow. The wars in that period don't seem to have been as large as the Italian Wars, and missile fire from Charles the Bold's Burgundians (who seem to have employed a mix of crossbows and longbows as well as cannon) wasn't sufficient to stop the Swiss formations in those battles.

 

[Arilou]

The Catholic League certainly used "tercio" style formations, and recruited rather widely including in Spanish-controlled territory (mostly in Italy). Whether that made the mercenary units in question as good as Spanish tercios is rather doubtful - their battlefield performance doesn't seem to have been as good, and that's apparent both in the 30YW and in the Dutch wars where the German mercenaries were not exactly regarded as the elite of the Spanish army.

It's also worth noting that the tercio of the 17th century was already a shallower formation than the 16th century one. The major difference that was still there was that Dutch and Swedish infantry had a higher proportion of musketeers than the Spanish, who retained a higher proportion of pikemen - c.40% in the tercio compared to the 33% that was normal Swedish practice. That provided an advantage in the firefights that developed as the main form of combat, but how large that advantage was is difficult to say. It wasn't decisive at Nordlingen, for example.

It's been noted that it's far less clear-cut; Both sides used deeper and shallower formations depending on context. (it's also arguable that the swedish army had more musketeers simply becuase they were strapped for cash and pikemen used more expensive equipment) (see also the fact that the swedish cavalry tended to be almost all reiters, with some dragoons, and lacked the kind of variation with heavy/light cavalry the imperial army had)

That said, as mentioned the spanish had time to dig in at Nördlingen. (and the Imperial-Saxon army tried to do the same at Wittstock, but were outmanuevered)

 

[Lord Tim]

It's been noted that it's far less clear-cut; Both sides used deeper and shallower formations depending on context. (it's also arguable that the swedish army had more musketeers simply becuase they were strapped for cash and pikemen used more expensive equipment) (see also the fact that the swedish cavalry tended to be almost all reiters, with some dragoons, and lacked the kind of variation with heavy/light cavalry the imperial army had)

Oh, agreed, but the point I was clumsily trying to make is that the tercio wasn't always deep and the Swedes weren't always shallow.

The Swedes seem always to have been short of pikemen, which was an even bigger problem in the Polish War. Iirc the "Swedish Feather" was an attempt to make up for this, as a sort of portable stake to stop cavalry charges. Not terribly effectively, as I understand it. I'm not so sure about the cavalry, my understanding was that the Swedes were short of good cavalry horses while the Imperials had a rather better variety, thus allowing the Imperials to field a greater variety of cavalry including cuirassiers.

 

[Amallric]

Not absolutely true, since pike formations became significant on the battlefield with the rise of the Swiss, which was in the mid-15th century for their wars with Burgundy. Whereas battlefield firearms were a little later, early Italian Wars period. Hence there was a period of overlap between pike and crossbow. The wars in that period don't seem to have been as large as the Italian Wars, and missile fire from Charles the Bold's Burgundians (who seem to have employed a mix of crossbows and longbows as well as cannon) wasn't sufficient to stop the Swiss formations in those battles.

I thought the Swiss were using halberds.

 

[Lord Tim]

I thought the Swiss were using halberds.

Earlier in the 15th century, yes. At Arbedo in 1422 they were mostly halberiders, which was seen as responsible for their defeat. They were pikemen in their wars with Charles the Bold.

 

[Semper Victor]

The Catholic League certainly used "tercio" style formations, and recruited rather widely including in Spanish-controlled territory (mostly in Italy). Whether that made the mercenary units in question as good as Spanish tercios is rather doubtful - their battlefield performance doesn't seem to have been as good, and that's apparent both in the 30YW and in the Dutch wars where the German mercenaries were not exactly regarded as the elite of the Spanish army.

It's also worth noting that the tercio of the 17th century was already a shallower formation than the 16th century one. The major difference that was still there was that Dutch and Swedish infantry had a higher proportion of musketeers than the Spanish, who retained a higher proportion of pikemen - c.40% in the tercio compared to the 33% that was normal Swedish practice. That provided an advantage in the firefights that developed as the main form of combat, but how large that advantage was is difficult to say. It wasn't decisive at Nordlingen, for example.

It was quite rare for Spanish tercios to form in full "escuadron" at all, and one of the main reasons for their field successes was that their commanders almost always resorted to hand picked groups of musketeers and arquebusiers to conduct attacks in battle; usually the "escuadron" was only formed when the tercio had to go to the defensive in open field without prepared defenses. The duke of Alba defeated Louis of Nassau in 1573 using such tactics, for example.

As for the proportion and reliability of proper "Spanish" troops in the armies of the Monarchy in the XVI and XVII centuries, its main army, the Army of Flanders never fielded more than 10% of peninsular Spanish troops. Almost half of them were German (even German protestants at times) and the rest were a mix of Italians, Wallons (the second bigger group after Germans), Irish ...

As for the Spaniards being more reliable than other nationalities, it's true that they had a fearsome reputation, but not all commanders endorsed this. During his 1580 campaign of Portugal, the duke of Alba wrote to the king pleading him that for God's sake, he should not send him any more Spaniards, and that if possible he preferred to be sent German soldiers instead.

But they certainly coul be quite effective: at Noerdlingen, the key position of the battlefield was a hill on the left flank of the Imperial position, which was covered by several German and Italian tercios and the veteran Spanish tercio commanded by the "maestre de campo" Idiaquez. When the Swedish elite Blue and Yellow regiments attacked the hill, the German and Italian tercios quickly broke down and fled, and Idiaquez's tercio was left to defend the hill (which was not fortified) on their own. They held it for several hours against increasingly desperate Swedish attacks, during which the Swedish army weakened itself so much that when the Imperial commanders ordered a general counterattack along the whole line, the Swedish army collapsed.

 

[Arilou]

Earlier in the 15th century, yes. At Arbedo in 1422 they were mostly halberiders, which was seen as responsible for their defeat. They were pikemen in their wars with Charles the Bold.

My understanding was that they were used in conjunction (halberdiers as supporting the pikemen)

 

[Arilou]

Oh, agreed, but the point I was clumsily trying to make is that the tercio wasn't always deep and the Swedes weren't always shallow.

The Swedes seem always to have been short of pikemen, which was an even bigger problem in the Polish War. Iirc the "Swedish Feather" was an attempt to make up for this, as a sort of portable stake to stop cavalry charges. Not terribly effectively, as I understand it. I'm not so sure about the cavalry, my understanding was that the Swedes were short of good cavalry horses while the Imperials had a rather better variety, thus allowing the Imperials to field a greater variety of cavalry including cuirassiers.

The swedish army tended to be short of everything, honestly, the swedish state was remarkably close to bancruptcy pretty constantly, and only some very clever financial trickery, some pretty gruesomely high taxes, and various subsidies and timely contributions kept the entire thing rolling. (in the process the swedes developed one of the more sophisticated systems of "war-by-credit" at the time, the brits became better at it towards the end of the 18th century though)

The swedish army didn't have the kind of resources the Imperials or even the poles did, so they had to essentially try to conjure the things they needed out of thin air and promises. (the last decade or so of the 30-years war was fought almost entirely because the swedes couldn't afford to stop)

This lead to some remarkable end-of-the-line ingenuity. (neccessity is the mother of invention and all that)

That and a remarkable level of political unity (probably thanks to the culling of the swedish aristocracy) all the political elites were at least temporarily going in the same direction. (again probably born out of desperation more than anything else, stand together or hang separately and all that)

 

[knul]

Easy-Kill, thank you for your informative post.

I think another indicator that infantry melee wasn't that important was that infantry stopped using armor of any kind. They did not wear padded or leather armor nor any kind of helmet, while before almost any infantry wore at least some armor. Cavalry continued to wear armor, mostly breastplates and open-faced helmets.

If bayonets and other melee weapons were a significant threat, people would want to wear armor. However, I think musket-fire and later one artillery-fire were such dominant threats, against which armor did little, infantry ditched all armor. For cavalry, melee was still very important and thus armor was retained.

People might counter that armor was expensive and that was a more important reason for infantry ceasing to use armor. That might be true, but I do not think that's the complete picture. Against melee weapons, even light armor like a leather coat is really helpful. Padded and leather armor isn't that expensive.

 

[Lord Tim]

My understanding was that they were used in conjunction (halberdiers as supporting the pikemen)

Initially the Swiss infantry was largely halberdiers with crossbows in support. Later they were mostly pikemen with halberdiers as a reserve and crossbows as skirmishers/missile support. But it was very much a switch from halberd formations as teh main battle line to pike formations with the halberdiers in a supporting role.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Easy-Kill, thank you for your informative post.

I think another indicator that infantry melee wasn't that important was that infantry stopped using armor of any kind. They did not wear padded or leather armor nor any kind of helmet, while before almost any infantry wore at least some armor. Cavalry continued to wear armor, mostly breastplates and open-faced helmets.

The above image is a Pikeman's Armour from J Bingham, Tactics of Aelian, 1616. However General George Monck, wrote 'Observations upon Military & Political Affairs: The formost English handbook of Generalship and Statecraft', during his imprisonment in 1644-1646((Published in 1671). Within the chapter looking at The Defensive Arms of a Pikeman he recommends that a Pikeman should have 'an Head-piece with Back and Breast'; he also recommended that the Pikeman wear 'a Buff Girdle of double buff 8 inches broad, the which is to be worn under the skirts of his Doublet instead of Tassets'. This was principally motivated by weight; one of the upshots of the English Civil war was a move away from the relatively static siege warfare of previous generations and a transition to 'decisive battle' and low level skirmish warfare.

Incidentally, the armour was designed to withstand pistol shot.

If bayonets and other melee weapons were a significant threat, people would want to wear armor. However, I think musket-fire and later one artillery-fire were such dominant threats, against which armor did little, infantry ditched all armor. For cavalry, melee was still very important and thus armor was retained.

It should be noted that Monck's observations are probably the ideal. Furthermore, most of the English commanders would have been trained and influenced in the Dutch and Swedish forms of warfare, and heavily favoured Armour for Pikemen. Once the English Civil War broke out, the Royalists found themselves without access to the Armouries of London and Hull. The first stages saw the acquisition of arms and armour, principally by the trained band militias (who were expected to own their own armour). Nevertheless, In 1642, Parliament placed an order for 6000 pikes and 6000 'corslets'.

There is supposedly no record for any acquisition of pikeman armour for the New Model Army, though it is highly likely that as the fraction of pikemen reduced, existing armour was sufficient to supply them. There are many many records for the acquisition of clothing, particularly the red coloured jackets that would become synonymous with the British Army. However, William Lockheart wrote to

People might counter that armor was expensive and that was a more important reason for infantry ceasing to use armor. That might be true, but I do not think that's the complete picture. Against melee weapons, even light armor like a leather coat is really helpful. Padded and leather armor isn't that expensive.

Professional officers like George Monck and William Lockheart regarded infantry armour as essential, even when the ratio to Musketeers was decreasing. For example, William Lockheart commanding the New Model Army serving as allies to the French in 1658 asked John Thurloe for 1500 corslets (and received 500 from the armoury in the tower of London). His reasoning was that it encouraged his own men and that 'a stand of 500 pickets well armed with headpiece and corslett will be a very terrible thing to be seen in these countries.' It should be noted that it is highly likely that only the first ranks were 'armoured' and that practicalities.

As for the cost, a full set of infantry armour cost 1#2s , while a pike cost between 3s10d and 4s2d (when delivered to Thomas Fairfax's army (again the Mungeam contracts). Not including the other clothing/arms which was common to both Pikemen and Musketeers, this was a total of about 310d (pence). Compare this to musket and Bandelier which cost about (160d). The cost is not that dissimilar and if you consider that you have 2 musketeers to every pikeman, the cost for both is about the same.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Real cavalry used sabres as long as it existed as functional military force. AFAIK the last shock cav forces got reorganised or disbanded after WWII.


Depends. Bayonet charges were in use at least until WWI, however their usefulness was circumstantial, frequently as shock and awe tactic. AFAIK a Napoleonic era musketeer could fire a couple of rounds per minute, which could still make the costs of charging prohibitive. Considering also that an advancing line infantry would fire more slowly, it would make more sense to use specialised troops to charge and flank an enemy line.

Have you not heard about famous bayonet charger ambushed British did at Afghanistan in 21st century against enemy armed with reliable fully automatic weapons? And they were outnumbered. And won. Bayonet is not yet obsolete, even tough not needed and little used.


You can see when firearms became main weapon by looking at armor soldiers wore, if line infantry did not have armor and your firearms were not good enough armored infantry will butcher you. Sure some cuirassier units wore armor in WW1, but it was as common to use it in battle as have mounted cavalry fights.

 

[Avernite]

The swedish army tended to be short of everything, honestly, the swedish state was remarkably close to bancruptcy pretty constantly, and only some very clever financial trickery, some pretty gruesomely high taxes, and various subsidies and timely contributions kept the entire thing rolling. (in the process the swedes developed one of the more sophisticated systems of "war-by-credit" at the time, the brits became better at it towards the end of the 18th century though)

Kind of interesting, in that the other specifically 17th century power, the Dutch Republic, also funded its wars by better credit. On a whole other level than Sweden, of course (the Dutch Republic generally had the resources, but tapping them for the government was trickier).

 

[Arilou]

Kind of interesting, in that the other specifically 17th century power, the Dutch Republic, also funded its wars by better credit. On a whole other level than Sweden, of course (the Dutch Republic generally had the resources, but tapping them for the government was trickier).

Notably they funded them from the same creditors: IE: Dutch bankers.

 

[DoomBunny]

I think another indicator that infantry melee wasn't that important was that infantry stopped using armor of any kind. They did not wear padded or leather armor nor any kind of helmet, while before almost any infantry wore at least some armor. Cavalry continued to wear armor, mostly breastplates and open-faced helmets.

If bayonets and other melee weapons were a significant threat, people would want to wear armor. However, I think musket-fire and later one artillery-fire were such dominant threats, against which armor did little, infantry ditched all armor. For cavalry, melee was still very important and thus armor was retained.

Melee combat was still important, but rare. Actual contact between bayonet charges, or contact lasting more than a very short time, was rather rare. Bayonet charges though, were a large part of Napoleonic warfare.

There was no point wearing armour, as it was just an added expense/encumbrance that would have effect only in certain situations.

Certain arms retained it, most notably the heavy cavalry of some nations, though even this was not universal. Dragoons for example did not tend to wear armour (note that most helmets you see soldiers wearing in the Napoleonic period are not proper helmets but rather are leather headgear, more like hats than armour), nor did the light horse. In fact, armour was really restricted to the Cuirassiers and other such types of truly heavy horse.

People might counter that armor was expensive and that was a more important reason for infantry ceasing to use armor. That might be true, but I do not think that's the complete picture. Against melee weapons, even light armor like a leather coat is really helpful. Padded and leather armor isn't that expensive.

A solid bayonet thrust isn't going to be nice even through a padded leather coat.

Have you not heard about famous bayonet charger ambushed British did at Afghanistan in 21st century against enemy armed with reliable fully automatic weapons? And they were outnumbered. And won. Bayonet is not yet obsolete, even tough not needed and little used.

It's an isolated incident (and one occurring in special circumstances), hardly indicative of the state of things.

 

[knul]

Thanks Easy-kill, for yet another very informative post! I am not sure if you are arguing against my point or for it (or if you just provide good info). From what you posted, it seems that only pikemen continued to carry armor, which supports my point: pikemen were supposed to get into melee with cavalry/other pikemen, in which the armor was useful. And in the early period, armor was indeed proof to firearms, but later on such armor was prohibitively heavy.

Melee combat was still important, but rare. Actual contact between bayonet charges, or contact lasting more than a very short time, was rather rare. Bayonet charges though, were a large part of Napoleonic warfare.

There was no point wearing armour, as it was just an added expense/encumbrance that would have effect only in certain situations.

Certain arms retained it, most notably the heavy cavalry of some nations, though even this was not universal. Dragoons for example did not tend to wear armour (note that most helmets you see soldiers wearing in the Napoleonic period are not proper helmets but rather are leather headgear, more like hats than armour), nor did the light horse. In fact, armour was really restricted to the Cuirassiers and other such types of truly heavy horse.

But that's my point. I'm not saying that infantry melee did never happen or had no role at all, but rather that for infantry, musket-fire was the main fighting force and melee a distant second. The dominance of musket and (later) artillery did indeed turn armor into an encumbrance and expense that was just not worth it anymore. If bayonets were still a major factor, I think that this encumbrance and expense would have been accepted, as it was in the centuries before.

A solid bayonet thrust isn't going to be nice even through a padded leather coat.

Armor isn't meant to turn its wearer invulnerable: rather it is to make it more difficult to kill/wound its wearer. Indeed, a well-placed thrust will penetrate leather or padded armor and kill, but weaker attacks will be diverted or at least blunted.

 

[DoomBunny]

But that's my point. I'm not saying that infantry melee did never happen or had no role at all, but rather that for infantry, musket-fire was the main fighting force and melee a distant second. The dominance of musket and (later) artillery did indeed turn armor into an encumbrance and expense that was just not worth it anymore. If bayonets were still a major factor, I think that this encumbrance and expense would have been accepted, as it was in the centuries before.

Why bother? The armour adds weight, adds cost, doesn't protect against musket balls (unless you're truly bankrupting yourself), and its wearer is unlikely to use it in an actual fight. Bayonet wounds (even accounting for the higher percentage of killed to wounded) make up a very minor proportion of wounds treated during the period because most bayonet charges ended in one side running either before or shortly after contact.

Melee combat is still a huge part of warfare in the Napoleonic period, bayonet charges are a huge part of engagements, but they aren't slugging matches. They're very much morale contests rather than killing contests, and that's partly why they're so useful. If you stand exchanging musket volleys things can become quite bloody, give the enemy 2 before he can respond, then charge while he's disordered and you save yourself a lot of work and blood.

Armor isn't meant to turn its wearer invulnerable: rather it is to make it more difficult to kill/wound its wearer. Indeed, a well-placed thrust will penetrate leather or padded armor and kill, but weaker attacks will be diverted or at least blunted.

But again, you're wearing something heavy and generally of limited use (the bayonet thrust is still likely to injure the wearer even if not quite so deeply).

 

[knul]

Melee combat is still a huge part of warfare in the Napoleonic period, bayonet charges are a huge part of engagements, but they aren't slugging matches. They're very much morale contests rather than killing contests, and that's partly why they're so useful. If you stand exchanging musket volleys things can become quite bloody, give the enemy 2 before he can respond, then charge while he's disordered and you save yourself a lot of work and blood.

I agree that bayonet charges didn't kill that much but rather drove the enemy from its position. I'm not sure that during the Napoleonic wars, bayonet charges where that common. I think they tend to be overreported, as they are seen as heroic and romantic. I think it's very difficult to get reliable numbers on how many charges took place and what impact they had. I also wonder how much musket fire took place during such charges and again what impact that had.

But again, you're wearing something heavy and generally of limited use (the bayonet thrust is still likely to injure the wearer even if not quite so deeply).

A bayonet is basically an inferior spear: heavier and unbalanced. Why did the majority of fighters bother with armor when spears and swords dominated the battlefield?

 

[StephenT]

Melee combat is still a huge part of warfare in the Napoleonic period, bayonet charges are a huge part of engagements, but they aren't slugging matches. They're very much morale contests rather than killing contests, and that's partly why they're so useful.

Agreed.

"Fire seldom, but accurately. Thrust the bayonet with force. The bullet misses, the bayonet doesn't. The bullet's an idiot, the bayonet's a fine chap. Stab once and throw the Turk off the bayonet. Bayonet another, bayonet a third. A real warrior will bayonet half a dozen and more. Keep a bullet in the barrel. If three should run at you bayonet the first, shoot the second and lay the third out with your bayonet. This isn't common, but you haven't time to reload."
-General Alexander Suvorov