The Trouble With Tercios

[Ghaznavid]

Probably more a rule then a list thingy, but anyway ...
One point to consider is probably also does it work? As we move along the timeline shooters increase in proportion and units get smaller. With the rules as ist (ok at least with V12, but didn't immediately notice any glaring changes in this regard with V14) on the table, more shooters coupled with the higher effectivness of later shoot my first reaction would be to increase the size of the BGs so they can actually withstand more then two rounds of shooting. So either I'm odd or the rules entice me to do something rather opposite to the historical development. (Of course as things stand the army lists pretty prevent people from taking larger BGs in the later periods, doesn't change the fact that at least I would go larger if I could. Not sure about this all ...)

[rbodleyscott]

If the latter, then I suggest the situation would be best represented by making them all arqebus before a certain date, all musket after a certain date, and have a choice of which to field them all (in each BG) in an interrim period.

If we do this we will probably have to do the same for the Dutch, etc. for consistency.

Yes, I meant for all such BGs.

[nikgaukroger]

A check indicates that individual companies were made up of mixed arquebusiers and muskets.

The diagrams on the tercio webside suggets that whilst some musketeers were used to front the pikes of some of the formations they were otherwise not separated out.

[nikgaukroger]

For Karsten - what actual info is there on Tilly's formations in the early TYW? Do we know any specifics?


Also found this:

The Germans were_not_using the Spanish system unless part of the Spanish
army. Rather they started out with a massive, 30 ranks deep, regimental
square.
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... 1600_4.jpg
Hower in during the first decade of the 17th century both Protestant &
Cathlic military writers such as Count Johann von Nassau-Siegen and Georg
Basta recongnised the inefficency of the German formation and introduced a
set of reforms to change and improve it. It is an intersting fact that both
men chose the same solution, dividing the regiment into 3 1000.man
battalions. Count Johann chose to make his battalions 10 ranks deep while
Basta made his 12 ranks deep.
Count Johann:
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... 1600_3.jpg
Basta:
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... ild005.jpg

Count Johann's work influenced the Protestant armies of Northern Europe
including the Germans, Danes and Swedes while Basta influence both Johann
Tserclaes Tilly and Albrecht von Wallenstein both whom had served with Basta
in the "Hungarian War" (aka Long Turkish war) 1593-1606. Indeed it was in
that war that Tilly rose from regimental commander to the rank of general
and was Basta's 2nd in command. As German regiments were almost always
understrenght once a campaign was underway it became common to form a
regiment into one rather than three battalions or to combine two weak
regiments into a single battalion. Such battalions are seen in both Merian
engravings of Tilly's army (at Werben & Breitenfeld) which were based on the
plans drawn by Gustav Adolf's chief engineer Olof Hansson. Given that
Hansson was present at both Werben and Breitenfeld he drew what he saw,
which was large battalions, not "Tercios".
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... en1631.gif
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... enfeld.gif

Catholic armies were fighting in multiple lines long before Breitenfeld. The
Spanish used 3 lines a Nieuport 1600, the imperial army at White Mountain
was likewise in 3 lines while the Catholic Leauge foguth in 4 lines. Tilly
used multiple lines at Lutter as well. The single line deployment used at
Breitenfeld was caused by the need to match the unusaly wide front of the
combined Swedish-Saxon army. Outnumberd by 30% Tilly had no choice but to
forgo the use of multiple lines.

There were at least 3 European alternatives to the Spanish and Swedish
schools. There was the Dutch school, the Protestant German school and the
Catholic German school.

[nikgaukroger]

And whilst we're at it does anyone know where Charles got this from?

Following the official reduction in Spanish tercio strength circa 1584, the tercio may have assumed a flatter shape optimised to deliver greater frontal firepower and the rear shot horns were dispensed with.

I've yet to find where this "reform of 1584" comes from ...

[nikgaukroger]

For Karsten - what actual info is there on Tilly's formations in the early TYW? Do we know any specifics?

I have found this on Breitenfeld:

"the King and Duke approaching with their forces, the King on the
right hand and the Duke on the left, and seeing the Emp'* Army
so strong whose front was two English miles long, their files being
12 deep and hauing two Reserves that is two fresh Troopes
behinde."


From an English eyewitness who was with the Saxons on the Protestant left. Sydnam/Sydenham Poyntz

[Ghaznavid]

For Breitenfeld there are actually several accounts from eyewitnesses (although I know of none from the imperial side), one comming from Johann Georg I* (the commander of the saxon army that joined with Gustav). Not unexpectedly they are somewhat conflicting. What is certain and mentiond by all of them is that the imperial had reserves and at least the league part of their army was arranged deep, how deep though is the question (Johann wrote 'Gud zwemal de unsren' = 'at least twice ours' but it's not clear if he refers to his troops (likely IMO) or the Swedes. Anyway we are not sure how deep the Saxons were arranged but 8-10 deep seems probable, but matching the Swedes and go 6 deep can't be ruled out). It's also worth noting that league regiments were usually much less understrenth then Imperial ones.


* Not the same Johann as the one you cited (Johann Moritz) who is actually from the Netherlands.

[nikgaukroger]

Coming at this from the rules side this time to see what formations match up to what the rules have.

So we have:

Early Tercio

No flank or rear charges
Can shoot in any direction
Have to CMT to turn 90 or 180 degrees
Artillery shooting at them get a + PoA
Always count as Supported


Later Tercio

No flank charges
Can shoot to front and flank
Have to CMT to turn 90 or 180 degrees
Artillery shooting at them get a + PoA
Mostly count as supported



Looking at the Tercios web site http://usuarios.lycos.es/ao1617/home.html I think it is quite clear that the massive (3000+ men) formations with shot at each corner fit into Early Tercios – hardly surprising as they were the basis for it  The 16 base formation works well for these. The pike heavy tercios that marched to Flanders are probably best represented by 12 pike bases and 4 arquebusier bases and will not be Early Tercios IMO and will, therefore, be Keil’s if I read the rules correctly.

However, IMO the two “half sized” formations illustrated – El Prolongado and El Gente – also fit this category. They are just a smaller version of the large formation and so would function in the same way. As an additional note I would expect that even El Prolongado would have to be represented by at least 3 ranks of pike men being 16 ranks deep, anything less would not really be credible for that depth IMO. Although strictly half the size of the full formation, thus 8 bases would be logical, we may need to represent these with more than 8 bases to get the right “look and feel” if we think that to be important.

By the end of the C16th we appear to have tercios that are more like 1500 men strong in reality, with some being smaller. These are also now in a 2:1 shot:pike ratio. If these are still in relatively deep formations then the 9 base “Later Tercio” of the rules is probably OK – and I think that around 1600 they probably were deeper than the Dutch (who were 10 deep at this time and we have as 6 base BGs) if this picture of Nieuport is vaguely correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battl ... euport.jpg as the Spanish (right) are deeper with more flags per body.

One question is when did the massive formation cease to be used? Anything concrete or do we just pick a date and run with it?


So these C16th examples are fairly straight forward, but we need to think about some formations.

It is also, IMO, giving us a basic principle that for pike & shot formations up to 10 deep we are using 2 deep BGs with a 6 base BG representing, in the case of the Dutch, etc, a pair of hopen/battalions of around 5/600 men thus the BG represents c.1000/1200 men. The Swedish Brigade of 7 bases represents c.1400/1500. Does it, therefore, follow that other formations of around 1000/1200 men and (up to) 10 deep can be represented by 6 base BGs?

The next point at which I’ve found numbers for the Spanish is Nordlingen where the tercio website gives numbers of 1450 and 1800 for two of the tercios. This is following a reform in 1632 where the website suggests the formation depth was now 10 ranks for the pike men and possible less for the shot.

How should we represent them? The easiest solution is, IMO, to also have these as “Later Tercio” and not get hung up on the depth only being the same as the Dutch – we can explain the differences being that the Dutch, etc. are actually in smaller bodies with gaps between hence are easier to manoeuvre and are less vulnerable to artillery but more vulnerable to flank attacks as they are less massive so have less cohesion.

After this we have Rocroi with formations now being referred to as squadrons) of c. 900 men with Montecuccoli suggestion that formation depth for the Spanish at this time was 7, plus 6 deep ones in Spain. All pretty much the same as everyone else.

This means that the Spanish tercio by 1643 should also be represented by a 6 base BG and, obviously, it follows that the Tercio rules would no longer apply to them – unless we think that these formations did exhibit the features of the tercio rules i.e. less vulnerable to flank attacks, more vulnerable to artillery; but I don’t think this was the case. This will entail some list notes as the formations were still called tercios but we need to avoid confusion.

If this is all OK we just need a cut off for the end of the “Later Tercio” and before 1635 would fit in with other dates already in the lists. I don’t think we have enough info to be more specific. Any problems with this date?


And so onto the Germans ...

C16th Germans appear to have remained as massive 3000-ish men strong bodies, although they are 1:1 pike:shot by the end of the century. These are easy to represent being 4 deep 8 pike and 8 shot, the shot in 2 wings 4 deep – the latter raises the question of whether these should be able to shoot other than straight ahead making them, in effect, a Tercio?

After this I am still somewhat at a loss and undecided  There are some questions (below) that I think need answering before we can finalise on this.

Around the start of the C17th these bodies are perceived to be too big and smaller formations based around 1000 men 10 or 12 deep are introduced – as regiments appear to remain at a theoretical strength of 3000 I assume that a full strength regiment (should it ever exist) would form multiple bodies of 1000 men as these suggest:

Count Johann:
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... 1600_3.jpg
Basta:
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... ild005.jpg


At Breitenfeld we have Tilly’s forces described as being 12 deep or twice as deep as the Saxons. Reasonably reliable (as far as this is possible) illustrations of the time seem to show the Catholic infantry formations as larger.

Catholic League regiments appear to have been larger than Imperial ones – however, would this mean they formed up as one (large) body or multiple ones as per the links above?

At Lutzen we have Imperial foot drawn up in bodies of 1000 and 6/7 ranks deep. After this things appear to be pretty much the same as everyone else.

[nikgaukroger]

/bump because this is really important

[rbodleyscott]

/bump because this is really important

Sorry. For some reason I missed this post yesterday.

On a first reading your comments seem very sensible. But I guess it is Karsten and Xavier whose opinions you are currently seeking.

[nikgaukroger]

/bump because this is really important

Sorry. For some reason I missed this post yesterday.

On a first reading your comments seem very sensible.

Checking for sense is important

But I guess it is Karsten and Xavier whose opinions you are currently seeking.

It would help

I was wondering if it would be worth posting my last missive (maybe edited a bit) to the beta testers to get some feedback as well? Sort of market testing to check there is nothing that they feel is way off the mark and would be a turn off to a punter.

[rbodleyscott]

I was wondering if it would be worth posting my last missive (maybe edited a bit) to the beta testers to get some feedback as well? Sort of market testing to check there is nothing that they feel is way off the mark and would be a turn off to a punter.

I think so.

With regard to the 12 pike, 4 arquebus tercio, should it be represent as a kiel with 2 shot horn of 2 bases each at the front, or an early tercio with 4 horns of 1 base each (which would be crap). ?

Or could it be represented as an early tercio with 10 pike and 6 shot - with the front horns being 2 bases each and the rear 1 base each? (That might actually be more effective than the conventional tercio as it has more chance of the pikes being still 4 deep when they get to the enemy).

[nikgaukroger]

I was wondering if it would be worth posting my last missive (maybe edited a bit) to the beta testers to get some feedback as well? Sort of market testing to check there is nothing that they feel is way off the mark and would be a turn off to a punter.

I think so.

With regard to the 12 pike, 4 arquebus tercio, should it be represent as a kiel with 2 shot horn of 2 bases each at the front, or an early tercio with 4 horns of 1 base each (which would be crap). ?

I was thinking of the former.

Or could it be represented as an early tercio with 10 pike and 6 shot - with the front horns being 2 bases each and the rear 1 base each? (That might actually be more effective than the conventional tercio as it has more chance of the pikes being still 4 deep when they get to the enemy).

I'm not sure we want it as more effective to be honest - although the tercios sent to Flanders were pike heavy it looks to me as though they were restored to 1:1 ASAP.

[Ghaznavid]

The next point at which I’ve found numbers for the Spanish is Nordlingen where the tercio website gives numbers of 1450 and 1800 for two of the tercios. This is following a reform in 1632 where the website suggests the formation depth was now 10 ranks for the pike men and possible less for the shot.

How should we represent them? The easiest solution is, IMO, to also have these as “Later Tercio” and not get hung up on the depth only being the same as the Dutch – we can explain the differences being that the Dutch, etc. are actually in smaller bodies with gaps between hence are easier to manoeuvre and are less vulnerable to artillery but more vulnerable to flank attacks as they are less massive so have less cohesion.

I would count them as later tercios. In my opinion it's the last stage of Tercio evolution before the concept is abandoned for simpler line formations. (Who may also have the advantage to require less drill)

And so onto the Germans ...

C16th Germans appear to have remained as massive 3000-ish men strong bodies, although they are 1:1 pike:shot by the end of the century. These are easy to represent being 4 deep 8 pike and 8 shot, the shot in 2 wings 4 deep – the latter raises the question of whether these should be able to shoot other than straight ahead making them, in effect, a Tercio?

Hard to be certain as I can't offhand recall any mentioning of a flank attack on them. Again I think they are a late stage of Tercio evolution though, so probably should get at least the option to count as Tercio.

After this I am still somewhat at a loss and undecided  There are some questions (below) that I think need answering before we can finalise on this.

Around the start of the C17th these bodies are perceived to be too big and smaller formations based around 1000 men 10 or 12 deep are introduced – as regiments appear to remain at a theoretical strength of 3000 I assume that a full strength regiment (should it ever exist) would form multiple bodies of 1000 men as these suggest:

At Breitenfeld we have Tilly’s forces described as being 12 deep or twice as deep as the Saxons. Reasonably reliable (as far as this is possible) illustrations of the time seem to show the Catholic infantry formations as larger.

Catholic League regiments appear to have been larger than Imperial ones – however, would this mean they formed up as one (large) body or multiple ones as per the links above?

Possibly both. I'm not ruling out that Tilly kept his veterans in one or two big blocks and deployed his other troops differently. He seems to have used the veterans somewhat differently from the rest on more then one occasion. If that also applied to formation is of course speculation, but since it was often their role to force the breakthrough it makes a certain amount of sense.

[xavier]

Hi all,

Since I had missed this discussion until now, I'll try to catch up with different points that have been mentioned in different posts.


16th Century

The Tercios here have a theoretical strength of around 3000 men.
As David pointed out, there were companies of pikemen and companies of arquebussiers. First we had 8 + 2 companies of 300 men each (Italy 1534), later, Alba moves to the Neteherlands with four tercios of 10 + 2 companies of 250 men each. Nevertheless, tercios in Spain and Italy keep the original composition of 8 + 2 copmanies of 300 men.

Moreover, it is very important to take into account that pike companies included shoot and vice-versa. When David wrote that many people in Spain thinks of Tercios as mainly pike formations it's due to the fact that most of the companies that formed a tercio were called "Pike companies" despite the fact that there were also shooters included. What we need to carefully represent those units in the game is the real proportion pike:shot, no matter how the companies were called.

Spanish and Italian tercio pike companies: 179 pikemen, 90 arquebusiers, 20 musketeers, 11 officers
Flanders tercio pike companies: 219 pikemen, 20 musketeers, 11 officers
Spanish and Italian tercio shoot companies: 35 pikemen, 239 arquebusiers, 15 musketeers, 11 officers
Flanders tercio shoot companies: 224 arquebusiers, 15 musketeers, 11 officers.

This results in 1498 pikemen per 1388 shoot in the Spanish and Italian tercios (1:1), and 2190 pikemen per 678 shoot in the Flanders tercios (3:1).

But these are just theoretical figures. Real figures show smaller companies and higher ratio of shooters as David also pointed out. By the end of the XVI century the actual tercio strength was in many case closer to 1500 men than to 3000 men, less than half of them armed with pikes.

Taking all this into account, I think that the early tercio formation we have in the rules is correct.

The only point we might be missing with it is that Alba's tercios would probably be better represented as 10-12 pike + 4 shoot (considering a scale of 200 men per base). Then they might count as keils as Nik suggested? We should also consider until when we allow this formation, taking into acount that by the end of the 16th century actual tercio sizes seem to have been closer to 1500 men and effectively had a 2:1 proportion of shoot vs. pike...

In short:
- Early tercio ok as it is, with up to 16 elements 8 shoot + 8 pikemen. The big question mark is until when do we allow this formation; 1580?
- The army in the low countries should be able to field "keils" instead of early tercios from 1567 to 1580(?)
- The later 16th century tercios should be able to field twice as many shooters as pikemen and account for around 1500 men. Probably we can already consider them later tercios (allow rear charges to them). The total size of the BG depends on the scale we use...

Xavier

[xavier]

In 1632 we have an ordonnace that re-arranges the official composition of the tercio, and that probably simply reflects the changes the tercios had already experienced in reality.

The tercios in the low countries are rearranged as follows:
2 arquebusier companies (11 officers, 159 arquebusiers, 30 musketeers)
13 pikemen companies (11 oficers, 69 pikemen, 120 musketeers)
This totals 897 pikemen, 318 arquebusiers and 1620 musketeers, slightly more than 2:1 for the shooters

The tercios in Italy consist of 15x 11 officers + 70 pikemen + 79 arquebusiers + 40 musketeers.
1050 pikemen for 1785 shoot. Almost 2:1 for the shooters

The tercios in Spain consist of 12x 11 officers + 90 pikemen + 60 musketeers + 89 arquebusiers
1080 pikemen for 1788 shoot. Almost 2:1 for the shooters

These figures confirm the change to a clear 2:1 in favour of the shooters and the increasing importance of the musketeers.
Once again, total figueres are theoretical, and actual strength would be closer to 1500 men. At Nordlingen, the 2 old tercios that stood the Swedish infantry charges accounted for around 1800 men, the rest for about 1500. Late tercio as we have it in the rules seems ok for this.

After Rocroi, I would allow even smaller BGs, following the French or Dutch model.

Xavier

[xavier]

First one about the BGs sizes.

We have to fit somehow pike and shot BGs from 3000 to 600 men.

If the standard Dutch or French unit of 600 men is represented in the game by a 6 elements BG, how big should an early tercio be? 14 elements seem the minimum rather than the maxumum...

And what about late tercios of 1500-1800 men? Ideally they should be at least 12 lements big, but this is almost as much as early tercios....




Second one about arquebuses and muskets.

Muskets were fistly intruduced to skirmish and shoot at long range in front of the main tercio battleline. My understanding is that those musketeers are assumed to be part of the tercio BG. Correct?

Later on, there were more and more muskets until they constituted most of the tercio firepower. The big question mark here is if we create BGs with a mix of musket and arquebus. Here we should rather look at the consequences in terms of playability than the actual mix of troops we had in the tercios. My first impression would be that for the transition period we allow to choose between musket or arquebus, but than having to field both will lead either to a-historical deployments (all arquebusiers in one side, all musketeers on the other), or kind of game cheese (if we allow arquebuses to give rear support to muskets).

Regarding the shooters units detached from the tercios (mangas), at the beggining they were most probably arquebusiers. For the 17th century I have my doubts if we should grade them as musketeers or arquebusiers (or allow for a free choice).

Xavier

[nikgaukroger]

Karsten and Xavier many thanks for the input - I think I have it sorted in my mind now

[nikgaukroger]

After this I am still somewhat at a loss and undecided  There are some questions (below) that I think need answering before we can finalise on this.

Around the start of the C17th these bodies are perceived to be too big and smaller formations based around 1000 men 10 or 12 deep are introduced – as regiments appear to remain at a theoretical strength of 3000 I assume that a full strength regiment (should it ever exist) would form multiple bodies of 1000 men as these suggest:

At Breitenfeld we have Tilly’s forces described as being 12 deep or twice as deep as the Saxons. Reasonably reliable (as far as this is possible) illustrations of the time seem to show the Catholic infantry formations as larger.

Catholic League regiments appear to have been larger than Imperial ones – however, would this mean they formed up as one (large) body or multiple ones as per the links above?

Possibly both. I'm not ruling out that Tilly kept his veterans in one or two big blocks and deployed his other troops differently. He seems to have used the veterans somewhat differently from the rest on more then one occasion. If that also applied to formation is of course speculation, but since it was often their role to force the breakthrough it makes a certain amount of sense.

OK, we will have larger formations available for Tilly which will be, based on another thread, 1:1 pike:shot as an "old fashioned option".

[nikgaukroger]

These figures confirm the change to a clear 2:1 in favour of the shooters and the increasing importance of the musketeers.
Once again, total figueres are theoretical, and actual strength would be closer to 1500 men. At Nordlingen, the 2 old tercios that stood the Swedish infantry charges accounted for around 1800 men, the rest for about 1500. Late tercio as we have it in the rules seems ok for this.

After Rocroi, I would allow even smaller BGs, following the French or Dutch model.

Xavier

I'm pretty much looking at 1635 as the cut off between the later tercio and battalions as I think that by Rocroi the units had fallen to a size where allowing them Tercio does not make sense - roughly 900 men strong is the number I have for the 5 Spanish tercios at Rocroi.