Early Imperial Spanish

[nikgaukroger]

List notes say:

Spanish, Italian and Irish foot were organized in Tercios throughout the period. Walloon troops at first operated like German landsknechts, but were reorganized into Tercios in 1602. Despite the poor opinion Alba held of landsknechts - he is said to have hired them just to avoid them being hired by the enemy - they were still the most numerous national contingent in the army of Flanders.

Richard has the following query:

The most numerous excluding Spanish, or the most numerous overall? If the latter, do the current maxima allow this to be so?

Also query whther Burgundian gendarmes should have a Superior option if only Average in the earlier list (or, presumably, the earlier should have a Superior option).

Additionally query as to whether the Celadas, Jinetes, Herreruelos and herguletiers should have an Unarmoured option.


And lastly about the Stradiots:

Should these exist at this date? The Venetians don’t get them after 1550. If they do exist, should the later Venetians also have them. And if they do exist they should presumably have Cavalry option if they do in other lists.

To which I'd like to add a query as to what troops were there in the Low Countries before Alba marched his tercios there?

[robertthebruce]

List notes say:



Spanish, Italian and Irish foot were organized in Tercios throughout the period. Walloon troops at first operated like German landsknechts, but were reorganized into Tercios in 1602. Despite the poor opinion Alba held of landsknechts - he is said to have hired them just to avoid them being hired by the enemy - they were still the most numerous national contingent in the army of Flanders.





Richard has the following query:


The most numerous excluding Spanish, or the most numerous overall? If the latter, do the current maxima allow this to be so?

In 1572 the Duke of Alba has 53.000 infantry, 19.500 Waloons, 24.440 Germans and 9.100 Spanish.
In 1607 the Archiduke Alberto has 45.000, 14.000 Waloons, 16.800 Germans,, 3.700 Italians, 2.440 Irish, 1.500 Burgundians and 6.550 Spanish.

I think the maxima should reflect it, before 1602 at least.

Also query whther Burgundian gendarmes should have a Superior option if only Average in the earlier list (or, presumably, the earlier should have a Superior option).

Mea culpa, they should have the superior option in the Caroline list.

Additionally query as to whether the Celadas, Jinetes, Herreruelos and herguletiers should have an Unarmoured option

Celadas and Jinetes as I explained in the post of the Caroline list, not unarmoured option for Celadas yes for Jinetes.

Herguletiers, they loose the armour gradualy, ok for the unarmoured option.

These are the lighter Herreruelos that I have founded, what do you think?

And lastly about the Stradiots:



Should these exist at this date? The Venetians don’t get them after 1550. If they do exist, should the later Venetians also have them. And if they do exist they should presumably have Cavalry option if they do in other lists.

I have nothing about them after the italian wars.

[xavier]

Maxima for Landsknechts / Flemish / Walloon foot

True, we should actually increase maxima in the army of Flanders between 1567 and Flemish and Walloon foot reconversion into tercios in 1602, so that we can have an army with more of them than Spanish / Italian / Irish tercios.


Burgundian gendarmes

They were better than their Dutch counterparts, and not always worse than French gendarmerie, therefore the Superior option.


Lighter cavalry: celadas, jinetes, herreruelos

I agree with David's comments: celadas shouldn't have an unarmoured option, while may have a horse option. For the rest, ok to have an unprotected option.


Stradiots

Two companies of stradiots are reported in Alba’s army departing from Italy. I copy-pasted the classification from somewhere else since I don't have information about their actual equipment.


Troops in the Low Countries before Alba

There was the army organised to attack northern France and bring the Italian Wars to an end, but this was probably disbanded after the war. I assume that part of the Spanish and Flemish troops remained as garrissons, but as far as I know, there was no big army in Flanders between 1559 and 1566. That's the reason why an army had to be sent from Italy to suffocate the revolt.

[nikgaukroger]

And lastly about the Stradiots:

Should these exist at this date? The Venetians don’t get them after 1550. If they do exist, should the later Venetians also have them. And if they do exist they should presumably have Cavalry option if they do in other lists.

Odd though it may sound by the end of the Italian Wars the Venetians had stopped using Strdiots, at least in Italy, however, a few "Albanians" crop up in other armies. Heath says that they feature regularly in English accounts of the Dutch revolt referred to as "Albanoyses" or similar. This does mean we need to allow them in the army of Flanders as well as in Italy as the list currently only allows them in Italy. Heath implies that they seem to have disappeared around 1590 and may have become part of the herreruelos.

[nikgaukroger]

In 1572 the Duke of Alba has 53.000 infantry, 19.500 Waloons, 24.440 Germans and 9.100 Spanish.
In 1607 the Archiduke Alberto has 45.000, 14.000 Waloons, 16.800 Germans,, 3.700 Italians, 2.440 Irish, 1.500 Burgundians and 6.550 Spanish.

I think the maxima should reflect it, before 1602 at least.

OK, I've added a list note to this list similar to the one I've added to the Caroline Imperial:

"Armies in Flanders from 1570 must have more Landsknecht, Walloon and Flemish infantry battle groups than Tercio battle groups."

and increased the maxima to 64.

I've made it from 1570 as I am assuming that following Alba's arrival it took time for a build up of non-Spanish/Ita;ian, etc. to exceed the troops bropught from Italy.

I will also add a note that the Landskecht, etc. types are not allowed in Flanders from 1602.

I'll pop in some troops notes to explain at a later date.

[rbodleyscott]

I suggest we need to reduce the tercio minimum to 9 in Italy and Flanders - I have put this in my update.

[xavier]

And lastly about the Stradiots:

Should these exist at this date? The Venetians don’t get them after 1550. If they do exist, should the later Venetians also have them. And if they do exist they should presumably have Cavalry option if they do in other lists.

Odd though it may sound by the end of the Italian Wars the Venetians had stopped using Strdiots, at least in Italy, however, a few "Albanians" crop up in other armies. Heath says that they feature regularly in English accounts of the Dutch revolt referred to as "Albanoyses" or similar. This does mean we need to allow them in the army of Flanders as well as in Italy as the list currently only allows them in Italy. Heath implies that they seem to have disappeared around 1590 and may have become part of the herreruelos.

Good point. Since there are two companies of stradiots mentioned in the army that Alba led from Italy to Flanders, we should actually allow them in the Flanders army at least from 1567 to 1573 (as the special tercios with more pikemen than shot).

[xavier]

I will also add a note that the Landskecht, etc. types are not allowed in Flanders from 1602.

I'll pop in some troops notes to explain at a later date.

The Flemish and Walloon regiments were converted into tercios in 1602, but the mercenary German landsknechts kept their own organisation all the period long.
Therefore we could simply write "Walloon and Flemish infantry before 1602 or mercenary Lansknechts".

Consequently, armies in Flanders from 1570 to 1602 must have more Landsknecht, Walloon and Flemish infantry battle groups than Tercio battle groups.
From 1602, the Flemish and Walloon regiments are already included in the tercios, so from that date on, thre should be at least twice as many Tercio BG than landsknechts BGs...

I hope it's clear now

Xavier

[nikgaukroger]

Good point. Since there are two companies of stradiots mentioned in the army that Alba led from Italy to Flanders, we should actually allow them in the Flanders army at least from 1567 to 1573 (as the special tercios with more pikemen than shot).

I've currently allowed them for Italy and Flanders and I put a 1590 end date on them from something in Heath.

[nikgaukroger]

The Flemish and Walloon regiments were converted into tercios in 1602, but the mercenary German landsknechts kept their own organisation all the period long.
Therefore we could simply write "Walloon and Flemish infantry before 1602 or mercenary Lansknechts".

Consequently, armies in Flanders from 1570 to 1602 must have more Landsknecht, Walloon and Flemish infantry battle groups than Tercio battle groups.
From 1602, the Flemish and Walloon regiments are already included in the tercios, so from that date on, thre should be at least twice as many Tercio BG than landsknechts BGs...

I'm sure that can be accommodated.

[rbodleyscott]

I suggest we need to reduce the tercio minimum to 9 in Italy and Flanders - I have put this in my update.

/bump

[nikgaukroger]

OK

[xavier]

On top of the celadas grading issue (see post in the dedicated topic), I would make at least BG of horse graded celadas as compulsory from 1573, so that even if we keep the LH option, at least a BG has to be taken as horse.

No need for compulsory horse before, since there are no celadas mentioned in the army Alba moved from Italy to Flanders.

[rbodleyscott]

It's a minor point, but we may as well clear it up:

“British” as applied to the “British Isles” may include Ireland – though I suspect that the Irish might dispute this. However, when applied to people, it applies only to the people of Great Britain.


e.g.

Brit·ish (brtsh)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture.
b. Of or relating to the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations.
2. Of or relating to the ancient Britons.
n.
1. (used with a pl. verb) The people of Great Britain.
2. British English.
3. The Celtic language of the ancient Britons.

Anyway, “British and Irish” conveys more information, so I will edit the blurb accordingly, unless you have further objection.

[rbodleyscott]

The special instructions have dire effects on the minima in Italy anjd Flanders.

A rethink is perhaps required.

[nikgaukroger]

The special instructions have dire effects on the minima in Italy anjd Flanders.

A rethink is perhaps required.

I'll have a look at it.

[Ghaznavid]

While at that Nik... I'm not sure about the late Landsknecht BGs in that list. Unless so poorly armed that there weren't enough Arquebusiers available Landsknecht units employed Tercio formations as a standard from 1560 (possibly earlier, but 1560 is a save bet). While Landsknecht Tecios tended to be smaller then Spanish ones (about 2000 being the target and 1300-1500 the usually strength) they would be functionally identical.
Also the very term Landsknecht was on its way out by the mid 16th Cen. and by 1580 at the latest had been replaced by 'kaiserlicher Fußknecht' (imperial Footsoldier).

[nikgaukroger]

While at that Nik... I'm not sure about the late Landsknecht BGs in that list. Unless so poorly armed that there weren't enough Arquebusiers available Landsknecht units employed Tercio formations as a standard from 1560 (possibly earlier, but 1560 is a save bet). While Landsknecht Tecios tended to be smaller then Spanish ones (about 2000 being the target and 1300-1500 the usually strength) they would be functionally identical.

The information I have seen on the German infantry in Flanders during the Dutch rebellion in the C16th has them with fewer than 50% of the men being shot armed - certainly less than the Spanish, etc. tercios. Figures for the Germans in French service during the Wars of Religion at the same time show about 40% shot armed.

Also the very term Landsknecht was on its way out by the mid 16th Cen. and by 1580 at the latest had been replaced by 'kaiserlicher Fußknecht' (imperial Footsoldier).

Not sure it would be a good idea to call the troops kaiser lickers

[nikgaukroger]

The special instructions have dire effects on the minima in Italy anjd Flanders.

A rethink is perhaps required.

I'll have a look at it.

I think the answer here is, as suggested, that we say that there should be "at least as many" Landsknecht, etc. BGs as Tercio BGs - plus dropping the tercio minimum.

I think it would be justifiable as, although in total there were more Landsknecht, etc. types in Flanders, the tercios were the main troops of the army and would be the core of any field force with the Landsknechts, etc. more likely to be left as garrisons.

The same can apply to the Caroline list (although it may be a bit more of a fudge for that one).

[rbodleyscott]

The theoretical strength of the Tercio was still 3,000 men. The Tercios of Spain and Italy were supposed to have 10 companies of 300 men each, with roughly equal numbers of pikemen and shooters. The tercios raised by the Duke of Alba to suppress the Dutch rebellion had 12 companies of 250 men, and were supposed to have three pikemen for each shot. However, from the start of the Dutch rebellion actual numbers in campaign show companies of around 175 men, with 60% shot, and that proportion increasing with time. The only exception to this are Alba’s Tercios between 1567 and 1573, with an actual ratio of circa 30% shot. The proportion of musketeers to arquebusiers also increased with time, but during this period was not sufficient to give shot integrated in tercios musketeer capability. We give it only to detached units on skirmish missions.

Highlighted section makes no sense as it says Alba’s tercios had 60% shot and had 30% shot ! Surely it can only be one of these.

Comments please amigos.