Early C16th German lists

[Ghaznavid]

I don't understand why Berittene Hakenbüchsen-schützen can be Cavalry at any date, but only Horse before 1509.

Should they really be Cavalry rather than Horse after 1509?

Shouldn't it be the other way round? (Cavalry only before 1509, horse at any date)

The horse is for those early types that were meant (according to the manual by Seldeneck) to fire and charge (I've not found a battle description that explicitly states they actually did so, but some cases (actually more skirmishes then battles) are usually considered to show that type of behaviour ... usually vs. proper MAA and with a disastrous outcome. (Actually determined horse might be better as their formations were usually shallow, but there is no heavily armoured determined horse.) There were always some with a more sensible approach that tended to be lighter armoured (probably not consisting mainly of nobles) which employed the same tactics they mounted Crossbows always did, which is avoid contact until the enemy is properly softened or can be charged into the flank, etc.
It could be a regional thing as well, but with only a handful of examples for either case there isn't enough data to make such a judgment. After 1510 it appears that the hard charging type was gone for good.
The point is that horse is probably the wrong classification until the advent of caracoling Reiters. If it helps, you can restrict the heavily armoured to before 1509 or even to the horse. I'm not certain that is correct, but I doubt it will be easy to prove the opposite, so what the heck. Likewise if you restrict the heavily armoured option you could then consider to restrict Cavalry to the same time and make them determined horse after that.

[nikgaukroger]

Should the German States list have Landsknecht Verlorene Haufen like the Maximilian list?

I've been uncertain about that, but just found a description about the battle of Sievershausen that not only mentions an Verlorene Haufen advance guard but also claims it to be standard tactic at that time. I'm still not sure about the standard tactic, but it seems inclusion of Verlorene Haufen for the German States list is justified.

Same dates as the Maximilian list I take it?

Other points:
Gendarmes:
4-12 Fully armoured Gendarmes
and 8-12 Heavily Armoured Horse
So there is no way to create an army with no more then 8 Gendarmes and accordingly you effectively included a 6 base minima for poorly equipped gendarmes.
I also think it would be realistic to allow for the Heavily armoured horse gendarmes and the poorly eqipped ones to be 1/2 and 1/2 of the same BG (I actually think it should be mandatory if the poorly eqipped MAA are mandatory).

Richard has already commented that a BG should have the same armour classification for all its bases.

[Ghaznavid]

Should the German States list have Landsknecht Verlorene Haufen like the Maximilian list?

I've been uncertain about that, but just found a description about the battle of Sievershausen that not only mentions an Verlorene Haufen advance guard but also claims it to be standard tactic at that time. I'm still not sure about the standard tactic, but it seems inclusion of Verlorene Haufen for the German States list is justified.

Same dates as the Maximilian list I take it?

Aye.

Other points:
Gendarmes:
4-12 Fully armoured Gendarmes
and 8-12 Heavily Armoured Horse
So there is no way to create an army with no more then 8 Gendarmes and accordingly you effectively included a 6 base minima for poorly equipped gendarmes.
I also think it would be realistic to allow for the Heavily armoured horse gendarmes and the poorly eqipped ones to be 1/2 and 1/2 of the same BG (I actually think it should be mandatory if the poorly eqipped MAA are mandatory).

Richard has already commented that a BG should have the same armour classification for all its bases.

Don't really see why, but ok, that makes it more complicated. I guess all heavily armoured before 1520'ish and all armoured afterwards would fit best then. Given that they usually still have an substantive 'ablative shielding' through fully equipped MAA early on.

[nikgaukroger]

Karsten,

Could you just tell me what you think the lines should be in the list and the notes on constructing an army - I suspect it will be easier if you dictate it than me blundering around as I'm not sure I've wholly grasped what you're after

[rbodleyscott]

The following special instruction appears in the German States list.

 Gendarme battle groups must be fielded as all Gendarmes or all Horse.

Does this mean that all Gendarmes must be Gendarmes or all Horse? If so it should be reworded accordingly.

If it means what it actually appears to say - "Each gendarme battle group must be all Gendarmes or all Horse" - it is redundant as the same applies to all troops with multiple possible classifications.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't understand why Berittene Hakenbüchsen-schützen can be Cavalry at any date, but only Horse before 1509.

Should they really be Cavalry rather than Horse after 1509?

Shouldn't it be the other way round? (Cavalry only before 1509, horse at any date)

The horse is for those early types that were meant (according to the manual by Seldeneck) to fire and charge (I've not found a battle description that explicitly states they actually did so, but some cases (actually more skirmishes then battles) are usually considered to show that type of behaviour ... usually vs. proper MAA and with a disastrous outcome. (Actually determined horse might be better as their formations were usually shallow, but there is no heavily armoured determined horse.) There were always some with a more sensible approach that tended to be lighter armoured (probably not consisting mainly of nobles) which employed the same tactics they mounted Crossbows always did, which is avoid contact until the enemy is properly softened or can be charged into the flank, etc.
It could be a regional thing as well, but with only a handful of examples for either case there isn't enough data to make such a judgment. After 1510 it appears that the hard charging type was gone for good.
The point is that horse is probably the wrong classification until the advent of caracoling Reiters. If it helps, you can restrict the heavily armoured to before 1509 or even to the horse. I'm not certain that is correct, but I doubt it will be easy to prove the opposite, so what the heck. Likewise if you restrict the heavily armoured option you could then consider to restrict Cavalry to the same time and make them determined horse after that.

Should they be Horse after 1543?

[Ghaznavid]

I don't understand why Berittene Hakenbüchsen-schützen can be Cavalry at any date, but only Horse before 1509.

Should they really be Cavalry rather than Horse after 1509?

Shouldn't it be the other way round? (Cavalry only before 1509, horse at any date)

The horse is for those early types that were meant (according to the manual by Seldeneck) to fire and charge (I've not found a battle description that explicitly states they actually did so, but some cases (actually more skirmishes then battles) are usually considered to show that type of behaviour ... usually vs. proper MAA and with a disastrous outcome. (Actually determined horse might be better as their formations were usually shallow, but there is no heavily armoured determined horse.) There were always some with a more sensible approach that tended to be lighter armoured (probably not consisting mainly of nobles) which employed the same tactics they mounted Crossbows always did, which is avoid contact until the enemy is properly softened or can be charged into the flank, etc.
It could be a regional thing as well, but with only a handful of examples for either case there isn't enough data to make such a judgment. After 1510 it appears that the hard charging type was gone for good.
The point is that horse is probably the wrong classification until the advent of caracoling Reiters. If it helps, you can restrict the heavily armoured to before 1509 or even to the horse. I'm not certain that is correct, but I doubt it will be easy to prove the opposite, so what the heck. Likewise if you restrict the heavily armoured option you could then consider to restrict Cavalry to the same time and make them determined horse after that.

Should they be Horse after 1543?

I tend to think the switch was gradual, but if you favor a sharp dividing line, just replace "any date" with "before 1543", as from 1543 the list permits Reiters anyway (might need allowing for 0-12 Reiters in that case though).

[Ghaznavid]

Karsten,

Could you just tell me what you think the lines should be in the list and the notes on constructing an army - I suspect it will be easier if you dictate it than me blundering around as I'm not sure I've wholly grasped what you're after

In the mail, hope it makes sense.

[rbodleyscott]

Should they be Horse after 1543?

I tend to think the switch was gradual, but if you favor a sharp dividing line, just replace "any date" with "before 1543", as from 1543 the list permits Reiters anyway (might need allowing for 0-12 Reiters in that case though).

My thought was that there would (might) continue to be mounted arquebusiers after that date as well as reiters - they have continuous existence in other lists - but that after 1543 they might be best classified as Horse.

Of course I have no concrete historical basis for these thoughts, I was just speculating on the basis of developments in other lists and hoping that you would supply an evidence based answer.

[Ghaznavid]

Well lets put it this way: During the Schmalkaldic War and later there is no evidence of any German mounted using skirmishing tactics, so Cv might be wrong. I do have a problem with the 'deep' formations horse implies however. Deep formations are unusual and only due to circumstances for either the mounted Arquebusiers or the emerging Reiters until the latter start 'caracoling'.

[Ghaznavid]

German States ally line:
It currently says German States allies (only in 1513).
There should not be any time constraints (it's a leftover as I first wrote the Imperial list and then 'reworked' it, the 1513 stems from the Henrician Enlgish Allies Max gets).

Verlorene Haufen ... difficult one. No I'm not happy with 1 pike and 2 BGs Verlorene Haufen, I didn't think it likely enough to be worth the bother though.
1 BG per Pike block would be to much. Ideally the number of HW Bases should be about the same no matter if you decided to use them 'inside' the pikes or deploy them seperately. So 1 Verlorene Haufen BG per 2 pike BGs sounds about right.

[nikgaukroger]

Verlorene Haufen ... difficult one. No I'm not happy with 1 pike and 2 BGs Verlorene Haufen, I didn't think it likely enough to be worth the bother though.
1 BG per Pike block would be to much. Ideally the number of HW Bases should be about the same no matter if you decided to use them 'inside' the pikes or deploy them seperately. So 1 Verlorene Haufen BG per 2 pike BGs sounds about right.

I'll put 0-1 per 2 pike BGs in the next draft then shall I?

It means the German States ally won't be able to have any (not enough pike BGs allowed), however, I can't see that being an issue.

[Ghaznavid]

BG size is 8-16 and you can have up to 16 at the given time frame, so if one absolutely wants to ...

[nikgaukroger]

BG size is 8-16 and you can have up to 16 at the given time frame, so if one absolutely wants to ...

So it is - I'll leave them in then