pike-shot footprint at varying sizes

[Grandviceroy2018]

the rule book nicely displays the foot print of the big battalions of a dozen bases...

...but none of the pike/shot units or tercios in the army list book are that large...most seem to be 6 to 9 bases...

where are these big tercios to be found? what army lists?


also, the bases of shot in the rear wings of the formations -- how do they ever come into play unless the unit is hit in flank?

also, the examples shown on page 31 have gaps where bases died -- shouldn't the rear bases at least fill in for the dead? and can't the losses be taken from the back?

[rbodleyscott]

the rule book nicely displays the foot print of the big battalions of a dozen bases...

...but none of the pike/shot units or tercios in the army list book are that large...most seem to be 6 to 9 bases...

where are these big tercios to be found? what army lists?

In the earlier period lists - notably in Book 2 Trade and Treachery

also, the bases of shot in the rear wings of the formations -- how do they ever come into play unless the unit is hit in flank?

They can also shoot to the flank/rear.

The fact they they mostly cannot do anything is the postulated reason for the change to shallower formations.

also, the examples shown on page 31 have gaps where bases died -- shouldn't the rear bases at least fill in for the dead? and can't the losses be taken from the back?

Early Tercios maintain their footprint even if it leave gaps.

Yes, losses can be replaced from the back, but if any of the 4 horn positions are left empty, the tercio immediately loses the benefits of an early tercio and becomes a later tercio.

[LambertSimnel]

the rule book nicely displays the foot print of the big battalions of a dozen bases...

...but none of the pike/shot units or tercios in the army list book are that large...most seem to be 6 to 9 bases...

where are these big tercios to be found? what army lists?


also, the bases of shot in the rear wings of the formations -- how do they ever come into play unless the unit is hit in flank?

also, the examples shown on page 31 have gaps where bases died -- shouldn't the rear bases at least fill in for the dead? and can't the losses be taken from the back?

Tilly's Early Thirty Years' War German Catholic army can have it's foot in 12 base Early Tercios

[david53]

the rule book nicely displays the foot print of the big battalions of a dozen bases...

...but none of the pike/shot units or tercios in the army list book are that large...most seem to be 6 to 9 bases...

where are these big tercios to be found? what army lists?


also, the bases of shot in the rear wings of the formations -- how do they ever come into play unless the unit is hit in flank?

also, the examples shown on page 31 have gaps where bases died -- shouldn't the rear bases at least fill in for the dead? and can't the losses be taken from the back?

Tilly's Early Thirty Years' War German Catholic army can have it's foot in 12 base Early Tercios

And get shot at on 4s by artillery

[Scrumpy]

What about Colunellas ?

[rbodleyscott]

What about Colunellas ?

What about them?

[Scrumpy]

I wondered why the Spanish adopted the Tercio instead of it.

[ethan]

the rule book nicely displays the foot print of the big battalions of a dozen bases...

...but none of the pike/shot units or tercios in the army list book are that large...most seem to be 6 to 9 bases...

where are these big tercios to be found? what army lists?

In the earlier period lists - notably in Book 2 Trade and Treachery

Early 30YW Catholics in Germany also get early tercios.

[Skullzgrinda]

Would Huguenot foot be in large units like the tercios, or the smaller battalion line looking types? Dutch, I guess. I really am not that familiar with this period.

[DanielS]

Tilly's Early Thirty Years' War German Catholic army can have it's foot in 12 base Early Tercios

I find that both surprising and disapointing as modern research on the subject points in a rather diffrent direction and there is of course the fact that the Germans didn't use 'Tercios' at all (indeed not even the Spanish used a tactical formation called a "tercio") but rather fought in regiments & battalions.

[DanielS]

also, the bases of shot in the rear wings of the formations -- how do they ever come into play unless the unit is hit in flank?

They can also shoot to the flank/rear.

The fact they they mostly cannot do anything is the postulated reason for the change to shallower formations.

also, the examples shown on page 31 have gaps where bases died -- shouldn't the rear bases at least fill in for the dead? and can't the losses be taken from the back?

Early Tercios maintain their footprint even if it leave gaps.

Yes, losses can be replaced from the back, but if any of the 4 horn positions are left empty, the tercio immediately loses the benefits of an early tercio and becomes a later tercio.

But the 'Mangas' were not in any way tied down into static positions at each corner, they could and would move to the position where they would have the most effect. For example prints of Nieuport 1600 show all 4 'Mangas' advancing in front of the Escaudron of pikes. At Nördlingen not only the Mangas of the Tercio's defending the Albuch move independtly on the hillside to employ their firepower to the best effect but a large number of Mangas waiting below the hill was detached from their Escaudron's and sent to join the fight on top of the hill.

The Spanish were well aware of the advantages of shallower formations, after all they employed 5 or more ways to form up the Escaudron itself, several which were wide, a key part of the Spanish system was the flexibility that arose from not being tied down to only one file depth. The Mangas which had most of the shot were formed up much thinner as already in the 1560's if not earlier the Spanish knew that to get the best effect from firearms you had to use shallow formations.

[rbodleyscott]

Tilly's Early Thirty Years' War German Catholic army can have it's foot in 12 base Early Tercios

I find that both surprising and disapointing as modern research on the subject points in a rather diffrent direction and there is of course the fact that the Germans didn't use 'Tercios' at all (indeed not even the Spanish used a tactical formation called a "tercio") but rather fought in regiments & battalions.

Daniel,

Why don't you wait till you see the actual lists before you throw up your hands in horror.

All may not be as black as your worst fears. (Then again it might be, but at least give us the benefit of the doubt until you see the lists).

Also bear in mind that as long as the lists allow you to use options that concord with your reading of history, nobody will be harmed if other players want to use additional options that you deem less realistic or based on discredited historical views.

Richard

[bertalucci]

The Perfect Captain website has a mass of Campaign ideas and systems for vaoius periods covered by FoGR & FoGAM. (All free)
Which in my view can work well without massive time investment

[DanielS]

Daniel,

Why don't you wait till you see the actual lists before you throw up your hands in horror.

All may not be as black as your worst fears. (Then again it might be, but at least give us the benefit of the doubt until you see the lists).

Point taken, I'll do so. The dark side of intense study of a period is a certain amount of obsession with it, at times flavoured with a dash of obnoxiousness.

Also bear in mind that as long as the lists allow you to use options that concord with your reading of history, nobody will be harmed if other players want to use additional options that you deem less realistic or based on discredited historical views.

I suspect that this is point where we will have to agree to disagree as I do consider keeping "discredited historical views" alive in army lists & rules to be potentially harmfull as far as the historical part of the hobby is concerned. Romantic/Heroic stuff like the wild Finnish hackapells is one thing, at worst such things are annoying. But major errors/distortions like "everyone caracoled until Gustavus Adolphus reinvented the cavalry charge" or "Tilly used Spanish formations which were huge, clumsy and backwards" is another matter IMO. Do note that these are simply examples, I'm not saying that this is what is done in the lists, as you correctly pointed out I should read the lists before making further comments, rather than reacting to short online descriptions taken out of context.

Daniel

[DanielS]

I've now recived both the rules and the WoR army lists, at first glance there is much to be impressed by but also some parts that are deeply disapointing, particularly as the serious research effort I had seen online on some subjects left me with some fairly high hopes due to the qualified way in which the questions were asked.

The description of the Leaugist infantry and their choice of tactics fall into the "deeply disapointing" category I'm afraid as what I found was worse than my worst fears. The actual list is not main problem as it offers a possible way to work around the issue, rather it is the sweeping and by no means uncertain description found in the "Troop Notes" which contains a number of serious errors which are not supported by the primary sources or well researched modern secondary sources.

[Scrumpy]

Namely ?

[DanielS]

That Tilly was obsessed with forming up his pikes in old fashioned deep formations, my guess is that it is based on Guthrie but well researched modern works such as Junkelmann points in a rather diffrent direction as do the primary sources for forexample Breitenfeldt.

That Leaugist infantry regiments were much larger than the Imperial regiments in the field. Another thing which may have been taken from Guthrie. But the sources don't show the marked difference in strenght described. At Lutter 1626 the Leaugist regiments were 600 to 1500 men while the Imperial regiments sent by Wallenstein were 1500 to 2000 strong. The Bindauf Lists showing Tilly's foot at Magdeburg and in August 1631 show no such marked difference between the two nor do the Werben list. Geleen's Leugist regiment fielded 2000 men in the Breitenfeld campaign but so did several of Fürstenberg's Imperial regiments and so on.
Some Imperial regiments were weaker only because they had been raised with fewer companies, 5 instead of the customary 10 but on the battlefield such untis were combined to form battalions.

Between the army list and the "Troop Notes" Tilly's and his infantry is presented as fighting in large & old fashioned formations in no uncertain terms.

[nikgaukroger]

That Tilly was obsessed with forming up his pikes in old fashioned deep formations, my guess is that it is based on Guthrie but well researched modern works such as Junkelmann points in a rather diffrent direction as do the primary sources for forexample Breitenfeldt.

Maybe the guy who wrote the list will comment, however, I do know that when pressed on the issue he was clear that the resources he used supported what he wrote. They'd be German, and not Guthrie

[Montesa]

But the 'Mangas' were not in any way tied down into static positions at each corner, they could and would move to the position where they would have the most effect. For example prints of Nieuport 1600 show all 4 'Mangas' advancing in front of the Escaudron of pikes. At Nördlingen not only the Mangas of the Tercio's defending the Albuch move independtly on the hillside to employ their firepower to the best effect but a large number of Mangas waiting below the hill was detached from their Escaudron's and sent to join the fight on top of the hill.

And the "mangas" (sleeves) also take refuge in the "escuadrón" (square) of pikemen if the cavalry charged the tercio.

[ethan]

one thing to bear in mind is the commanding out shot rule, which looks like it could allow a lot more flexibilty than might be otherwise appareant.