Dates of the period

o54881 · Post by **o54881** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:14 pm

If FoGR starts where FoG ends, when should it stop? 1660? 1700? 1715?

puster · Post by **puster** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:03 am

Don`t put it on a specific date, but rather the introduction of the flintlock musket and, imho more important here, the bayonet. Before that, the pike had its place on the battlefield, together with the handgun, after it the musketeer was the principal and soon the only infantry.
For western Europe that would put the date between 1650 and 1700.

1659 could be a good date. It ends the French/Spanish war, and the last battle of this one was already fought in linear formation. It includes the ECW, the 30yw and the Spanish war with France and in Flanders. The period should start with the first invasion of Italy by France 1494, which indirectly started the French/Spanish conflict via Naples, so at the end the period is nicely tied up.
The other possible enddate is the second siege of Vienna, but on the European side that was already mainly fought with troops that belong more to the cabinet age (Winged Hussars aside), so its imho already on the other side of the Rennaissance.

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:08 pm

1659 seems a good end date to me. The other consideration is a technological or tactical change, such as the end of pike, which didn't take place until nearly 1700 in the West.

Dale

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:42 pm

I would have thought we could extend to at least the Glorious revolution.
John

puster · Post by **puster** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:10 am

marshalney2000 wrote:I would have thought we could extend to at least the Glorious revolution.

At that time the continent, led by France, already had switched its military system to the "cabinet wars". The conflicts of Ludwig XIV, starting with the Dutch war of 1672, are no longer fought by the pike & shot armies of the Renaissance. The transition probably depends on the area.

Actually it depends on the system that FOG delivers. With Renaissance and Napoleonic systems we probably either need another for the cabinet wars in between, or have to adapt either of these. If FOGR enables battles without pikes and using linear formations, then I am all for it. If not, lets put in the transition where faster shooting and bayonets change the face of battle. Even when some armies still use pikes in the twenties (of the 18th century in the Nordic wars) their time is over with the end of the 30yw and the ecw. Contemporaries, like Grimmelsdorf, already state that pikemen are usually "innocents", means they almost never kill in battle, they just offer protection for the musketeers.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:46 am

Puster, Pikes to sometimes get reintroduced, by armies of the early 18thC that had already dropped using them. Specifically Iain Sandford of the Pike and Shot Society has uncovered lots of examples of English regiments in the early 1700's having to be re-equipped with Pike. I suspect that the authors of the lists will have to provide options and allow people to make their choices, just like they have with Imperial Roman Auxillia.

Andy1972 · Post by **Andy1972** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:29 am

For me, i am interested in the 30 Years war. I knew nothing about it a few months ago.. And i read a book about it.. What horrible war! And what a mess! But what fun in a wargame! 22millionish people living in Germanyish(its a word now!) In 3000 kingdoms/princeapalites/city states ect... Throw in relgion/personal power and watch the fun begin.

puster · Post by **puster** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:17 am

timmy1 wrote:Puster, Pikes to sometimes get reintroduced, by armies of the early 18thC that had already dropped using them. .

I assume the main reason for using the pike is that it was more effective then a bayonet against cavalry and far easier to learn and use in battle. Its also a good deal cheaper then a flintlock musket and tends not to explode into the face of newly drafted recruits.

So if you have to field some effective units fast, pikes were an option - but only usefull if combined with other units that could also hand out hurt at a distance, like artillery or regulars.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:19 pm

If there's anybody else here wondering WTF they mean by Cabinet Wars (I've been a wargamer since 1971, and I'd never heard the term before), there's a listing here, but under the German word Kabinettskriege rather than Cabinet Wars.

Turns out I was familiar with the period, just not that term for it. I didn't know it really had a name in English.

puster · Post by **puster** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:19 am

possum wrote:If there's anybody else here wondering WTF they mean by Cabinet Wars (I've been a wargamer since 1971, and I'd never heard the term before), there's a listing here, but under the German word Kabinettskriege rather than Cabinet Wars.

Turns out I was familiar with the period, just not that term for it. I didn't know it really had a name in English.

Well, live and learn. I never thought about it, and simply translated the term I have known for all my life regarding that era. It seems the wiki-page actually is not on the period but on the German term, and no other language has a term for that period (at least not yet in wikipedia).

With its formalized style of warfare this is probably the easiest period to make good rules for. Any suggestions on any other term to use for debates on post-Renaissance warfare?

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:58 am

The Cabinet Wars sounds pretty good.

Sounds like something inspired by that great film Brazil!

"First we had to battle accounts... but then came the auditors!! Aaargh!!!"

Certainly better than "The Wars of the Enlightenment" Kind of a contradiction in terms there.

puster · Post by **puster** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:13 am

OldenTired wrote:The Cabinet Wars sounds pretty good.

Sounds like something inspired by that great film Brazil!

"First we had to battle accounts... but then came the auditors!! Aaargh!!!"

Certainly better than "The Wars of the Enlightenment" Kind of a contradiction in terms there.

Well, we can always try to spread the word (or term)

The "cabinet war" certainly makes sense for Germany as it shows the difference to the religiously motivated earlier wars and the later national wars. The same does not necessarily hold true for France, Britain and Spain, though, who fought for national reasons all the time - though not with the levees of the Napoleonic days, and the decision to fight was usally made in the "cabinets".

We certainly have a difference for the peasants, since these armies were mostly under tight control to prevent desertions, so the damage they did to the peasantry was only a fraction of the Renaissance armies. But I disgress from our original Renaissance topic.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:40 pm

it dawned on me that the correct term in english (if applied to a set of rules for example) is "the war cabinet".

the differentiation being the use of bureaucratisation to supply armies, modernisation, and wars fought within the parameters of international law. and this stands in contrast to wars fought over personality or honour.

or at least, that's the suggestion of the article, and i think it's a good distinction for the period.

Rudy_Nelson · Post by **Rudy_Nelson** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:02 pm

An arbitary start and end date is needed for several reasons. In rule mechanics the dates will limit the introduction of weapons or fighting styles.

In regards to Army list building it is needed to allow competitive armies from the same and different eras. You also meed these dates to know who or what should and should not be allowed.

puster · Post by **puster** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:30 pm

OldenTired wrote:it dawned on me that the correct term in english (if applied to a set of rules for example) is "the war cabinet".
the differentiation being the use of bureaucratisation to supply armies, modernisation, and wars fought within the parameters of international law. and this stands in contrast to wars fought over personality or honour.

The argument makes sense, but I dislike the "war cabinet" as a name for a period. "Cabinet" wars shows the difference from the religious/national or revolutionary wars that make up a lot of the rest, and the cabinet stands for the rooms in which the governments made their decisions about war and peace - rather then in the churches, streets or national emotions that dictated other wars. It was reason (or greed) rather then emotion that dictated the warfare in the age of "reason". If we however go there, it could be "war cabinet wars".

Anyway, if we need a name for the period that is not planned to be covered by FOG (though once FOGR and FOGN are ready its almost a foregone decision to thread here, too) a good english term is the "Lace wars", for the fancy dressing that especially the officers of that period favoured. There is even a webring named thus and - surprise - covering the wars from 1649 to 1783. (http://k.webring.com/hub?ring=lacewars).

Now back to the Renaissance. One could wonder wether the wars in the New World that destroyed the native empires will fall under the old FOG rules or FOGR. They are definitely beyond the 1500-timeline and contain some handgunners, but are mostly fought with units that fit better into the FOG range.

Putting up an arbitrary end to the period makes sense. In a perfect world, we would have rules for both Renaissance and Age of Reason and the army lists would provide us with options for both rulesets. Going that route, it would be great if the early Renaissance armies could be composed using FOG lists - just without the juicy units and special rules of the later armies. Alternatively we could apply rules like "composite battlegroups" eg. to pikeplocks (late Swiss) with handguns or crossbows if used to engage Renaissance forces.

charlesmasefield · Post by **charlesmasefield** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:37 pm

We're working on going up to 1700 - effectively the end of pikemen.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:41 pm

Charles, if you are planning to go to the end of Pike in major armies, you need to go to 1718.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:53 pm

A better approach would be the end of effective pike use and not just a date at which they were finally withdrawn - which is what I suspect 1718 is.

Although even better is looking for a break point when warfare changes style - if such can be identified.

Although if you're looking for a semi-arbitrary date towards the end of the C17th I rather like the end of the War of the League of Augsburg

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:20 pm

Nik

I agree with that approach rather than just 1700 'cos it is a round number.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:10 am

puster wrote:Don`t put it on a specific date, but rather the introduction of the flintlock musket and, imho more important here, the bayonet. Before that, the pike had its place on the battlefield, together with the handgun, after it the musketeer was the principal and soon the only infantry.
For western Europe that would put the date between 1650 and 1700.

1659 could be a good date. It ends the French/Spanish war, and the last battle of this one was already fought in linear formation. It includes the ECW, the 30yw and the Spanish war with France and in Flanders. The period should start with the first invasion of Italy by France 1494, which indirectly started the French/Spanish conflict via Naples, so at the end the period is nicely tied up.
The other possible enddate is the second siege of Vienna, but on the European side that was already mainly fought with troops that belong more to the cabinet age (Winged Hussars aside), so its imho already on the other side of the Rennaissance.

Hmm, Napoleonics from 1700... I don't think that's totally wrong. I'm not sure if there is a HUGE difference between Marlborough and Napoleon. I mean of course there is a difference, but in wargaming terms I'm not sure if that difference is big enough to matter.

This would allow Seven Year's War as well. So the rules could cover Marlborough Wars, Seven Years War and Napoleonics. Possibly Crimea as well?

Again, I think (like FoG) themed comps would be the order of the day. No Crimeans vs Marbourians.

Ian