(museum) Louis XIII’s Armour (1620-1630)

[Athos1660]

Here is one of French King Louis XIII's armours, kept by the Museum of the Army at the Invalides (Paris) and very nicely displayed on the Museum website : here.

This is the kind of armour Kurassiers wore, like those in the game :



Louis XIII wearing this kind of armor can be seen on several period drawings/paintings :

1) Louis XIII crowned by Victory (Siege of La Rochelle, 1628), painted by Ph. de Champaigne :



2) Louis XIII and the King’s Musketeers on horseback at Corbie in 1636 (engraving) :

[StuccoFresco]

Gorgeous.

[shanestone]

Very interesting!

[Okie]

Very good shot of him and his armour. Thanks! Post any other good shots you find, if you would.

[Athos1660]

Thank you all.

Post any other good shots you find, if you would.

I will if I come across something interesting

[Athos1660]

A video of armours kept by the French Museum of the Army and its storage area (in French, but what is shown is nice).
Some armours show tiny traces of polychromy.
A way of visiting a museum while they are all closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ38eGsNero

[Veles]

Cuirassier armour definitely has something about it. Esthetically I mean

Here is a fragment of the treaty by Johan Jacobi Wallhausen. Kriegkunst zu Pferd showcasing armament of cuirassiers, lancers, and arquebusiers


And here an example of such three-quarter armour. This one belonged to Henry Herbert, second Earl of Pembroke, about 1560-1570.


BTW, this reminded me of something. Why exactly cuirassiers have a higher armour rating than winged hussars?

[Athos1660]

[Veles]

So, I take that you're suggesting it's for balancing reasons?

[Athos1660]

iirc 'better armour' has effect only in melees.

Were PWHussars also better at melees than Kuirassiers ?

[Veles]

iirc 'better armour' has effect only in melees.

Were PWHussars also better at melees than Kuirassiers ?

I guess this is debatable. They definitely fought in a different manner since they relied more on their melee weapons like broadswords and warhammers than on pistols which often did prove to be devastating for the Kuirassiers.

The problem is that there is a great rift between Western and Eastern historians regarding this topic: What was a better weapon for close combat pistol or a sword? Western European historians covering the period of Pik&Shot often support the notion that pistol was a superior or at least more cost-effective melee weapon than lance and sword (which is funny considering that swords and lances eventually "won" the contest for the main cavalry weapons as seen in Napoleonic period), the Central-Eastern European historians often claim otherwise.

This difference of opinions stems from widely different experiences in cavalry warfare presented by primary sources.

Western historians often point to the example of the Huguenot Rebellion in which Balck Reiters were used in deep formation to successfully fight against enemy lancers deployed in shallow formation.

Now, a plot twist because Winged Hussars were essentially lancers, deployed in shallow (just two rows) formation focused on fighting in melee using lances and cold steel who faced Kurrasiers in deep formation. Yet, the effects of their encounters were the opposite of what happened in the West.

The most extreme example of it was the Battle of Kropimozja which saw an interesting engagement between the Livafan (Guard Kuirassiers of Gustavus Adolphus) counting 109 men against the Hussar Banner under Gosiewski that counted less than 60 hussars half of which had already broken their lances. Despite this, they managed to disrupt the formation of the Kurassiers by using remaining lances to create holes in it and then close distance with their swords in hand to finally break the Livafan.

I guess that Hussars could be given better armor rating and Swordsman POA instead of Pistol(Melee) but I'm not sure if this wouldn't be too overpowered.

Damn, I just can't explain anything in a few words, can I...

[SnuggleBunnies]

For the rationale, I'm not sure - was the Hussar's armor generally as comprehensive or thickly made? I know that Kurassier armor was at least theoretically made to withstand pistol shot at anything but point blank range, and to resist at least further off or angled shot from infantry weapons. Of course I'm guessing both Kurassier and Hussar units would in reality have included more lightly armored men in the rear ranks. That's just conjecture on my part.

In game balance terms, I generally feel much happier spending 72pts on Hussars than on Kurassiers - give the Hussars more armor and they'd cost more, for not much benefit IMO.

[Veles]

I'm not sure - was the Hussar's armor generally as comprehensive or thickly made?

Generally speaking, Hussars especially the companions would often have the armor of higher quality. As for thickens and offered protection, there was no standardization, and the popular armour styles changed over the years. Some were thicker, some thinner depending on the preferences of the wearer.

We know hussar companions like Zakrzycki, from the banner of sir Kazanowski who allowed other companions to shoot him from a pistol while wearing his armour for entertainment while camping. Crazy bastard.

In the late XVI and early XVII century hussars usually used three-quarter armors with occasional half-armors but some hussars wore full armors covering the whole body.

Some examples:

I know that Kurassier armor was at least theoretically made to withstand pistol shot at anything but point blank range and to resist at least further off or angled shot from infantry weapons.

Well, there were actually sometimes even capable of stoping point-blank shots. There are at least a couple of examples described by participants of the English Civil War of armors stopping bullets shot from pistols literally put against the breastplate or helmet.

In game balance terms, I generally feel much happier spending 72pts on Hussars than on Kurassiers - give the Hussars more armor and they'd cost more, for not much benefit IMO.

Yeah, I generally agree. I mean it's not like there are many reasons to take hussars in the first place. I think only if you face Russians, Ottomans or Transylvanians in the open filed. Otherwise, they aren't worth the investment.

But back to the topic. I see three alternatives, the first way to do it would be giving hussars higher armor rating but swapping the Pistol for Swordsman POA but I don't know if that would justify keeping them at the same price.

The other method would be creating different types of hussar units for different time periods in the game. Lightly armoured Early Hussars for the Age of Machiavelli lists (or whatever it would be called in P&S2), Heavy Hussars for the Tercio to Salvo lists, and then Winged Hussars for the mid to late XVII century (Le Roil Solei).

The third way would be giving them armour rating that would be in-between the armour rating or Kurassiers and Horse. Giving hussars slight armour advantage over Armoured Horse but a slight disadvantage against Kurrassiers.

Well, there is also a fourth option: leave it as it is.

BTW, sorry for changing yet another topic into a discussion about hussars.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well, there were actually sometimes even capable of stoping point-blank shots. There are at least a couple of examples described by participants of the English Civil War of armors stopping bullets shot from pistols literally put against the breastplate or helmet.

Yes, I'm familiar with the account of Arthur Haselrig at Roundway Down, but I wonder if that wasn't exceptional - particularly good armor, or poor powder, etc.

Yeah, I generally agree. I mean it's not like there are many reasons to take hussars in the first place. I think only if you face Russians, Ottomans or Transylvanians in the open filed. Otherwise, they aren't worth the investment.

They're worth bringing against Western armies too, just not in the same numbers. After all, Cossacks don't have melee Impact, and Carbine is unlikely to Disrupt enemy cavalry before contact.

But back to the topic. I see three alternatives, the first way to do it would be giving hussars higher armor rating but swapping the Pistol for Swordsman POA but I don't know if that would justify keeping them at the same price.

That would make them considerably better than they are now if the enemy was Disrupted, much worse if they were Steady.

Now:

Kurassiers
Superior 50
Pistol Melee 100
Armor 100
Total 250

Hussars
Highly Superior 62
Pistol Melee 100
Armor 50
Total 212

Hussars with more armor and Swordsmen:

If Kurassiers STEADY
Kurassiers
Superior 50
Pistol Melee 100
Armor 100
Total 250

Hussars
Highly Superior 62
Swordsmen 0
Armor 100
Total 162

If Kurassiers DISRUPTED or FRAGMENTED or MODERATELY/SEVERELY DISORDERED

Kurassiers
Superior 50
Pistol Melee 0
Armor 100
Total 150

Hussars
Highly Superior 62
Swordsmen 100
Armor 100
Total 262

Also keep in mind - Hussars are Determined Horse, and thus the Kurassiers cannot Fall Back from them if the Hussars initiated the melee. The Hussars meanwhile can Fall Back from the Kurassiers no matter who initiated, because the Kurassiers are classified as just Horse. The Hussars, being Highly Superior, are fairly likely to Fall Back without dropping cohesion, and thus be in a position for another devastating Impact charge.

The other method would be creating different types of hussar units for different time periods in the game. Lightly armoured Early Hussars for the Age of Machiavelli lists (or whatever it would be called in P&S2), Heavy Hussars for the Tercio to Salvo lists, and then Winged Hussars for the mid to late XVII century (Le Roil Solei).

The Age of Machiavelli lists currently don't have Impact Horse for the Poles at all, but Heavy Lancers in the first list and Light Lancers in the second. You would suggest changing that?

The third way would be giving them armour rating that would be in-between the armour rating or Kurassiers and Horse. Giving hussars slight armour advantage over Armoured Horse but a slight disadvantage against Kurrassiers.

Yes, I agree this could be done - though at that point Hussars might be too expensive to consider bringing many. Maybe the point system would need looking at. I think armor is a bit spendy, Raw infantry is probably too cheap (or Veterans are too expensive, one or the other) and Deep cavalry units are grossly overcosted (72pts for Reiters? No thanks.).

Well, there is also a fourth option: leave it as it is.

Well of course that's what will happen with this game, but we can always debate, speculate, and come up with ideas to bring to the table if Pike and Shot 2 were ever announced and needed beta testers ;).

[Athos1660]

BTW, sorry for changing yet another topic into a discussion about hussars.

No problem as far as I am concerned. On the contrary, the more we discuss the game and related History, the better

[Athos1660]

(...) we can always debate, speculate, and come up with ideas to bring to the table if Pike and Shot 2 were ever announced and needed beta testers .

So just for the sake of discussion about a future possible P&S2, there is one feature in FoGII I have some difficulty agreeing with/totally understand. This is secondary ZoC, as it limits (too much in my opinion) the mobility of units. Unit slipperiness is something I like in P&S.

But, I readily admit that I may be wrong (knowing Richard’s skill in game design, I should write : ‘I know I am wrong’ ). Maybe I just need to be informed about the purpose of this feature.

However, if secondary Zoc is used to simulate the unwillingness of a unit to risk an opportunity charge by the enemy unit it would brush past and if P&S 1 is too generous in this matter, what about a middle of the road solution, like no ZoC2 but, instead :
- a (‘slight’ ?) Cohesion Test as it is the case when a fall back move is performed within charge reach of a non- routing non-light enemy unit
- or a kind of test or 'throw of the dice’ with three possible outcomes : the unit prefers staying immobile (kind of 'anarchy' decision : no cohesion loss, no move), the unit is intercepted (cohesion loss, no move) or the unit move forward without trouble ?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Secondary ZoC in fog2 is there to make up for the fact that the priority charge system in Pike and Shot wasn't carried into the new game, because people found it difficult to learn. Without the priority charge system, units would indeed be too slippery without secondary zoc

[Athos1660]

Thus couldn't the priority charge system be simplified and improved, so that units would be more slippery than in current FoG2. The same thing could be asked about an improved ZoC2 allowing more slipperiness.

But maybe it is just me being wrong about asking for slippery units...

[Veles]

Yeah, I generally agree. I mean it's not like there are many reasons to take hussars in the first place. I think only if you face Russians, Ottomans or Transylvanians in the open filed. Otherwise, they aren't worth the investment.

They're worth bringing against Western armies too, just not in the same numbers. After all, Cossacks don't have melee Impact, and Carbine is unlikely to Disrupt enemy cavalry before contact.

Yeah, but that can be solved by use of artillery and Light Horse. Especially the latter seems to be a tough thing to deal with for some of the western armies. I usually don't buy additional Winged Hussars besides the "stock" ones bought automatically. Bringing up more infantry and Tatars always seems more important, with some possible exceptions.

But back to the topic. I see three alternatives, the first way to do it would be giving hussars higher armor rating but swapping the Pistol for Swordsman POA but I don't know if that would justify keeping them at the same price.

That would make them considerably better than they are now if the enemy was Disrupted, much worse if they were Steady.

I kind of like the idea as really sounds like something that happened in real battles. As long as cuirassiers were able to keep formation they were sometimes able to force hussars to bounce back, if not it usually went downhill for them. While later Horse units are also determined so I assume they should be able to bounce too. Still not sure how well would it work in the game. Maybe later I'll try to make a small custom scenario to test it. I have to learn to do this stuff anyway since I'm currently working on one historical battle featuring cuirassiers, reiters, and hussars.

The Age of Machiavelli lists currently don't have Impact Horse for the Poles at all, but Heavy Lancers in the first list and Light Lancers in the second. You would suggest changing that?

Yep, both lists should have Heavy and Light lancers. Lancer banners should be changed into Noble Gendarmes (the name Lancer Banner could stay though) while Hussars for those lists could act as Determined Horse, Light Lance, Swordsmen, Average/Above Average with light armor because of their shields and because some of them wore mail. I don't think these lists should have Impact Horse.

What do you think? Would there be a place for such a unit in the given module?

Yes, I agree this could be done - though at that point Hussars might be too expensive to consider bringing many. Maybe the point system would need looking at. I think armor is a bit spendy, Raw infantry is probably too cheap (or Veterans are too expensive, one or the other) and Deep cavalry units are grossly overcosted (72pts for Reiters? No thanks.).

Oh, here we definitely agree. Some of the pricing should definitely be looked at. Like the Reiters you mentioned. If not for their pricing I would definitely bring them more often. I mean, that was one of the reasons why they appeared on battlefields because they were cheaper to equip and train than lancers. Some of the Spanish Tercio prices could also be adjusted.

Well of course that's what will happen with this game, but we can always debate, speculate, and come up with ideas to bring to the table if Pike and Shot 2 were ever announced and needed beta testers .

Ah, that would be a day

[Athos1660]

Speaking of kuirassiers vs non-light lancers…
(This is a genuine question, as I don’t know much about the subject.)

Shouldn’t rough terrain be an advantage to the kuirassiers ?

Currently, the result of their encounters has nothing to do with the type of the terrain :

vs Late Gendarmes :



vs Winged Hussars :



Comparing Cuirassiers and Lancers, R. Montecuccoli (who was a connoisseur) wrote in his memoirs completed in c.1670 that if the terrain is not as smooth as a billiard table (if I can use that analogy), « the lance is useless most of the time » :

« (…) si le terrain n’est pas ferme et uni, sans brouissailes et sans fossés, la carrière n’étant pas libre, la lance demeure le plus souvent inutile. »

I may be wrong but I’d expect that, on rough terrain, a kuirassier would have less trouble wounding a horseman or his horse (or another enemy next to him, ie hitting something, anything) with his pistols than a lancer precisely aiming his lance at his target.