Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote: As for the herreruelos I'm afraid you overestimate my Spanish. Google suggests pistol armed mounted? If so I think Reiters would cover them just fine.
Afraid I've only a rather short narrative of the battle at hand, the only notable action by mounted it cites is Hungarian and Spanish hussars, supported by heavy mounted from Neaples (probably MAA) surrounding and capturing the opposing commander (most likely covered by his personal guard, although that isn't clear), Elector Prince Johann Friedrich I. of Saxony.

So it looks like we need some Hungarian hussars in this list to cover this.

Suggestions please.

Only in central, east and south Germany or Hungary:
Before 1527
Hungarian, Polish or Wallachian Hussars: LH Unprotected, average, Bow, (Swordsmen) 4-6 0-8
From 1527
Hungarian, Polish or Wallachian Hussars: LH Unprotected, average, Bow, (Swordsmen) 4-6 8-12*
Szeklers: LH, Unprotected or armoured, average or superior, Bow, Swordsmen 4-6 0-8
or Cv armoured, average or superior, Bow or Bow*, (Light Lance), Swordsmen 4-6 0-8

* minima applies only if any Szeklers are used.

nikgaukroger wrote:I'm guessing that "Spanish hussars" will be Jinetes or Celadas.

Most likely, Hussars had become a common term for all lightly armoured, swiftly moving and possibly skirmishing mounted.

So it looks like we need some Hungarian hussars in this list to cover this.

Suggestions please.

I'm guessing that "Spanish hussars" will be Jinetes or Celadas.

I agree, the spanish hussars were probably Celadas.

For the Hungarian horse, I suggest 0-8 bases of LH/CV Sup/Avg Bow swordmen. Arquebus option maybe Karsten?

I have added the list notes:

"Minima marked * does not apply to armies in Germany." - *ed the Colunela minimum.

"Armies in Germany must have more Landsknecht, Walloon and Flemish infantry battle groups than Colunela or Tercio battle groups."


How does that sound?

Sounds rigth to me.

robertthebruce wrote: For the Hungarian horse, I suggest 0-8 bases of LH/CV Sup/Avg Bow swordmen. Arquebus option maybe Karsten?

Hmm, not sure on the Arquebus. Certainly not before parts of Hungary were absorbed by the Habsburgers in 1527, their military system seems to have deteriorated ever since Corvinus death, not evolving or taking in an new ideas. Afterwards it's possible that the Habsburgers equipped some with firearms, but adoption was probably not instant I will check on it.

Ghaznavid wrote: The big question is probably the Habsburgian Netherlands as I'm afraid neither the current list nor one for the Hungarian/Austrian border with the Ottomans would really cover the armies there.

I think that applying the same rules as for the German version would be fine.

In any case, as far as I know, the main battlefields of the period were mainly Italy (against the French), the Mediterranean (against the North Africans and Ottomans) and Germany (against the protestants).
The armies in the Low Countries start playing a significative role when Felipe II decides to invade France from the North in the last phase of the Italian Wars.

Ghaznavid wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:As the list is meant to cover the armies in Germany and especially those seen at SE (i.e. along the Ottoman borders) as well as those in Spain/Italy/Netherlands

Would it be sensible to cover the armies facing the Ottomans in the next book - which is the one with Ottomans in and will need to include a mid to late C16th Habsburg army anyway.

Or would the SE armies of this period be so similar (with the points made here) that we would just repeat the list in effect?

Good question. A separate list would be similar, but with some unique elements and varying availabilities of the various troop types (especially after Hungary is split between the Ottomans and the Habsburger in 1527). It can be done all in one list, although it might complicate an already not very simple list. A separate list would have a bit of "sameness", though (but probably less so then some say some mongols lists in FoG:AM) and might be ok, given the theme book approach.

OK, here is the executive decision.

We will cover the armies on the "Ottoman front" in the next list book. The Habsburg armies for Germany in "Trade & Treachery" will only cover the conflicts in western Europe. We can look to accentuate the differences in the next book when we come to that (in about 2 weeks )

The big question is probably the Habsburgian Netherlands as I'm afraid neither the current list nor one for the Hungarian/Austrian border with the Ottomans would really cover the armies there.

OK, give me details. A good question is what conflicts were they involved in - i.e. do we really need to cover the period? Another list is possible for the book, but we'll have to be quick. Bear in mind I do not want to complicate the current Habsburg lists if at all possible.

Ghaznavid wrote:
Only in central, east and south Germany or Hungary:
Before 1527
Hungarian, Polish or Wallachian Hussars: LH Unprotected, average, Bow, (Swordsmen) 4-6 0-8
From 1527
Hungarian, Polish or Wallachian Hussars: LH Unprotected, average, Bow, (Swordsmen) 4-6 8-12*
Szeklers: LH, Unprotected or armoured, average or superior, Bow, Swordsmen 4-6 0-8
or Cv armoured, average or superior, Bow or Bow*, (Light Lance), Swordsmen 4-6 0-8

* minima applies only if any Szeklers are used.

Looks like a lot of LH, I assume the post 1527 options are really for the "Ottoman front".

If we are not covering that would 0-8, as suggested, be OK - they replace other LH in the existing list for armies in Germany. Is that OK or am I getting the wrong idea?

nikgaukroger wrote: Looks like a lot of LH, I assume the post 1527 options are really for the "Ottoman front".

If we are not covering that would 0-8, as suggested, be OK - they replace other LH in the existing list for armies in Germany. Is that OK or am I getting the wrong idea?

Probably ok, the Hungarian troops gained after 1527 seem to have operated mostly in Hungary, Upper Austria and Croatia (and of course in the Ottoman Empire).

nikgaukroger wrote:

The big question is probably the Habsburgian Netherlands as I'm afraid neither the current list nor one for the Hungarian/Austrian border with the Ottomans would really cover the armies there.

OK, give me details. A good question is what conflicts were they involved in - i.e. do we really need to cover the period? Another list is possible for the book, but we'll have to be quick. Bear in mind I do not want to complicate the current Habsburg lists if at all possible.

I guess the suggested changes should do. (Reduce the number of Spanish troops available, increase the requirement and allowance for native troops.) The only thing that might need looking at is the number of field artillery available, as Landsknechtsarmies raised in the North (and AFAIK Dutch) where somewhat on the forefront of artillery use in field battles (granted, not necessarily always that successful at the start).

The special instructions have dire effects on the minima in Germany and Flanders.

A rethink is perhaps required.

rbodleyscott wrote:The special instructions have dire effects on the minima in Germany and Flanders.

A rethink is perhaps required.

Bloody Spanish, always cause trouble ..... mutter, mutter, sulk

David wrote:

Richard wrote:

current blurb wrote:In 1534 a new ordinance organized the Spanish infantry into the famous Tercios. These were an evolution of the Colunelas but increased dramatically in size. Tercios comprised 10 companies (each of 300 men) in Italy (8 Pike companies and 2 Arquebusier companies) and 12 Companies in Flanders (10 Pike and 2 Arquebusier). “Pike” companies also included a proportion of arquebusiers. This fact and the problems of recruiting pikemen (arquebusiers received higher pay), desertions and the need for increased firepower, resulted in the proportion of shot being about 50% in the Tercios of Italy and between 25% and 50% in Flanders.

Is this is fact based on evidence from the Duke of Alba’s army in the later period? Should these Flanders companies be (each of 250)? If the information for the difference between Italian and Flanders tercios comes from the later period, should it in fact be stated in this list at all – can we be certain that the policy carries back to the earlier period?

I took this information from the Tercio website, and from other Spanish text that says that the Tercios in Flanders were composed by 12 companies but this text don´t talk about dates.
I just done a deeper research, And Richard you are right, the early tercios were composed by 8-10 companies with 300 mens each. The most of them were composed by 10 companies, only some Old Tercios from Italy were composed by 8 companies.

So where does this leave this bit of blurb?

Yes please.

robertthebruce wrote:Yes please.

Would you like to rewrite it?

You know that my english is not very good, but:



"In 1534 a new ordinance organized the Spanish infantry into the famous Tercios. These were an evolution of the Colunelas but increased dramatically in size. Tercios comprised 10 companies (each of 300 men) in Italy (8 Pike companies and 2 Arquebusier companies). “Pike” companies also included a proportion of arquebusiers. Some of the "Tercios Viejos" has only 8 companies but the size was increased later. The teorical strength was just over 3000 men, with a proportion of 75% of pikemen and 25% of shooters, but only the initial formations approached to these numbers. This fact and the problems of recruiting pikemen (arquebusiers received higher pay), desertions and the need for increased firepower, resulted in the proportion of shot being about 50% in the Tercios of Italy and between 25% and 50% in Flanders. The real strenght varied between 2000 and 3000 men approximately. Tercio formations manoeuvred in absolute silence, only shouting “Spain!” or “Santiago!” just before the charge."


David