Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:The Portuguese Colonial list already allows for Jinete type LH in Morocco (0-12 is that enough?).

Well, I cannot tell you exactly. You see, most of the actions involved small skirmishes with cavalry only so, to say that 12 is enough... 12 bases... that would amount to 2 or 3 BG. If the army goes up to, say, 12 BG, I wouldn't think that's enough, perhaps there should be a 4th BG. Honestly, I would allow a cavalry/infantry ratio almost equivalent to the Moroccans', with these having a bit more cavalry than the Portuguese.

rbodleyscott wrote:Should there be any heavier cavalry? If so, how many, what types, and what dates?

Sure! In 1513 Duque D. Jaime had "cavaleiros acobertados" (barded cavalry, equivalent to Gendarmes or Fully Armed cavalry). Likewise, D. Sebastião (1578) had a similar unit (go figure! It was almost useless!). They were just a hundred men or so so they should be represented by a standard 2 ou 4-bases BG.

By the way, In the Ordenação sobre os cavalos e armas (Rules for horses and guns) of D. João III (1549), people of “condition” should have: high saddle, corselet with gorge, thigh and arm protections, sword and 20 palm lance; they could also have cuirass and [/i]gineta[/i] saddle instead; if they didn’t have the corselet they should have arm protections or an adarga shield instead, plus full head protection.

http://purl.pt/15194/2/res-2790-v_PDF/r ... -R0150.pdf

So, you see, these ginetes would be armoured or at least protected (I don't know if "protected" still exists in FoG:R).

Regarding the use of guns by the cavalry, unlike its Moorish foes, it seems that the Portuguese cavalry seldom used arquebuses or crossbows. Neither the Ordenação sobre os cavalos e armas (D. João III) nor the Lei das Armas (Law of the guns) of D. Sebastião (1569) stipulated the use of guns by the cavalry, although that practice was widespread even in the Spanish army. In 1639, right before the Restauration, all the cavalry in the Kingdom of Algarve (the southern province in mainland Portugal) was equipped with light lance and “adarga” since it was Algarve’s cavalry who, in emergency situations, would support the North African garrisons where that sort of equipment was used.

So, in terms of official regulations, there was no crossbow or arquebus armed cavalry in the 16th century.

However, in 1511, the garrisson of Safim had mounted crossbowmen and there are also some hints regarding gun-armed cavalry in Black Africa:
An ivory statuette of African origin depicts a Portuguese rider using an early type of arquebus. The most interesting aspect of the sculpture lies in a small detail: the man’s pointing finger, instead of being placed where the regular trigger should be, is placed on the stock, right under the fire mechanism. That gives us the precious information that the gun he’s using, and that the African carver saw and accurately reproduced, is an arquebus with the schnapp lunte type of lock, of Bohemian origin, that was used only for a brief period in History, being phased out in the 1530’s or 1540’s (in the Battle of Pavia’s tapestries, the German arquebusiers are using this type of arquebuses). This implies that the statuette was probably made in the first half of the century.

Was this Portuguese "mounted arquebusier" just an eye-catching isolated case or was this a regular sight? Was he a cavalry soldier or a mounted infantry soldier? That I cannot tell, but I would still consider it whan doing an army list...

Anyway, in 1578, as far as I know, there was no mounted arquebusiers in D. Sebastião's army.

Many thanks.

So, you see, these ginetes would be armoured or at least protected (I don't know if "protected" still exists in FoG:R).

It doesn't

After a few reading, I can add some more information regarding the portuguese cavalry in Morocco.

In 1511, the garrison of Safim was made of 5 officers; 11 of the captain’s own foot soldiers; 24 of the captain’s squires; 39 of the King’s servants with 95 of their own men; 103 cavalrymen with 54 servants; 111 foot soldiers; 31 mounted crossbowmen with 15 servants; 34 crossbowmen; 32 espingardeiros, 12 bombardiers; 15 atalaias (scouts) and cornets.
So, in this particular case, the ginetes would be roughly 20% ot the total force, and the mounted crossbowmen some 5%.

Cosme, João. A Guarnição de Safim em 1511. Lisboa: Centro de História da Universidade de Lisboa, 2004


In 1514, at the “Battle of the Alcaides”, the Portuguese army was made of 1000 lanças and 1300 or more foot, plus some 2000 Moorish ginetes. Usually a lança would be composed of 1 cavalryman and up to 5 more men, but in this case, as most if not all of the cavalry was made of ginetes, a lança would probably include just one or two other men.
The infantry forces included two well trained and “modern style” 500 men ordenanças companies (a leftover from Duque D. Jaime’s host) plus crossbowmen and espingardeiros (probably evenly divided like at Safim), bombardiers and camp followers.
So, at this battle, if one considers that a lança had between 2 and 3 men, the Portuguese cavalry would made between 25% and 30% of the army.

Costa, João Paulo Oliveira e; Rodrigues, Vítor Luís Gaspar. A Batalha dos Alcaides 1514. No apogeu da presença portuguesa em Marrocos; Lisboa: Tribuna da História, 2007


I hope this is of any help.

pippohispano wrote:I hope this is of any help.

It certainly is. Many thanks

OK, so it was useful

But please consider that, at Safim, if those 103 cavalrymen were specificaly refered as so, the 5 officers, the 24 squires and the 39 King’s servants, though not specifically refered as so, where surely cavalrymen as well as this could be implied by their status.

In the 1549 Law of the Horses and weapons it is specifically refered that all the fidalgos (lesser nobles), both those who are my servants and those who are not; and all the knights and squires who are my servants or my brothers' servants (...).

So adding these men to the 103 ginetes we would have 171 horse, i.e., 30% of the total garrison.

Now, lets go to Alcácer Quibir. I'll base my writtings on Luís Costa e Sousa's book.

The Portuguese infantry was composed by four Ordenças Terços (Tercios) and Terço dos Aventureiros, all similar to any contemporary Spanish Tercio.
Of the Ordenças, two came from Lisbon and Estremadura (the territory north of Lisbon) and the other two from Alentejo and Algarve. These Terços were made of draftees, that is, men used to be summoned to regular exercices, just like the modern days' Swiss militia army. The best Terços were the ones from Alentejo and Algarve, made from people deemed to be warlike and used to war: the people from Algarve was used to fight the Moors and was quick to dispatch help to the north African garrisons when needed.
The Terço dos Aventureiros was made of veterans from North Africa and elsewhere, and nobles who couln't afford a horse. They were the best infantry in the field.

The cavalry:
Between 200 and 600 horses (ginetes) from Tangiers;
In one of the anounymous reports from the battle refered to by Costa e Sousa, besides ginetes, there were light cavalry "like stradiots" on the Portuguese side. These could be mounted arquebusiers, as the ginetes didn't have guns. In 1613 the garisson of Mazagão had 60 mounted arquebusiers, as well as 60 ginetes;
900 heavily armoured horses in squadrons of 25 men each. Luís de Oxeda refers that these horses were “barded with armour in the old Portuguese style”. They could be also equiped as prescribed in the Law of the Horses of 1549, i.e., armoured knight with lance riding an unarmoured horse. But as Luís de Oxeda was an eye witness I’ll just have to stick to it.


The OOB (page 63):
First Line (from left to right)– 600 acobertados and the King; 2100 Spanish under Alonso de Aguilar; 600 Italians under Thomas Stukley; 1400 Portuguese under Cristóvão de Távora; 600 arquebusiers from Tanger led by Alexandre Moreira; 2700 Flemish and Germans led by Martin of Burgundy; 300 acobertados led by the Duque of Aveiro; the Moorish ally contingent under Mulei Mahamet (250 horses and 400 arquebusiers).

The centre – the Terços of Lisbon and Estremadura, led by Bezerra Castelhano and Vasco da Silveira with two wings of shooters. (5000 men in all)

Third line - the Terços of Alentejo (Francisco de Távora) and Algarve (Miguel de Noronha) with a line of musketeers (some 4000 men).
[/b]

By popular demand, FOGR6: Cities of Gold will include an Aviz-Beja Portuguese list covering Portuguese armies at home and in North Africa from the start of the period until 1580.

This list will be specified as forming part of the Trade & Treachery theme (which includes its North African opponents), and not the Cities of Gold theme. (In which it would be somewhat out of place).

rbodleyscott wrote:By popular demand, FOGR6: Cities of Gold will include an Aviz-Beja Portuguese list covering Portuguese armies at home and in North Africa from the start of the period until 1580.

This list will be specified as forming part of the Trade & Treachery theme (which includes its North African opponents), and not the Cities of Gold theme. (In which it would be somewhat out of place).

I'M IN ECSTASY!!!

Thanks!

By the way:

rbodleyscott wrote:Aviz-Beja Portuguese list

???

You should just say "Aviz Portuguese" [from the portuguese royal dynasty of Aviz, ou Avis (modern speling)]. Aviz-Beja does not exist )

pippohispano wrote:By the way:

rbodleyscott wrote:Aviz-Beja Portuguese list

???

You should just say "Aviz Portuguese" [from the portuguese royal dynasty of Aviz, ou Avis (modern speling)]. Aviz-Beja does not exist )

Ah, Ok. I have read that the Aviz dynasty proper ended in 1495 at the death of João II, and was replaced by the collateral Aviz-Beja line starting with his cousin Manuel I.

However Aviz Portuguese sounds better anyway, so we will change it.

Aviz Portuguese sounds better than the original name. I think the last king of the Avis dinasty was Sebastian I who death in Alcazarquivir in 1578, altought his uncle Enrique was the regent until the Spanish occupation.

D Manuel was the son of D Fernando, Duque of Beja, the sole legitimate male brother of king D Afonso V, father of D João II. Therefore, D Manuel was a rightfull and legitimate member of the House of Avis. He was both cousin and brother in law of D. João (somehow the inbreeding reminds me of the John Boorman's movie "Deliverance"... )

I'm looking forward to see that list!

Pippohispano, I´m asking who are you, can we know? I´m David, I know several players in Portugal, Joao, Marco Quinta, Ricardo Simas..... ect

Great, good news!

And Vasco of course

Well, and I know them all!!! Three days ago I played vs João Especial and Vasco in a recreation of Lutzen. I almost put João out of business but... alas, I said "almost"!

My name, btw, is Filipe.

Best regards,

pippohispano wrote:By the way, In the Ordenação sobre os cavalos e armas (Rules for horses and guns) of D. João III (1549), people of “condition” should have: high saddle, corselet with gorge, thigh and arm protections, sword and 20 palm lance; they could also have cuirass and [/i]gineta[/i] saddle instead; if they didn’t have the corselet they should have arm protections or an adarga shield instead, plus full head protection.

http://purl.pt/15194/2/res-2790-v_PDF/r ... -R0150.pdf

So, you see, these ginetes would be armoured or at least protected.

Sorry to appear stupid, but does the above description apply to ginetes, or rather to heavy cavalry.

rbodleyscott wrote:

pippohispano wrote:By the way, In the Ordenação sobre os cavalos e armas (Rules for horses and guns) of D. João III (1549), people of “condition” should have: high saddle, corselet with gorge, thigh and arm protections, sword and 20 palm lance; they could also have cuirass and [/i]gineta[/i] saddle instead; if they didn’t have the corselet they should have arm protections or an adarga shield instead, plus full head protection.

http://purl.pt/15194/2/res-2790-v_PDF/r ... -R0150.pdf

So, you see, these ginetes would be armoured or at least protected.

Sorry to appear stupid, but does the above description apply to ginetes, or rather to heavy cavalry.

It's not a stupid question. I think it depends. According to the Law above stated, vassals should have equipment to enrol as cavalrymen, but deppending on their income, they could either have heavy or light cavalry equipment and thus would serve as such.
You should also note that the gineta saddle (with its short stirups) would be more adequate to a light, very fast and very mobile style of riding. I thik it would be a saddle unfit for a heavy cavalryman.
So, the description applies to every cavalryman. If could afford it, he should be a heavy cavalryman; if not, he would be a ginete.

pippohispano wrote:According to the Law above stated, vassals should have equipment to enrol as cavalrymen, but deppending on their income, they could either have heavy or light cavalry equipment and thus would serve as such.
You should also note that the gineta saddle (with its short stirups) would be more adequate to a light, very fast and very mobile style of riding. I thik it would be a saddle unfit for a heavy cavalryman.
So, the description applies to every cavalryman. If could afford it, he should be a heavy cavalryman; if not, he would be a ginete.

Fair enough.

The issue was really whether Portuguese ginetes should be classified as having Javelins capability or Light Lancers capability. Clearly, if they had 20 palm lances, it must be the latter. Even if they sometimes threw their lance, so long as they only had one, they could not really qualify for Javelins capability.

BTW, we have already classified Moorish LH as Light Lancers for the same reason.

rbodleyscott wrote:

pippohispano wrote:According to the Law above stated, vassals should have equipment to enrol as cavalrymen, but deppending on their income, they could either have heavy or light cavalry equipment and thus would serve as such.
You should also note that the gineta saddle (with its short stirups) would be more adequate to a light, very fast and very mobile style of riding. I thik it would be a saddle unfit for a heavy cavalryman.
So, the description applies to every cavalryman. If could afford it, he should be a heavy cavalryman; if not, he would be a ginete.

Fair enough.

The issue was really whether Portuguese ginetes should be classified as having Javelins capability or Light Lancers capability. Clearly, if they had 20 palm lances, it must be the latter. Even if they sometimes threw their lance, so long as they only had one, they could not really qualify for Javelins capability.

BTW, we have already classified Moorish LH as Light Lancers for the same reason.

Javelins were still part of the array a Portuguese vassal should have, even in the mid 16th century, so the ginetes could still carry them. But this is just a supposition.
According to the data I have from those times, the Portuguese cavalry used lances rather than javelins, and of course, the adarga shield (even in 1639).

As an example for the usage of the lance, one famous soldier in Morocco, Lopo Barriga, led his own personal host. Every men had a lance, but Lopo Barriga carried a hunting spear instead, like those used to hunt boars. It was a weapon a bit shorter than the lances carried by his men, but it was yielded more easily than an ordinary lance. With his spear, he hunted down Moors like if they were game.

Therefore, I think you’re right and I would classify the Portuguese ginetes as LH light lance. The adarga and armour could give an extra protection in the melée so they should be “armoured”.