Slitherine

One period that appears fairly light troop free is the ECW. Seems usually only involve a few dragoons and commanded shot. Rest are "formed" troops.

I will repeat my question, as it seems to have gone unnoticed
why in the game mounted arquebussiers from Italian Wars armies are light cavalry while in TYW armies are "normal" cavalry???
anyone?

Interesting discussion. Here's a book review of the biography of von Mansfeld. Included in that review are some great illustrations, including a drill instruction for mounted arquebusiers. Worth a look.

http://crossfireamersfoort.wordpress.co ... krussmann/

Very interesting article and fine illustrations. Thanks for sharing, Steve!

fogman wrote:i wouldn't argue that it wasn't possible to fire from horseback. but i would argue that it was mostly done during patrols and reconaissance, the traditional role of light cavalry.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

However 17th century cavalry certainly used the arquebus and caracole in formed formation in battle. (Usually unsuccessfully if they came up against cavalry trained in shock tactics.)

fogman wrote:i wouldn't argue that it wasn't possible to fire from horseback. but i would argue that it was mostly done during patrols and reconaissance, the traditional role of light cavalry.

Here are a few quotes from the ECW relating to formed bodies of horse in open battles, not light cavalry:

"So that they being first in order, gave us their first Vollie of Carbins and Pistolls at a distance, as ours were advancing: yea they had time for their second Pistols ere ours could charg them."

"Upon our approach they gave fire with their cannon lined amongst their horse, dragoneers, carabines and pistols, "

"giving positive Orders to the Horse, to receive the Enemy’s shot, without firing either Carbin or Pistol, till we broke in amongst the Enemy" - a case of the horse being ordered not to use their carbines, a pointless order if it were not something that could be done.

"so that first they gave us a volley of their carbines, then of their pistols, and then we fell in with them, and gave them ours in their teeth"

"Twas my fortune in a direct line to charge their general of horse [Sir Arthur Hesilrige], which I supposed to be so by his place; he discharged his carbine first, but at a distance not to hurt us, and afterwards one of his pistols, before I came up to him, and missed with both"

"… all the Troops are to be drawn into battalia, each being not above three deepe, likewise each troop must be at least a hundred paces distance behind each other for the better avoiding of disorder, for those troops that are to give the first charge being drawn up in battail as before, are to be at their close order, every left hand mans right knee must be close locked under his right hand mans left ham … In this order they are to advance towards the Enemy with an easie pace, firing their Carbines at a convenient distance … the troops are to charge the Enemy in full career, but in good order with their swords fastned with a Riband or the like to their wrists … still keeping in close order close locked …"

Aryaman wrote:I will repeat my question, as it seems to have gone unnoticed
why in the game mounted arquebussiers from Italian Wars armies are light cavalry while in TYW armies are "normal" cavalry???
anyone?

Seems more appropriate for anciliary mounted troops of the period - the more formed bodies seem to come with the appearance of the Reiters. I'd not say it was based on hard evidence as much as it feels right

rbodleyscott wrote:

fogman wrote:i wouldn't argue that it wasn't possible to fire from horseback. but i would argue that it was mostly done during patrols and reconaissance, the traditional role of light cavalry.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

However 17th century cavalry certainly used the arquebus and caracole in formed formation in battle. (Usually unsuccessfully if they came up against cavalry trained in shock tactics.)

again, i argue for the early 16th century (specifically in relation to the units at ravenna). your contention is if it can be done in the 17th century, then it can be done one hundred years earlier. not a valid point in my view.

fogman wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

fogman wrote:i wouldn't argue that it wasn't possible to fire from horseback. but i would argue that it was mostly done during patrols and reconaissance, the traditional role of light cavalry.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

However 17th century cavalry certainly used the arquebus and caracole in formed formation in battle. (Usually unsuccessfully if they came up against cavalry trained in shock tactics.)

again, i argue for the early 16th century (specifically in relation to the units at ravenna). your contention is if it can be done in the 17th century, then it can be done one hundred years earlier. not a valid point in my view.

At the battle of Ivry (1590, so 16th century) Spanish Horse arquebussiers fired a volley within 25 paces of the charging Protestant cavalry, killing the King´s standard bearer.

A short, interesting discussion of this issue here too . . .

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=277151

One contributor states,

"There is also a noteworthy lack of decriptions of mounted arquebusiers fighting mounted in the early years, it is only in the 1540's that such descriptions become numerous."

So maybe the 1540s are the pertinent years here?

stockwellpete wrote:A short, interesting discussion of this issue here too . . .

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=277151

One contributor states,

"There is also a noteworthy lack of decriptions of mounted arquebusiers fighting mounted in the early years, it is only in the 1540's that such descriptions become numerous."

So maybe the 1540s are the pertinent years here?

Rather depends on what the descriptions of mounted arquebusiers fighting before 1540 actually say - if there is a lack of descriptions of them fighting mounted are there descriptions of them fighting on foot or do we have one of those not uncommon gaps in the record?

nikgaukroger wrote: Rather depends on what the descriptions of mounted arquebusiers fighting before 1540 actually say - if there is a lack of descriptions of them fighting mounted are there descriptions of them fighting on foot or do we have one of those not uncommon gaps in the record?

Yes, that is fair enough. Let's see if anyone has any historical evidence either way earlier than the 1540s.

stockwellpete wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Rather depends on what the descriptions of mounted arquebusiers fighting before 1540 actually say - if there is a lack of descriptions of them fighting mounted are there descriptions of them fighting on foot or do we have one of those not uncommon gaps in the record?

Yes, that is fair enough. Let's see if anyone has any historical evidence either way earlier than the 1540s.

Would be cool - it isn't a period I'm that well informed on so would certainly be interested; may lead to FoG:R list errata

I have just checked George Gush's "Renaissance Warfare", which is available on line. it is getting on for 40 years old now and will probably have been superseded in many of its aspects. Anyway, he writes this about "firearm cavalry" in the Spanish army,

"Firearm cavalry or 'escopeteros' appeared early in the Spanish army, and were first organised into separate bodies in the very early 16th Century. The two chief types of the 16th Century were 'Herreruelos' and 'Herguletiers' (mounted arquebusiers). From the later Italian wars they replaced the earlier Ginetes.

The Herreruelos were armed with pistols, and fairly heavily armoured, corresponding to the hired German reiters and other cuirassier types, while the arquebusiers were lighter, only about half of them wearing corselets, the rest leather, and were armed with a longer-range weapon. They also operated on foot as well as mounted. Mounted, both could play a similar role, operating in front or on the flanks of men-at-arms and lancers, preparing and supporting attacks by their fire, but herreruelos were more likely to charge in themselves. Both types carried swords, and arquebusiers sometimes carried a pistol too (while in the 17th Century cuirassiers and Caballos Corazas could have arquebusses).

Dragoons first appeared in Spanish ranks in the 1630s, and tended to replace the mounted arquebusiers in the 1640s and later. They were similarly armed but carried, besides sword and arquebus, a mace and a small pick which could be used to tether the horse while the rider operated dismounted. Their advantage was really cheapness - being mounted infantry rather than cavalry able to operate dismounted, they could be worse-mounted than the arquebusiers and required no armour. The early dragoons had a white slouch hat with a red feather, buff coat, calfskin gauntlets and boots and breeches decorated with red slashes and piping."

http://home.mysoul.com.au/graemecook/Re ... panish.htm

i'm heading to the university library this weekend to finish my research on ravenna. hopefully i can find something definitive in the primary sources.

fogman wrote:i'm heading to the university library this weekend to finish my research on ravenna. hopefully i can find something definitive in the primary sources.

Do you have any info on:
Lettere Storiche Di Luigi Da Porto 1528. he appears to have been an Venetian Condottiere of a force of light horse around 1509 or so and per secondary sources some of his light horse carried arquebuses.
I cant find anything on line that I can read in English

TheGrayMouser wrote:

fogman wrote:i'm heading to the university library this weekend to finish my research on ravenna. hopefully i can find something definitive in the primary sources.

Do you have any info on:
Lettere Storiche Di Luigi Da Porto 1528. he appears to have been an Venetian Condottiere of a force of light horse around 1509 or so and per secondary sources some of his light horse carried arquebuses.
I cant find anything on line that I can read in English

I'll put in a search if i have time to go into the microfilm resource room.

The Italian text appears to be available from Google books http://books.google.com/books?id=G_oNAA ... &q&f=false so you shouldn't need to get it from the library.

Chris