errors in rise of the swiss campaign

[vaalen]

I have enjoyed this DLC, but noted some significant errors in the history and order of battle for one scenario.

First, it is not hard at all to win the fourth scenario against the Milanese. According to the noted historian Charles Oman, and other sources, the Milanese army that defeated the Swiss contained a large number of crossbowmen and mounted men at arms. The Men at Arms positioned themselves to charge the Swiss, but made few actual charges. But they kept the Swiss under constant threat of being charged, which caused the Swiss to hold their ground rather than be charged when they were moving and not in a solid formation. While the Swiss held still, the large number of crossbowmen had an easy time shooting them down in their dense formations. After the Swiss had suffered heavy casualties and gaps in the formation from crossbow bolts, the Milanese men at arms charged en masse and broke the already disordered Swiss. The scenario includes a large number of dismounted men at arms, but only a few units of crossbowmen.

The next scenario in the campaign claimed that Arbedo, the previous scenario, was a defeat for the Swiss, because most of the Milanese men at arms dismounted and the Swiss halberdiers did not do well against them. That is directly contrary to the description given by Oman and every other account of the battle that I have read.

The introduction to the scenario claimed this caused the Swiss to make most of their troops pikemen and keep only a small proportion of Halberdiers. However, the Swiss forces in the scenario were all halberdiers, except for some skirmishers and light mounted crossbowmen.This is very inconsistent with the introduction to the scenario.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks.

The problem is that in the campaigns the orders of battle are not hand-tailored, they are generated by the system from the army lists. Variant army lists are used for some scenarios, but there still may be significant variations in the OOB produced.

Oman's conclusions are often out-dated.

We went by the account of Arbedo in Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume1, by Ian Heath.

[vaalen]

Thanks.

The problem is that in the campaigns the orders of battle are not hand-tailored, they are generated by the system from the army lists. Variant army lists are used for some scenarios, but there still may be significant variations in the OOB produced.

Oman's conclusions are often out-dated.

We went by the account of Arbedo in Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume1, by Ian Heath.

Thank you for the explanation. The battle of Arbedo I fought was an easy victory for the Swiss. Historically, it was a decisive victory for Milan, whose troops were led by a very competant general. It appears that the automatic generation of the oob from army lists has its problems. On the other hand, it does lead to some variety if you play the battle again. But it is odd to read that the Swiss adopted pikes, then fight a battle where the Swiss do not have a single pikeman.

I respectfully disagree with you about Oman. His books were written in the late nineteenth century and and early twentieth century, but that does not mean they were not accurate. In fact, I find Oman to be more convincing than more modern sources. And my profession requires me to evaluate evidence just about every working day.

The problem I have with the claim that dismounted men at arms could defeat Swiss halberdiers is the fact that the men of arms of the day wore extremely heavy plate armor, and would become quickly exausted if they had to carry all that weight themselves. This was shown in an earlier Swiss battle, where the Austrians dismounted their knights, and fought Swiss halberdiers. At first, the Austrians pushed the Swiss back. But they got tired from the sheer weight of their armor, and the Swiss then slaughtered them with halberds. And the armor worn by the Austrians was considerably less heavy than the armor worn by the men at arms fighting at Arbedo.

That does not mean that Arbedo did not have an important effect on the Swiss. They did move mainly to pikes after the battle, but the reason was that halberdiers were at a disadvantage against mounted men at arms, which were used to immobilize the Swiss at Arbedo. Pikes were much more effective agains mounted men at arms, which is properly shown in the game.

I realize we are relying on different sources.

[Athos1660]

I respectfully disagree with you about Oman. His books were written in the late nineteenth century and and early twentieth century, but that does not mean they were not accurate. In fact, I find Oman to be more convincing than more modern sources.

The Historical science makes progress by integrating recent researches (in the case of this topic, especially Swiss and German ones) and by being closer to the original sources.

Here is for example what Winkler recently wrote here, p. 2-4 :

"Despite the significance of the Swiss military, the topic needs more clarification. Although the Swiss chroniclers and contemporary observers were very prolific in recording the activities and character of the confederate military, modern researchers have often overlooked these accounts in favor of foreign records. A close examination of the Swiss is long overdue.

Among the most noteworthy studies in English are Charles Oman’s A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages and A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century. Oman’s accounts of battles are reasonably accurate even though they do not always represent the best scholarship available. His works cover many highlights of Swiss warfare, but he entirely overlooks the Swabian War, and his analyses are often mired in the mistakes of other authors. Oman relies heavily on Machiavelli for insights into the Swiss even though the great Florentine political theorist has long been discredited because his knowledge of the facts of Swiss warfare was meager. Oman further looks to Carl von Elgger for many details on topics. However, Oman fails to accept Elgger’s conclusions and analyses of the Swiss, and Oman’s works tend to be superficial. For example, he mistakenly brands the Swiss as being excessively brutal and cruel without attempting to examine their conduct more closely.

Hans Delbrück’s extensive four-volume work Geschichte der Kreigskunst has been recently translated into English. Volume three, Medieval Warfare, has sections that deal with the Swiss. Delbrück’s study is relatively extensive and addresses a wide range of topics, but it has been criticized for its anti-Swiss bias including its obvious distortions of the numbers in the armies to make the confederates appear to have often outnumbered their adversaries when the reverse was almost always the case. Furthermore, Delbrück perpetuated myths about the Swiss military without adequately exploring these issues.

Other works of value in German include Elgger, the best analytical study, which takes in the entire scope of the late Medieval and Renaissance Swiss military, providing numerous details to support his arguments.

Other important academic studies include works by Eugen von Frauenholz, Walter Schaufelberger, Albert Sennhauser, and Christian Padrutt. Emil Frey’s Die Kriegstaten der Schweizer dem Volk erzält is the most comprehensive narrative study. In this huge volume, Frey describes the entire sweep of the history of the Swiss at war from antiquity to the twentieth century, including lengthy accounts of nearly every confederate military action. A more recent narrative study is Hans Rudolf Kurz’s Schweizerschlachten."

(bibliography in the paper)

I realize we are relying on different sources.

Yet there is only one historical truth we all try to approach.

Have a nice day all.

[vaalen]

Greetings, Athos 1660.

A very interesting reply post. I cannot make much of a reply as you rely heavily on German sources, and the only language I know is English.

However, I have read English translations of Delbruck and am not impressed. Delbruck does seem to have a very pro German slant on things, including claims that the Roman legions always greatly outnumbered the ancient Germans. He based this argument in large part on agricultural statistics in much more recent times, and ignored the fact that the ancient Germans were not a farming people, but relied mainly on their extensive cattle herds for their food. i agree that Delbruck was biased against the Swiss.

As for Charles Oman, I think we agree that he did do accurate reporting on the Swiss battles. I agree with Oman that the Swiss were quite brutal and cruel in these battles. That is because the Swiss took no prisoners and slaughtered men who tried to surrender, even when they threw down their arms. Even the lure of ransom did not get the Swiss to take prisoners, as shown by the fact that they killed Charles the bold instead of holding him for ransom, even though he was one of the richest rulers in europe. By the moral standards of Oman's day, killing soldiers who surrendered was brutal and cruel.
I consider it brutal and cruel. One of the reasons the Swiss did that was to terrify their enemies and discourage them from even attempting to fight them.

Oman's adopting Machiavellian views on the Swiss may have been inaccurate. But that had nothing to do with the battles in the game, which was the issue I wanted to raise.

Finally, I do not consider Oman superficial, though I respect your right to do so. I find him readable and clear, making it actually fun to read his books, and reading his books cemented my interest in Military history. I was introduced to Oman by a Marine captain who said his books were favorites with military people. That was back in the seventies, when I was very young, yet I still reread some of his books because I still enjoy them and get insight from them.

Thank you for your contribution, which I found very interesting.

Regards,

Vaalen

[Athos1660]

You’re definitely right to read Oman — it is very well written, pleasant to read, absorbing — as long as you are aware that it is not the most accurate reading on the subject, that it is outdated (1), so you can’t ask FoG2 to stick to it (agree with it).

Good reading. Have fun with the game.

___
(1) It is not I who decide whether it is outdated or not, it is not you, it is not Richard ; it is the scientific community (as a whole or in its majority), those who are able to decide as they have learnt all the European langages (in both their modern and medieval/old versions), have read all the primary sources (written in those days) available today and everything other Historians from any country have written on the matter till today, and made a synthesis of it.

[vaalen]

What I have noticed is that the accepted versions of history can vary greatly from nation to nation, and politics and current political issues have a very strong effect on what is believed. I have also noticed that there are unresolved disputes on many issues of history, again, often involving curren politcal issues.

As a follower of the enlightenment, I contend that I do have the right to ask the designer to change things based on the reasons I gave, and the designer has an absolute right to disagree with me and not do it.

Have a good day.

regards,

Vaalen

[Athos1660]

For millennia, Politics have tried to shape History but the Muse Clio has turned a deaf ear to them.

I am not here to prevent you from posting

Have fun.