Slitherine

Posted: **Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:11 pm**

Some initial questions - for Karsten really

1. I know it comes from Charles' initial scheme but is the date of 1st Breitenfled (1631) actually the most sensible cut off date for the early lists? I was under the impression, although it may be incorrect, that changes started to take place post Lutzen - e.g. Wallenstein making the cavalry more like the Swedes - with the exeption of Tilly's large foot formations which presumably died with him.

2. Whilst we're at it is the 1618 start date OK or just using the start of the TYW for convenience?

3. The German Catholic list has Impact Horse cuirassiers (well they'd be Determined Horse now as that is the new name for them) - as this classification is linked to shallower formations I am a bit dubious about this; but obviously enlightenment may be sent my way

4. Tilly's tercios - I've seen quite a few comments that his units whilst large were not actually the massive tercios as introduced in the 1530s although they are often incorrectly illustrated as such. Should these perhaps be large later tercios? BTW this subject makes me think we may need to have a discussion on pike & shot BGs sizes - I'll start a topic.

5. Tataschiere - I'm intrigued as to what these are

6. For the later TYW should the horse be moving to being Determined Horse (Impact Horse as was) as following the Swedish pattern?

7. Also for the later TYW should the horse at least have an Unarmoured option as as far as I can see armour use dropped off during the war.

8. Ditto pikemen who I would guess would ditch the stuff even quicker than horsemen.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:27 am**

nikgaukroger wrote: 1. I know it comes from Charles' initial scheme but is the date of 1st Breitenfled (1631) actually the most sensible cut off date for the early lists? I was under the impression, although it may be incorrect, that changes started to take place post Lutzen - e.g. Wallenstein making the cavalry more like the Swedes - with the exeption of Tilly's large foot formations which presumably died with him.

Depends which changes one considers more important. The cavalry at Beitenfeld probably was still using the old formation, with the cuirassiers formin up 8-10 deep, the light cavalry (i.e. the Bandelliers) about 5 ranks deep.
On the other hand there is the infantry where we have a report from Feldmarschall-Leutnant Heinrich Holck (who was in charge of forming up Wallensteins Army at Lützen) telling us he arranged the troops in 'regimental blocks' à 1000, no more then 6 men deep), that's pretty similar to the Swedes. There is also an observation from a Swedish Officer (can't find it right now, so not sure who it was, but I can look it up over the weekend if necessary) stating that the Germans were arranged 'like ours' at Lützen. So at least for the infantry the major changes took part before Lützen, not after. Ideally the two lists would overlap by a year or two, but I've been reluctant to do so.

nikgaukroger wrote: 2. Whilst we're at it is the 1618 start date OK or just using the start of the TYW for convenience?

Actually I didn't give that much though, the list could probably start a bit earlier, but not to much, so I don't think it matters much, any earlier lists would still need to cover pretty much the same unless we extend the lists by quite a bit which would proably entail the addition of an need to add an early period to this lists (unless you wish to allow stuff like lancers, halberdiers and arquebuse into the 30YW). Probably simpler to leave as is.

nikgaukroger wrote: 3. The German Catholic list has Impact Horse cuirassiers (well they'd be Determined Horse now as that is the new name for them) - as this classification is linked to shallower formations I am a bit dubious about this; but obviously enlightenment may be sent my way

Well, I wanted a way to make some (especially some of the league ones) notably better then the rest (who was also already rather good), the options seemd impact or elite and impact appeared more in line with their effect (quick break throughs) then elite, even if the formation probably does not fit the one for impact horse. If anything I'm wondering if I've been to conservative with the numbers allowed to them.

nikgaukroger wrote: 4. Tilly's tercios - I've seen quite a few comments that his units whilst large were not actually the massive tercios as introduced in the 1530s although they are often incorrectly illustrated as such. Should these perhaps be large later tercios? BTW this subject makes me think we may need to have a discussion on pike & shot BGs sizes - I'll start a topic.

OK, let's see, imperial Regiments were supposed to be 3000 men organized in companies of 300. 288 of them rankers and 12 officers, split into 120 pikemen, 160 musketeers and 20 halberdiers. The latter had already fallen out of favour when the war started and simply vanished and the pikemen were in reality usually only 100. The whole was arranged in Pikeblocks 5 deep flanked by the muskets 3-5 ranks deep depending on the situation and quality of the troops.
Imperial regiments also tended to be massive under strength, rarely exceeding 4-5 full companies (i.e. 1000-1250 men).

Tillies Bavarian League infantry on the other hand supposedly also had 300 men companies, but had a roughly equal number of pikes and shoot. As far as I can tell Tilly insisted on using the 'Spanish Tercio', which he set up using the 'Square root method (no idea what the actual term in English is' by using two regiments (Bavarian regiments tended to be less undermanned, usually staying well above 2000 men). The setup was: Draw the square root for the available number of pikemen, this gives the side-length of the pikeformation in men. Line that with 2 or 3 files of muskets and arranged the remaining muskets at the corners of the formation (like the arms of a windmill). You know a better description on how to form an early tercio? (I do trust such notes more then battle pictures in this regard, the artist usually wasn't a witness. For example there is a famous copper engraving covering the battle of Lützen which still shows old style Tercios and we know through reports from both sides there weren't any present during that battle.)
It's also stated that Tilly could not get sleep the day before battle until the square root had been drawn and the men informed how to form up the next day. It is possible though that the League regiments adopted a line formation already at 1st Breitenfeld, this is a highly disputed point though. Given Tillys mind set and that he had a long string of victories with his 'old' formation I personally doubt he would change the formation at least his veterans would pretty certainly still fight as deep Tercio.

nikgaukroger wrote: 5. Tataschiere - I'm intrigued as to what these are

Hmmm, actually I mispelled them, darn! It should be Tartschier (Tartsche is an old Term for Shield)
These guys (right side):

While they lock a bit like Sword and Buckler men they originally developed from the forlorn hopes of the Landsknechts. Their shield and body armour was supposedly bullet proof and their main job was dispersing 'unprotected' musketeers (i.e. pure musketeer units with no pikes). I was actually tempted to class them as impact foot, but that might overstate their efficiency. Sometimes they were also used as sort of an shield to protect the pikes of an incoming Tercio from enemy fire during before closing in. There were never enough of them to do that on a large scale (as was recommended in some manuals), as the cost of their armour was forbiddingly high. One of the reasons they fell out of favour. Might be sensible to restrict their use to before 1640 or actually 1638 (the last time I can recall them being mentioned).

nikgaukroger wrote: 6. For the later TYW should the horse be moving to being Determined Horse (Impact Horse as was) as following the Swedish pattern?

Well possible actually I had something like that, but then checked the Swedish list and did not see such an entry (ok it has determined horse, how exactly was I supposed to know that is impact horse now?

)
On the other hand the deep formations didn't go away that fast, especially in the league armies. Imperial and probably protestants were quicker in picking up the shallower formations.

nikgaukroger wrote: 7. Also for the later TYW should the horse at least have an Unarmoured option as as far as I can see armour use dropped off during the war.

I'm less then convinced that the Cuirassiers really abandoned their armour that easily, it was a status symbol as much as body protection. Although I can see it as a possibility especially for the late war were actual battles were rare anyway.

nikgaukroger wrote: 8. Ditto pikemen who I would guess would ditch the stuff even quicker than horsemen.

You got a point there and even if they didn't the armour quality for the infantry deteriorated badly after 1635 or so.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:26 am**

Ghaznavid wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: 1. I know it comes from Charles' initial scheme but is the date of 1st Breitenfled (1631) actually the most sensible cut off date for the early lists? I was under the impression, although it may be incorrect, that changes started to take place post Lutzen - e.g. Wallenstein making the cavalry more like the Swedes - with the exeption of Tilly's large foot formations which presumably died with him.

Depends which changes one considers more important. The cavalry at Beitenfeld probably was still using the old formation, with the cuirassiers formin up 8-10 deep, the light cavalry (i.e. the Bandelliers) about 5 ranks deep.

And at Lutzen the Imperial cavalry was described as 6 deep.

On the other hand there is the infantry where we have a report from Feldmarschall-Leutnant Heinrich Holck (who was in charge of forming up Wallensteins Army at Lützen) telling us he arranged the troops in 'regimental blocks' à 1000, no more then 6 men deep), that's pretty similar to the Swedes. There is also an observation from a Swedish Officer (can't find it right now, so not sure who it was, but I can look it up over the weekend if necessary) stating that the Germans were arranged 'like ours' at Lützen. So at least for the infantry the major changes took part before Lützen, not after. Ideally the two lists would overlap by a year or two, but I've been reluctant to do so.

We have Montecuccoli telling us that Wallenstein liked to deply his infantry 7 deep so as to have the standards exactly in the middle row - it wasn't only Tilly that had addities

The question this raises is whether these 1000 man blocks should count as Tercios - I think if they are 6/7 deep the answer is going to be no.

nikgaukroger wrote: 2. Whilst we're at it is the 1618 start date OK or just using the start of the TYW for convenience?

Actually I didn't give that much though, the list could probably start a bit earlier, but not to much, so I don't think it matters much, any earlier lists would still need to cover pretty much the same unless we extend the lists by quite a bit which would proably entail the addition of an need to add an early period to this lists (unless you wish to allow stuff like lancers, halberdiers and arquebuse into the 30YW). Probably simpler to leave as is.

Agreed.

nikgaukroger wrote: 3. The German Catholic list has Impact Horse cuirassiers (well they'd be Determined Horse now as that is the new name for them) - as this classification is linked to shallower formations I am a bit dubious about this; but obviously enlightenment may be sent my way
Well, I wanted a way to make some (especially some of the league ones) notably better then the rest (who was also already rather good), the options seemd impact or elite and impact appeared more in line with their effect (quick break throughs) then elite, even if the formation probably does not fit the one for impact horse. If anything I'm wondering if I've been to conservative with the numbers allowed to them.

Well Determined Horse won't really make a difference on breaking through per se, especially as we have just removed the CT modified for them and cavaliers. The distinction is now just one of formation so I think they will go back to being Horse.

Please feel free to make a case for some being Elite - I want to use that classification more than we did under FoG:Am where, to be honest, we may as well have not had it.

nikgaukroger wrote: 4. Tilly's tercios - I've seen quite a few comments that his units whilst large were not actually the massive tercios as introduced in the 1530s although they are often incorrectly illustrated as such. Should these perhaps be large later tercios? BTW this subject makes me think we may need to have a discussion on pike & shot BGs sizes - I'll start a topic.
OK, let's see, imperial Regiments were supposed to be 3000 men organized in companies of 300. 288 of them rankers and 12 officers, split into 120 pikemen, 160 musketeers and 20 halberdiers. The latter had already fallen out of favour when the war started and simply vanished and the pikemen were in reality usually only 100. The whole was arranged in Pikeblocks 5 deep flanked by the muskets 3-5 ranks deep depending on the situation and quality of the troops.
Imperial regiments also tended to be massive under strength, rarely exceeding 4-5 full companies (i.e. 1000-1250 men).

Tillies Bavarian League infantry on the other hand supposedly also had 300 men companies, but had a roughly equal number of pikes and shoot. As far as I can tell Tilly insisted on using the 'Spanish Tercio', which he set up using the 'Square root method (no idea what the actual term in English is' by using two regiments (Bavarian regiments tended to be less undermanned, usually staying well above 2000 men). The setup was: Draw the square root for the available number of pikemen, this gives the side-length of the pikeformation in men. Line that with 2 or 3 files of muskets and arranged the remaining muskets at the corners of the formation (like the arms of a windmill). You know a better description on how to form an early tercio? (I do trust such notes more then battle pictures in this regard, the artist usually wasn't a witness. For example there is a famous copper engraving covering the battle of Lützen which still shows old style Tercios and we know through reports from both sides there weren't any present during that battle.)
It's also stated that Tilly could not get sleep the day before battle until the square root had been drawn and the men informed how to form up the next day. It is possible though that the League regiments adopted a line formation already at 1st Breitenfeld, this is a highly disputed point though. Given Tillys mind set and that he had a long string of victories with his 'old' formation I personally doubt he would change the formation at least his veterans would pretty certainly still fight as deep Tercio.

OK, I suspect we are looking at Tilly having Later Tercios and need to look at the other early TYW to see if anu others are justified as any sort of tercio.

nikgaukroger wrote: 5. Tataschiere - I'm intrigued as to what these are

Hmmm, actually I mispelled them, darn! It should be Tartschier (Tartsche is an old Term for Shield)
These guys (right side):

While they lock a bit like Sword and Buckler men they originally developed from the forlorn hopes of the Landsknechts. Their shield and body armour was supposedly bullet proof and their main job was dispersing 'unprotected' musketeers (i.e. pure musketeer units with no pikes). I was actually tempted to class them as impact foot, but that might overstate their efficiency. Sometimes they were also used as sort of an shield to protect the pikes of an incoming Tercio from enemy fire during before closing in. There were never enough of them to do that on a large scale (as was recommended in some manuals), as the cost of their armour was forbiddingly high. One of the reasons they fell out of favour. Might be sensible to restrict their use to before 1640 or actually 1638 (the last time I can recall them being mentioned).

Ah them. Montecuccoli mentions them as well - although, IIRC, he admits there will never be enough of them. I wonder if we should really be having separate bodies of them - somewhere I have a picture of them (or similar troops) supportimg shot types.

Nice bit of colour so I think we should look at seeing if we can include them, but may have to be creative. Of course if you have an account of a separate body in battle we're OK

nikgaukroger wrote: 6. For the later TYW should the horse be moving to being Determined Horse (Impact Horse as was) as following the Swedish pattern?
Well possible actually I had something like that, but then checked the Swedish list and did not see such an entry (ok it has determined horse, how exactly was I supposed to know that is impact horse now? )
On the other hand the deep formations didn't go away that fast, especially in the league armies. Imperial and probably protestants were quicker in picking up the shallower formations.

Indeed the Imperialists seem to be more conservative - so possibly some but not all have the option?

nikgaukroger wrote: 7. Also for the later TYW should the horse at least have an Unarmoured option as as far as I can see armour use dropped off during the war.
I'm less then convinced that the Cuirassiers really abandoned their armour that easily, it was a status symbol as much as body protection. Although I can see it as a possibility especially for the late war were actual battles were rare anyway.

nikgaukroger wrote: 8. Ditto pikemen who I would guess would ditch the stuff even quicker than horsemen.
You got a point there and even if they didn't the armour quality for the infantry deteriorated badly after 1635 or so.

I am tending, so far, to go with the idea that armour was, in reality, dropped by the troops in the field even when the "high ups" disapproved so am tending to err on less protection. I'll fiddle around and you'll be able to comment and pour on scorn

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:26 am**

Here are some thoughts on the changes I've made to these lists [RBS:which I have just posted to you all] based on discussion and my own thinking - this isn't exhaustive so please read through and scream if you think I've made mistakes

Early TYW Protestant

Allowed Average Kurassiere as these armies do appear to have been flaky at times - a point Karsten makes.

Restricted tercios to before 1626 (date picked to match exisiting cut off to keep things simple). I'm not convinced that tercios or tercio like formations were used that much by the Protestants who seem to have been quiote Dutch influenced. However, see also the Troube With tercios topic.

Upped amount of BGs that should be Poor in later armies - may be over-doing it but these armies appear to hav ebeen quite bad.

Early TYW Catholic

Removed Impact Horse (aka Determined Horse) for reasons already mentioned.

Put a minimum of Unarmoured Bandallier Reiter - I get the impression these were the usual type so seems reasonable they must be in an army.

Tercio sizes changes as I don't think we should have Early Tercios at this stage - see also tercios topic; should there even be any other than maybe Tilly?

Later TYW Germans

Removed "Only from 1628" date as I think this list starts in the 1630's.

Commanded shot - made optional and not Salvo; not sure why they were Salvo to begin with.

Determined Horse allowed for Armoured kurassiere.

Unarmoured pikemen in the later part of the list as previously mentioned.

Poor infantry regiments added as I'm sure there muct have been some

Danish

Change to tercio size.

Tercios removed from mercenaries.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:48 pm**

Found the following information on the web:

White Mountain, Nov. 8, 1620

Order of battle taken from Dusan Uhlir, "Cerny Den na Bile Hore" [Black Day at White Mountain] (Brno: Ave, 1998), 128-129.

BOHEMIAN-UNION ARMY
Commander: Christian of Anhalt

Right Wing (Christian of Anhalt)
4 Cornets of Mansfeld's regiment, 400 reiters
4 companies, Moravian foot regiment (Colonel Jindrich Slik), 800 infantry
4 cornets, Silesian regiment, 300 reiters
1 reinforced cornet, Hungarian horse (Kornis), 300 light horse
5 cornets, Moravian horse regiment (von Stubenvoll), 700 reiters
2 companies, Upper Austrian foot regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel Pechmann), 240 infantry
3 heavy field cannon, in prepared position
TOTAL: c. 1040 infantry, 1700 horse

Center (General-Lieutenant Hohenlohe)
4 companies Moravian foot regiment (Colonel Jindrich Slik), 1000 infantry
8 incomplete cornets Lower Austrian horse regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel von Hofkirchen), c. 350 horse
4 cornets, Anhalt (Younger) arquebusier regiment (Christian Anhalt the younger), 400 reiters
3 companies Upper Austrian foot regiment, 300 infantry
3 cornets, Anhalt (Younger) arquebusier regiment (Christian Anhalt the younger), 300 reiters
1 heavy, perhaps 2 light field cannon, in prepared position
TOTAL: c. 1300 infantry, 1050 horse

Advanced Detatchment
4 cornets (Elder) Anhalt Horse Regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel Streif), 550 reiters
4 companies Hohenlohe foot regiment, 1000 infantry
5 cornets Hohenlohe horse regiment, 500 reiters
4 companies Hohenlohe foot regiment, 1000 infantry
3 companies Kaplir foot regiment, 800 infantry
4 cornets Moravian horse regiment (Borita z Budce), 300 reiters
TOTAL: c. 2800 infantry, 1350 horse

Left Wing (General-Lieutenant Thurn)
1 Royal cornet, 100 reiters + 3 cornets Bohemian horse regiment, 300 reiters
3 cornets Solm horse regiment + 6 cornets Bubna horse regiment, together 550 reiters
3 companies Kaplir foot regiment, 800 infantry
4 cornets Moravian horse regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel Kain), 300 reiters
6 companies (Elder) Thurn foot regiment, 1320 infantry
3 companies Kaplir foot regiment, 800 infantry
4 companies (Elder)Thurn foot regiment (Bernard Thurn, younger), 800 infantry
1 special detatchment from Christian Anhalt (elder) personal retinue
2 heavy field cannon, in prepared position, 2 additional cannon in unprepared position
TOTAL: c. 4020 infantry, 1250 horse

Reserve Line (Kornis)
c. 4700 Hungarian light horse

Detatched corps
(Younger) Anhalt foot regiment
2 cornets Royal horse
Weimar regiment, mostly Dutch, c. 600 infantry
TOTAL: c. 1800 infantry and cavalry

IMPERIAL-CATHOLIC ARMY
Supreme Commander: Maximillian of Bavaria
Imperial Commander: Marshall Buquoy
Catholic Leage Commander: General-Lieutenant Tilly

First Line (Catholic League):

1st Division - infantry
Wurzburg foot regiment (Colonel Bauer), c. 2000 infantry
Lorraine foot regiment (Colonel Florainville), c. 300 infantry positioned to the front of the division, supported by a mounted detatchment from Schmidt's regiment under Grun and Pettinger

2nd Division - horse
Kratz horse regiment (Kratz von Scharfenstein), 5 cornets, c. 400 reiters
Lorraine horse regiment, 5 cornets
Eynatten horse regiment (Colonel von Eynatten), 5 cornets

3rd Division - infantry
Haslang and Sulz infantry regiments organized in a single tercio
Herliberg foot regiment (Colonel Herliberg), c. 2000 infantry
Rouville and Schmidt (-) foot regiments

4th Division - horse
Herbersdorf horse regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel Pappenheim), 3 cornets, c. 300 reiters
Bennighausen horse regiment (Colonel von Bennighaus), 6 cornets, c. 500 reiters
Hercelles horse regiment (Colonel Hercelles), 6 cornets, c. 400 reiters
Polish horse detatchment (unknown size)

Behind the 4th division were positioned the field commanders, Maximillian and Buquoy.
To the rear, across Litovicky Stream were positioned 6 Bavarian cannon, supported by 8 cornets under Colonel Wartenberg and 200 Polish light horse.

TOTAL, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: 12,000-13,000 (of whom only 4,000 entered the battle)

Second Line (Imperial Army)

1st Division (Rudolf von Tiefenbach)
Wallenstein cuirassier regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel de la Motte), 6 cornets, 400 reiters
Gauchier horse regiment (Colonel Gauchier), 4 cornets, c. 250 reiters

Walloon Tercio:
Verdugo and Buquoy foot regiments (Colonel Verdugo, Lieutenant-Colonel Henin), c. 2800 infantry
Lacroix horse regiment (Colonel de Lacroix), 4 cornets, c. 250 reiters
Meggau German horse regiment (Colonel von Meggau), 4 cornets, c. 250 reiters

(1st) German Tercio:
Tiefenbach and Breuner foot regiments (von Breuner), c. 500 infantry
3 companies of Tiefenbach regiment on the right, 5 companies of Breuner regiment on the left
Marradas cuirassier regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel Areycaga), 8 cornets, c. 320 reiters

TOTAL, 1st Division: 1470 infantry, 4300 horse

2nd Division (Maximillian von Lichtenstein)
Lobel horse regiment (Colonel von Lobel), 4 cornets, c. 320 reiters
Neapolitan Tercio: Spinelli foot regiment (Colonel Marquis Spinelli), c. 2500 infantry

TOTAL, 2nd Division: 2500 infantry, 320 horse

3rd Division (Maximillian von Lichtenstein)
Dampierre horse regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel Dampierre), 5 cornets, c. 250 reiters
(2nd) German Tercio:
Saxon-Lauenburg foot regiment (Colonel Duke von Saxon-Lauenburg), 10 companies
Naussau foot regiment (Colonel Johann von Naussau), 10 companies
(together c. 2000 infantry)
(3rd) German Tercio:
Fugger foot regiment (Lieutenant-Colonel Fuchs), 10 companies
Kriechingen (?) foot regiment, 4 companies
(together c. 1500 infantry)
Florentine horse regiment, 5 cornets, c. 300 reiters
Polish and Cossack light horse (Stanislaw Rusinow), c. 1500 horse

TOTAL, 3rd Division: 3500 infantry, 2050 horse

Imperial artillery: 4 cannon, two batteries of two cannon each.

TOTAL, Imperial Army: 14,140

We seem to have in this listing the Protestant infantry are in smaller bodies than the Catholics where both League and Imperial infantry are in large bodies.

I have no idea about the reliability of the book concerned.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:51 pm**

And another White Mountain listing:

THE BATTLE OF WHITE MOUNTAIN

This is taken from ‘Arquebusier’ Vol. 6, No. 4 and is the copyright of the Pike and Shot Society.

The original information was discovered in a book in Lancaster University library and was translated and added to by Andy Callan. The book is entitled ‘Na Bile Hore, Ousdnau Udalost z Ceskych Dejin’ (On the White Mountain, a Fateful Event in Czech History) by Dr. J. Teige, H. Kuffner and J. Herain. Published in Prague 1911 by A.B.Cerny.

The author pens a disclaimer ‘All numbers given can, of course, only be approximate’. He does not clarify if this is the authors original approximation of numbers or his own. I think the former.

There is a map and a key to troop dispositions, which is why the ORBAT appears as it does (with regiments split and numbered) which correspond to the dispositions on the inadequate map.

BOHEMIAN ROYALIST OOB

Commander in Chief: Prince Christian of Anhalt senior

Right Wing Co: Unknown

1. Graf Styrum, 4 Ensigns of the Mansfeld regiment, 400 cavalry
2. 4 companies of Schlik’s Moravian regiment, 800 infantry
3. 4 Slezan ensigns, 300 cavalry
4. Col. Kornisch’s Lifeguard ensign, 300 cavalry
5. Graf Stubenvoll, 5 ensigns of the Moravian Regiment of Horse, 700 cavalry
6. Lt.Colonel Pechmann, 2 coys. Of Upper Austrian Foot, 240 Infantry

Centre Co: Probably under Lt.General Graf zu Hallach

7. 4 coys of Schlik’s Moravian regiment, 1000 infantry
8. Lt. Colonel von Hofkirchen, 8 incomplete ensigns of Lower Austrian horse, 350 cavalry
9. Prince Christian of Anhalt junior, 4 ensigns of Arqubusiers, 400 cavalry
10. 3 coys of Upper Austrian foot, 360 infantry
11. 3 ensigns of Anhalt junior’s arquebusiers, 300 cavalry
12. (Advanced Guard) Lt. Colonel Streif, 4 ensigns of Anhalt senior’s regiment, 550 cavalry
13. 4 coys of Graf zu Hollach’s regiment of foot, 1000 infantry
14. 5 ensigns of Graf zu Hollach’s reiment of horse, 500 cavalry
15. 4 coys of Graf zu Hollach’s regiment of foot, 1000 infantry
16. 3 coys of the Kaplir regiment of foot, 800 infantry
17. Lt. Colonel Borsida, 4 ensigns of the Moravian regiment of horse, about 300 cavalry

Left Wing Co: Lt. General Graf Thurn senior

18. 1st Royal ensign of horse, 100 cavalry and 3 ensigns of Czechish horse, 300 cavalry
19. The Solms (3 regts) and the Bubna (6 ensigns) regiments of horse, 550 cavalry
20. 3 coys of Kaplir regiment of foot, 800 infantry
21. Colonel von Kain, 4 regiments of the Moravian regiment of horse, 300 cavalry
22. 6 coys of Graf von Thurn senior regiment of foot, 1320 infantry
23. 3 coys of the Kaplir regiment of foot, 800 infantry
24. Colonel Bernard Graf Thurn junior, 4 coys of his father’s regiment of foot, 880 infantry
25. C-in-C
All above in two lines
26. Units of Hungarian horse, 4700
Above forms the third line
(cont.)
In the enclosure around the Star Palace Co: Unknown

27. Half the foot regiment of Anhalt junior
28.2nd Royal ensign of horse (100?)
29. Duke Williams of Weimar’s regiment of horse, 600 cavalry (Dutch)
30. Half of the foot regiment of Anhalt junior
(Above constitute approx. 1800 men)

Artillery

31. Right Wing, 3 heavy field pieces, dug in
32. Centre battery of one heavy field piece
33. 2 centre battries of light filed pieces (2 each?)
34. Left wing battery of 2 heavy field pieces. (Somewhere in the vicinity were a further two incomplete batteries, probably of one piece each.)

Approx 21000 men and 10 guns

IMPERIALIST OOB

C-in-C: Lt. General Graf Buqoy (spent the battle beside his Bavarian counterpart)

1st Line Co: Rudolph von Tiefenbach

1. Lt. Colonels Lamotte and Conti, 6 ensigns of Graf Waldstein’s (Wallenstein) currasssier regiment, 300 cavalry
2. Colonel Gauchier, 4 ensigns, 240 cavalry
3. Walloon Tercio, made up of Verdugo’s (Colonel Verdugo’s) and Buquoy’s (Lt. Colonel von Henin) regiments of foot, 42 coys, about 2800 infantry
4. Colonel Lacroix, 4 ensigns, 240 cavalry
5. Col. Graf Meggau, 4 ensigns of German horse (probably Currassiers) 240 cavalry
6. Tercio of German infantry, 3 coys of Tiefenbach’s regiment and 5 coys of Brenner’s (700 and 600 men respectively), 1300 infantry
7. Colonel Areycaga, 8 ensigns of the Marradas regiment of curassiers, 320 cavalry

2nd Line Co: Maximillian von Liechtenstein

8. Colonel Lebl, 4 ensigns of horse (in 2 squdarons), 320 cavalry
9. Colonel Spinelli, Napolitan Tercio, 31 coys, about 2500 infantry

3rd Line Co: As 2nd Line

10/11. Colonel Dampierre with 5 ensigns of his brother’s regiment of horse, 250 cavalry (shown in 3 squadrons)
12. Tercio made up of the foot regiments of the Duke of Saxe-Lauenberg (10 coys,1000 infantry), and of Count John of Nassau junior (10 coys, 900 infantry), 1900 infantry
13. Tercio made up from the Fugger regiment of foot (10 coys, 1000 infantry) and of 4 other coys of foot, total 1500 infantry
14. 5 ensigns of Florentine horse, 300 cavalry
15. Stanislas Rusinovsky, Polish or ‘Cossack’ horse, perhaps 1500 cavalry

Artillery
4 pieces in 2 batteries in the first line, 1 battery to the right of the Walloon Tercio, the other in front of the German Tercio

Approx. 12,220 men (not including the artillery)

(cont.)

BAVARIAN (CATHOLIC LEAGUE) OOB

C-in-C: Maximillian, Duke of Bavaria, and Lt. General Johann Tserclaes von Tilly

1st Line (infantry) Co: Unknown

1. Colonel Bauer, “vycpursky” (Wurtzburg?) regiment of foot (2400?)*
2. Colonel Florienville, Lorraine regiment of foot (2400?)*
In front of the line, skirmishing towards the enclosure, the foot coys of Roberts and St. Julian (300 musketeers) and troop captain Grun operating on the left with a body of cavalry.

2nd Line (cavalry) Co: Unknown

3. Colonel Gratz von Scharfestien, 5 ensigns of horse (400?)*
4. 5 ensigns of Lorraine horse (400?)*
5. Lt. Colonel von Eynatten, 5 ensigns of horse (400?)*

3rd Line (infantry) Co: Unknown

6. Foot regiments of Haslang and Sulz (combined) (1800?)*
7. Colonel Herliberg with his regiment of foot (1800?)*
8. Foot regiments of Schmidt and Rouville (1800?)*

4th Line (cavalry) Co: Unknown

9. Graf von Pappenheim, 3 ensigns of horse (240?)*
10. Colonel Bennighausen, 6 ensigns of horse (480?)*
11. Colonel Hercelles, 6 ensigns of horse (480?)*
12. Part of the Polish horse, number variously given (600?)*

Also in the 4th Line

13. The two allied commanders
14. 6 Bavarian heavy guns
15. Screening these guns, 8 ensigns of horse under Colonels Wartenberg and Pettinger as well as 200 Polish horse.

Artillery

4 two gun batteries were set up in front of the army

Approx 13-14000 men

* these are my (RW) estimates based on a ensign being 80 men and infantry company 80-100. The above estimates number the Bavarians at 14,000.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:26 pm**

Found this post on a Yahoo list:

The only problem is that there was no lumbering "2000 man", "50 rank deep"
Tercio used by Catholic Leauge, Empire or Spanish in the 17th Centiry, nor
in 16th Century for that matter.
It's a myth created by a combination of factors. Mostly the fact that too
many historians even today don't bother with looking at the primary sources
but rather prefer to take the short cut offered by re-using the content of
older works. The problem is that the older works were poorly researched,
many authors would study negravings and paintings as if they were 100%
accurate photographs and then use the written sources which fit the images.
Anything not fitting this view would be disregarded. Spanish sources were
not studied in any depth while German sources were used but not very well as
their content did not fit the preconcived notions. In a leauge of their own
were authors like Guthrie who partly made up things up based on their own
private notions of how 17th century tactics worked.

The Spanish infantry fought in a "Squadron" (Escaudron") not in a "Tercio"
and the squadron could be formed up several diffrent ways with varying
depth as there was no fixed depth. Rather the number of ranks and the shape
of
the formation was adapted to the tactical situation. By the start of the TYW
in 1618
the Spanish had long since adopted 10 rank deep formations just like the
Dutch.
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TactiqueUk.html
At Fleurus 1622 the Spanish formed 5200 foot into 4 squadrons, i.e 1300 men
each if they were all of equal strenght. A smaller unit than the 1700 man
brigades used by Gustav Adolf at Breitenfeld.
http://www.geocities.com/aow1617/fleurusuk.html

Add to this that the Spanish frequently used smaller detachments of both
shot and pike to fullfill missions on the battlefield. At Mook the Spanish
used two detachments (Mangas) of 300 shot each supported by a detchment of
100 pikemen in their second assault on the Dutch trench. Hardly a an example
of the vastefull use of manpower.

Dr. Pierre Picouet's website at
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TercioUK.html is required reading about the
Spanish army of the 16th&17th Centuries

The use of 10 rank formation spread rapidly through Europe regardless of the
religon, the Catholic French & Lorrainers were 10 deep at Julich, the only
ones using a deeper formation were the Swiss
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... 1610_4.jpg

The Germans were_not_using the Spanish system unless part of the Spanish
army. Rather they started out with a massive, 30 ranks deep, regimental
square.
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... 1600_4.jpg
Hower in during the first decade of the 17th century both Protestant &
Cathlic military writers such as Count Johann von Nassau-Siegen and Georg
Basta recongnised the inefficency of the German formation and introduced a
set of reforms to change and improve it. It is an intersting fact that both
men chose the same solution, dividing the regiment into 3 1000.man
battalions. Count Johann chose to make his battalions 10 ranks deep while
Basta made his 12 ranks deep.
Count Johann:
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... 1600_3.jpg
Basta:
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... ild005.jpg

Count Johann's work influenced the Protestant armies of Northern Europe
including the Germans, Danes and Swedes while Basta influence both Johann
Tserclaes Tilly and Albrecht von Wallenstein both whom had served with Basta
in the "Hungarian War" (aka Long Turkish war) 1593-1606. Indeed it was in
that war that Tilly rose from regimental commander to the rank of general
and was Basta's 2nd in command. As German regiments were almost always
understrenght once a campaign was underway it became common to form a
regiment into one rather than three battalions or to combine two weak
regiments into a single battalion. Such battalions are seen in both Merian
engravings of Tilly's army (at Werben & Breitenfeld) which were based on the
plans drawn by Gustav Adolf's chief engineer Olof Hansson. Given that
Hansson was present at both Werben and Breitenfeld he drew what he saw,
which was large battalions, not "Tercios".
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... en1631.gif
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50 ... enfeld.gif

Catholic armies were fighting in multiple lines long before Breitenfeld. The
Spanish used 3 lines a Nieuport 1600, the imperial army at White Mountain
was likewise in 3 lines while the Catholic Leauge foguth in 4 lines. Tilly
used multiple lines at Lutter as well. The single line deployment used at
Breitenfeld was caused by the need to match the unusaly wide front of the
combined Swedish-Saxon army. Outnumberd by 30% Tilly had no choice but to
forgo the use of multiple lines.

There were at least 3 European alternatives to the Spanish and Swedish
schools. There was the Dutch school, the Protestant German school and the
Catholic German school.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:29 am**

nikgaukroger wrote:Here are some thoughts on the changes I've made to these lists

Restricted tercios to before 1626 (date picked to match exisiting cut off to keep things simple). I'm not convinced that tercios or tercio like formations were used that much by the Protestants who seem to have been quiote Dutch influenced. However, see also the Troube With tercios topic.

Depends, those northwards been, but the more southerly ones were more influenced by austrian and bavarian tactics and formations. That said given the Protestant forces in the south were overrun early on I can see the cahnge you made.

nikgaukroger wrote:Upped amount of BGs that should be Poor in later armies - may be over-doing it but these armies appear to hav ebeen quite bad.

Well, it MAY be historical justifiable, but I get the notion you having a Phil moment there. Not sure about your perception, but to me FoG is a game, not a historical simulation. It should have a historical feel to it and be able to produce historical outcomes, true. Still IMO proper simulations should be restricted to the computer, that way I can let it run and do something else meanwhile. While we have much better informations as to how exactly the battles were fought in this period compared to the periods covered by FoG:AM I think it still remains paramount that we get a good game that 'appears' historical, not a simulation.
In that light, forcing that many poor troops on the Protestants most likely condemns them to obscurity.

nikgaukroger wrote: Early TYW Catholic

Removed Impact Horse (aka Determined Horse) for reasons already mentioned.

Ok, still needs someting to distinguish some of them (especially some league units) from the rest. I'm open to suggestions.

nikgaukroger wrote: Tercio sizes changes as I don't think we should have Early Tercios at this stage - see also tercios topic; should there even be any other than maybe Tilly?

Ealry Tercio or none, if you don't allow for Tillys League BGs to be about twice the size of Imperial ones the list fails to capture an important difference.

nikgaukroger wrote: Danish

Change to tercio size.

Tercios removed from mercenaries.

You should also change the name on the fortifications, that was a simple copy and past mistake.

Oh and someon please correct Tartaschier to Tartschier in the TYW Catholic and later German lists.

As to the other stuff you posted. Sorry a bit pressed for time right now, maybe I can go through it in more detail later. for now:

Yes, protestant units tended to be smaller then Imperial ones, but were often joined together to form larger units (some speculate that carless mixing of units is partially responsible for the bad performance ... personally I'm not so sure on that, combining small or under strength units seems to have been pretty common practice on all sides).

The research I'm basing Tillys units on is not some outdated or sloppy one though. It's based mostly on Peter Engrisser: Von Kronach nach Nördlingen, which was 1st published in 2004 and revised and expanded in 2007. It's considered the most throughout research of the 1630-1635 period of the TYW to date.

Finally to Richards notes in the lists:
The cossacks mentioned are actually polish cossacks, so not sure that 'needs to be double armed to raise cost' applies to them, it's not really the same troops. Such auxiliary LH is pretty universally described as armed with a short carbine, two pistol and a sabre. Since most hussars, cossacks, croats or whatever they get called tended to be more active with reconaissance and foraging then actually taking part in set battles one could speculate that less well equipped ones existed, but mostly abstained from battle, alternately those occasions were they did less well if they actually ended in melee (currently the reason for the option to use them without melee capability) could be used to make them sword armed. Personally I think the current set up is closest though. They tended to avoid melee but some were more aggressive then others and at such times could be surprisingly effective in HtH.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:12 am**

Ghaznavid wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Upped amount of BGs that should be Poor in later armies - may be over-doing it but these armies appear to hav ebeen quite bad.
Well, it MAY be historical justifiable, but I get the notion you having a Phil moment there. Not sure about your perception, but to me FoG is a game, not a historical simulation. It should have a historical feel to it and be able to produce historical outcomes, true. Still IMO proper simulations should be restricted to the computer, that way I can let it run and do something else meanwhile. While we have much better informations as to how exactly the battles were fought in this period compared to the periods covered by FoG:AM I think it still remains paramount that we get a good game that 'appears' historical, not a simulation.
In that light, forcing that many poor troops on the Protestants most likely condemns them to obscurity.

Fair point. I'll revisit.

nikgaukroger wrote: Tercio sizes changes as I don't think we should have Early Tercios at this stage - see also tercios topic; should there even be any other than maybe Tilly?
Ealry Tercio or none, if you don't allow for Tillys League BGs to be about twice the size of Imperial ones the list fails to capture an important difference.

Getting large BGs is not quite the same as them being tercios though. I have no issue about giving them large BGs - although exactly what size to get the pike & shot ratio reasonable may be an issue.

As to the other stuff you posted. Sorry a bit pressed for time right now, maybe I can go through it in more detail later. for now:

OK - we're not out of time yet

Yes, protestant units tended to be smaller then Imperial ones, but were often joined together to form larger units (some speculate that carless mixing of units is partially responsible for the bad performance ... personally I'm not so sure on that, combining small or under strength units seems to have been pretty common practice on all sides).

BGs as ever will in most cases represent more than one unit - I see the 6 base BG of pike and shot in later armies probably representing a pair of battalions for example. It seems to be coming down to about 6 bases of pike and shot representing about 1000 men so we probably need something like 10-12 bases to represent the 2000 men Catholic formations for example.

The research I'm basing Tillys units on is not some outdated or sloppy one though. It's based mostly on Peter Engrisser: Von Kronach nach Nördlingen, which was 1st published in 2004 and revised and expanded in 2007. It's considered the most throughout research of the 1630-1635 period of the TYW to date.

Cool

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:47 pm**

Some more questions - and a couple of things I'm doing to the lists.

Danish

The German mercenary allies and the Special Campaigns provision appear to be more or less duplicating each other - bar the command & control of an allied commander. Is this intentional?

Early TYW Catholics

Should the LF really be Superior?

Musketenkompanien - were these units in their own right or would they be drawn off from other units as needed? If the latter would they not be dealt with by the Detached Shot rules?

As this list seems the most appropriate I'm going to say it includes the Savoyard army - unless we can find any better information on it that is. I am putting in the following restriction though:

 Savoyard armies can only include Core Troops, a single battle group of Light Horse, Dragoons, Militia and Field Fortifications.

I've also added Militia which are Poor quality foot. Some sort of militia are mentioned regularly in Wilson's "Europe's Tragedy" with even Tilly having to use many when Maximilian took away many of his good troops to form another Bavarian army in 1621. Obviously not compulsory just more optional troops.

Early TYW Protestants

I think we need an explanation of the 1626 date re: tercios in the Troop Notes.

Musketenkompanien as above.

Could the Ungarn also be Bow? Or would that sort just come in a Transylvanian ally?

Later TYW German

Do we need to say that if Average infantry BGs had regimental guns then Superior ones should have? Or don't you see things as that organised?

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:59 am**

nikgaukroger wrote: Danish

The German mercenary allies and the Special Campaigns provision appear to be more or less duplicating each other - bar the command & control of an allied commander. Is this intentional?

Some of the troops (i.e. those represented by the special campaign section) where hired mostly in Northern Germany, (Holstein, Sachsen, etc.) under local commanders and would usually be able to understand the Danish. The mercenaries ... are just that from wherever and frequently unaccustomed to the idioms spoken in northern Germany and Denmark.
So yes, I think having both is justified.

nikgaukroger wrote: Early TYW Catholics

Should the LF really be Superior?

Hmmm, maybe not always. I think they should retain at least the option to be superior though. Some of them, especially those from Bavaria and Austria been highly feared it appears.

nikgaukroger wrote: Musketenkompanien - were these units in their own right or would they be drawn off from other units as needed? If the latter would they not be dealt with by the Detached Shot rules?

There are records of the early armies Wallenstein put together having foot regiments without pikes. I doubt they are detached shoot in that sense, as they apparently are listed separately on a payroll.

nikgaukroger wrote: As this list seems the most appropriate I'm going to say it includes the Savoyard army - unless we can find any better information on it that is. I am putting in the following restriction though:

 Savoyard armies can only include Core Troops, a single battle group of Light Horse, Dragoons, Militia and Field Fortifications.

You sure? I've been under the impression that the Savoyard armies were more influenced by the French, but maybe that's only after the 1628-1630 occupation?

nikgaukroger wrote: Early TYW Protestants

Musketenkompanien as above.

Ok, in this list they are somewhat speculative, based on that most things tried by one side was at least once copied by the other (even if the original attempt proved a failure I might add)

nikgaukroger wrote: Could the Ungarn also be Bow? Or would that sort just come in a Transylvanian ally?

I found no mentioning of them using bows. While some of the more traditional minded groups, like the Szekler were still using bows it seems. (It's highly disputed to what extend however. Many argue that while they may still have carried a bow, as sort of a status symbol or for hunting it appears they used guns in battle.) The troops that formed up these LH regiments were rarly drawn from these groups however (at least not to an large extend). I would probably include one or 2 bow armed minis in a BG for colour, but that's about it.

nikgaukroger wrote: Later TYW German

Do we need to say that if Average infantry BGs had regimental guns then Superior ones should have? Or don't you see things as that organised?

Hmm, interesting question, it depends I guess. In general one can count on the veterans to get what they want before the other troops. OTOH sometimes troops seem to have echewed regimental guns for the extra work their transport caused.

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:56 am**

Ghaznavid wrote:
Finally to Richards notes in the lists:
The cossacks mentioned are actually polish cossacks, so not sure that 'needs to be double armed to raise cost' applies to them, it's not really the same troops. Such auxiliary LH is pretty universally described as armed with a short carbine, two pistol and a sabre. Since most hussars, cossacks, croats or whatever they get called tended to be more active with reconaissance and foraging then actually taking part in set battles one could speculate that less well equipped ones existed, but mostly abstained from battle, alternately those occasions were they did less well if they actually ended in melee (currently the reason for the option to use them without melee capability) could be used to make them sword armed. Personally I think the current set up is closest though. They tended to avoid melee but some were more aggressive then others and at such times could be surprisingly effective in HtH.

I concur with this - however, we classify these LH types in the TYW lists does not commit us to anything when we do the real Cossack lists as they are not the same troops. However, calling them Poles in the list rather than Kossaken may be a good thing to avoid players making assumptions?

So hat is the best German tern to use for Poles - keep it clean

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:06 am**

Ghaznavid wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: Danish

The German mercenary allies and the Special Campaigns provision appear to be more or less duplicating each other - bar the command & control of an allied commander. Is this intentional?
Some of the troops (i.e. those represented by the special campaign section) where hired mostly in Northern Germany, (Holstein, Sachsen, etc.) under local commanders and would usually be able to understand the Danish. The mercenaries ... are just that from wherever and frequently unaccustomed to the idioms spoken in northern Germany and Denmark.
So yes, I think having both is justified.

OK, that makes sense - I'll do a list note to cover it.

nikgaukroger wrote: Early TYW Catholics

Should the LF really be Superior?
Hmmm, maybe not always. I think they should retain at least the option to be superior though. Some of them, especially those from Bavaria and Austria been highly feared it appears.

OK - a 4 base BG will be fine; I'd be concerned about more.

nikgaukroger wrote: Musketenkompanien - were these units in their own right or would they be drawn off from other units as needed? If the latter would they not be dealt with by the Detached Shot rules?
There are records of the early armies Wallenstein put together having foot regiments without pikes. I doubt they are detached shoot in that sense, as they apparently are listed separately on a payroll.

That is pretty clear

nikgaukroger wrote: As this list seems the most appropriate I'm going to say it includes the Savoyard army - unless we can find any better information on it that is. I am putting in the following restriction though:

 Savoyard armies can only include Core Troops, a single battle group of Light Horse, Dragoons, Militia and Field Fortifications.
You sure? I've been under the impression that the Savoyard armies were more influenced by the French, but maybe that's only after the 1628-1630 occupation?

Not sure at all to be honest. However, using Imperialist makes them a fairly generic pike & shot & horse outfit whilst using the French would give them the odd French infantry for which I think I'd like some evidence.

Really need a Venetian army for the War of the Mantuan Succession as well but I've even less idea for that

nikgaukroger wrote: Early TYW Protestants

Musketenkompanien as above.
Ok, in this list they are somewhat speculative, based on that most things tried by one side was at least once copied by the other (even if the original attempt proved a failure I might add)

Fair enough - will leave in for the time being at least.

nikgaukroger wrote: Could the Ungarn also be Bow? Or would that sort just come in a Transylvanian ally?
I found no mentioning of them using bows. While some of the more traditional minded groups, like the Szekler were still using bows it seems. (It's highly disputed to what extend however. Many argue that while they may still have carried a bow, as sort of a status symbol or for hunting it appears they used guns in battle.) The troops that formed up these LH regiments were rarly drawn from these groups however (at least not to an large extend). I would probably include one or 2 bow armed minis in a BG for colour, but that's about it.

Cheers.

nikgaukroger wrote: Later TYW German

Do we need to say that if Average infantry BGs had regimental guns then Superior ones should have? Or don't you see things as that organised?
Hmm, interesting question, it depends I guess. In general one can count on the veterans to get what they want before the other troops. OTOH sometimes troops seem to have echewed regimental guns for the extra work their transport caused.

Will leave unspecified then.

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 am**

Any ideas what we can say on this one?

Early TYW Protestants

I think we need an explanation of the 1626 date re: tercios in the Troop Notes.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:14 pm**

nikgaukroger wrote:Any ideas what we can say on this one?

Early TYW Protestants

I think we need an explanation of the 1626 date re: tercios in the Troop Notes.

Last time I checked you are supposed to be the native speaker, no?

I would probably just mentioned that we not believe they still used actualy tercio formations after that date; most likely influenced by the formations succesfully used by the Low Country armis.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:23 am**

I'm not convinced they used it before that date either - I was hoping you had something we could say that would justify it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:46 am**

Ah ... well it's difficult to be absoultely certain. We know Tercios were used by the catholics around this time, they even use the term occasionally. Given that the success of the Landsknechts had pretty much unified the military structures in Germany, compared to the wild array encountered during the medieval times; it seems likely that the starting positions of the protestants and the catholics were similar in terms of unit organization. Especially in those regions that had little direct contact with say the Dutch and their model.

There is also little mentioning of the Imperials are generally notably deeper during the early war, if anything there is mentioning that the Low Country (and possibly north German) troops are using kinda shallow formations (but the the Dutch troops did not exactly enjoy a high reputation). So I tend to think that certainly the more southerly troops during the Bohemian-palatinate phase were organised akin to the Imperial ones (unlike nothern Germany, Bohemia is unlikely to be influenced to much by the Dutch at this time, with the palatinate the chance is higher but still not that great).

So if you believe the Imperial units (including the Spanish contingents) still used the Tercio at this time (not counting the league units who certainly did) it is pretty likely that their opponents did so as well.

I'm less the certain it's justified, but if you like you can restrict the Tercios to South, West and East Germany (or simpler North German armies can't use Tercios, as north Germany is probably most influenced by the Dutch reforms).

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:39 pm**

Can't recall if I asked this before - do we know anything about the ration of pike to shot in Tilly's regiments?

Or indeed other TYW German armies? Crossed my mind that they might quality as Musket* are the start of the TYW (ratio more like 2:3 for example) and move to 2:1 ratio during the first decade of the war.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:21 pm**

For Imperial armies it's roughly 100 pikes to 160 muskets at the start of the war (in theory (i.e. on paper) it should by 120 pikes to 160 muskets, but 100:160 seems to be what was actually used). For Bavarian/League armies it's more difficult. I don't have actual ratios for them before 1626 when the ratio seems to be 1:1.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:28 pm**

So there would be a case for Musket* for the Imperials at the start of the war perhaps?

Any idea if the Bavarians were typical of the rest of Germany or a bit backwards?

Slitherine

TYW German lists

TYW German lists

Re: TYW German lists

Re: TYW German lists