Trastamara Spanish

[nikgaukroger]

Questions from Xavier:

A couple of comments about the blurb:

• By the beginning of the Italian Wars, the kingdom of Neaples didn’t belong to the Crown of Aragon. It had its own independent king. Therefore the first sentence of the blurb should be something like
“After the final conquest of Granada the main focus of Spanish foreign policy moved Italy in order to strengthen the strategic possessions of the Crown of Aragon in the central Mediterranean.”

OK - I was trying to be clever thinking they were a joint crown. Will amend.

• Charles was king of Castile and the Crown of Aragon from the death of king Ferdinand in 1516. He became archduke of Austria and king of the Romans in 1519, and was elected Emperor in 1520

Will work that in - useful historical info.

• Hermandad, not Hermanded

Corrected.

• I used ordonnance because I thought it was the same spelling in English. You can use either “ordenanzas” in Spanish or the English word.

I'll use the Spanish I think - it is obvious what it is. Oddly on this I think wargamers are more used to the French spelling than the English, probably from the French and Burgundian Ordonnance armies

• Sword-and-buckler men were famous due to the assault to Atella in 1496. They were last used separately at Garellano in 1503. From that moment they were to be integrated with the pikemen (not from the beginning of the second expedition to Sicily as I wrongly wrote before)

OK, will make sure the list reflects this.

Regarding the list, arquebusier companies should be armed with arquebus and cost 6 points. No idea why do we have crossbows there L

Because I replaced a crossbowmen line from your first draft with arquebusiers ... now corrected.


Here are some notes on some small changes I made to your draft that I'd like to check with you - not least because I'm having second thoughts about one of them. I'm more than happy to revert if I'm wrong.


1. I removed the minima from the gendarmes as (i) the FoG:AM list didn't have one for the period and (ii) I have the impression that Spanish gendarmes were sometimes almost non-existant in Italy (also why I've said only 1 BG of them in Italy).

2. I've given the gendarmes Light lancers as there is a French quote about them using light lances. However, as it is Montluc it may well refer to the period of the following Spanish list. Any thoughts?

3. Gendarmes given armour classification options as I read that they often had no horse armour.

4. You had "Protected" pikemen before 1497 - as there is no such armour classification in FoG:R I made them Unarmoured.

5. I made the experimental colunelas additional to the other infantry as I think having it as a replacement would just make the list way too complex - it already has a lot of date related options.

6. Cart mounted heavy arquebus Light Artillery are for Ravenna - I am not aware they were used otherwise, does anyone have any info?

7. You ariginally had some troop notes about ratios of troops types. I have currently left these out as I wanted to ask whether they were actually rigidly maintained in practice. I'm quite happy to put them in, however, I think players would find it easier if we could di it in terms of numbers of BGs rather than bases (which is why I put something about not always achieving ratios in the list notes.

8. I've not insisted that Cordoba must be a GC - we don't usually force these on players, although I am sure patriotic Spaniards will always field him as such

[nikgaukroger]

Couple of additional queries:

1. Are Superior pikemen justified in the 1497-1502 period? My understanding was that initially in Italy the Spanish found that their pikemen were not up to the job either in terms of their capability or their weapons (pikes too short IIRC) which is one reason fortifications became used so much. Or is this a wargaming myth?

2. Sword and bucklermen - should they have a free choice of being HF or MF or would it be more appropriate for them to have to be all one or all the other?

[robertthebruce]

Couple of additional queries:

1. Are Superior pikemen justified in the 1497-1502 period? My understanding was that initially in Italy the Spanish found that their pikemen were not up to the job either in terms of their capability or their weapons (pikes too short IIRC) which is one reason fortifications became used so much. Or is this a wargaming myth?

2. Sword and bucklermen - should they have a free choice of being HF or MF or would it be more appropriate for them to have to be all one or all the other?

1- I think that is not a question of combat capability, the Spanish pikemen showed extraordinary courage in battle, even in situations of inferiority.

In Atella the spanish pikemen and Bucklermen charged against the swiss pikemen forcing them to retreat on several occasions.

2. Sword and Buckelrmen.


I agree.


David

[robertthebruce]

My questions now:)


1- What about the organization of 1/3 pikemen 1/3 Bucklermen 1/3 arquebusiers in 1497-1503?

2- The number of detached arquebusiers from 1505 should be increased to 0-18 at least, the cossbowmen were replaced by them in 1505.

3- Galician, Napolitanian and Convicted dates are wrong must be before 1498.

4- Territory types. Developed should be included.

[nikgaukroger]

My questions now:)


1- What about the organization of 1/3 pikemen 1/3 Bucklermen 1/3 arquebusiers in 1497-1503?

From my post above:

7. You ariginally had some troop notes about ratios of troops types. I have currently left these out as I wanted to ask whether they were actually rigidly maintained in practice. I'm quite happy to put them in, however, I think players would find it easier if we could di it in terms of numbers of BGs rather than bases (which is why I put something about not always achieving ratios in the list notes.

2- The number of detached arquebusiers from 1505 should be increased to 0-18 at least, the cossbowmen were replaced by them in 1505.

OK.

3- Galician, Napolitanian and Convicted dates are wrong must be before 1498.

OK

4- Territory types. Developed should be included.

No such territory type in FoG:R - we subsumed it into Agricultural as a simplification.

[xavier]

Here are some notes on some small changes I made to your draft that I'd like to check with you - not least because I'm having second thoughts about one of them. I'm more than happy to revert if I'm wrong.


1. I removed the minima from the gendarmes as (i) the FoG:AM list didn't have one for the period and (ii) I have the impression that Spanish gendarmes were sometimes almost non-existant in Italy (also why I've said only 1 BG of them in Italy).

OK

2. I've given the gendarmes Light lancers as there is a French quote about them using light lances. However, as it is Montluc it may well refer to the period of the following Spanish list. Any thoughts?

The Guardias Reales were created taking French gendarmes as the model to follow, and therefore they should use the same type of lance, or at least have the choice.
It's true that later on seems that Spanish lancers used a lighter lance, but this could be an evolution like the demi-lancers in other armies.

3. Gendarmes given armour classification options as I read that they often had no horse armour.

OK

4. You had "Protected" pikemen before 1497 - as there is no such armour classification in FoG:R I made them Unarmoured.

OK

5. I made the experimental colunelas additional to the other infantry as I think having it as a replacement would just make the list way too complex - it already has a lot of date related options.

OK

6. Cart mounted heavy arquebus Light Artillery are for Ravenna - I am not aware they were used otherwise, does anyone have any info?

I'm not aware of them being used elsewhere either.

7. You ariginally had some troop notes about ratios of troops types. I have currently left these out as I wanted to ask whether they were actually rigidly maintained in practice. I'm quite happy to put them in, however, I think players would find it easier if we could di it in terms of numbers of BGs rather than bases (which is why I put something about not always achieving ratios in the list notes.

That's fine. What I wrote was the theoretical divisions made by the royal ordinances, actual numbers where always slightly different.

8. I've not insisted that Cordoba must be a GC - we don't usually force these on players, although I am sure patriotic Spaniards will always field him as such

I think I can survive with that

[robertthebruce]

I should read further the posts.


Thank you Nick.


PD: The Caroline list draft, is almost ready.

[Ghaznavid]

1- I think that is not a question of combat capability, the Spanish pikemen showed extraordinary courage in battle, even in situations of inferiority.

In Atella the spanish pikemen and Bucklermen charged against the swiss pikemen forcing them to retreat on several occasions.

Not sure to what extend courage should override limited ability, but I doubt Atella is a good case to judge the effectiveness of Spanish pikes or bucklermen vs. Swiss.
IIRC the whole battle was one of encirclement where the combined Spanish armies enjoyed a huge advantage in numbers. Still the Swiss contingent (some 800?) seems to have been pretty much intact when the French army surrendered.

[nikgaukroger]

1- I think that is not a question of combat capability, the Spanish pikemen showed extraordinary courage in battle, even in situations of inferiority.

In Atella the spanish pikemen and Bucklermen charged against the swiss pikemen forcing them to retreat on several occasions.

Not sure to what extend courage should override limited ability, but I doubt Atella is a good case to judge the effectiveness of Spanish pikes or bucklermen vs. Swiss.
IIRC the whole battle was one of encirclement where the combined Spanish armies enjoyed a huge advantage in numbers. Still the Swiss contingent (some 800?) seems to have been pretty much intact when the French army surrendered.

I've had a long think about this one and I am going to restrict Superior grading to the colunela foot and the sword and bucklermen before that. Whilst not doubting the courage of the soldiers I think we're more likely to get the correct effect by having the earlier troops as Average only.

[nikgaukroger]

7. You ariginally had some troop notes about ratios of troops types. I have currently left these out as I wanted to ask whether they were actually rigidly maintained in practice. I'm quite happy to put them in, however, I think players would find it easier if we could di it in terms of numbers of BGs rather than bases (which is why I put something about not always achieving ratios in the list notes.

That's fine. What I wrote was the theoretical divisions made by the royal ordinances, actual numbers where always slightly different.

I've put in that before 1503 there must be equal numbers of BGs of each of Pikemen, Sword and Bucklermen and Missilemen (this covers arquebusiers and crossbowmen).

Will this work?

I think we need some sort of restriction as this list note is clear what the intention was but this allows it to be quite flexible for players (due to variable BG size) and is interms of BGs rather than bases which should be easier to draw up a list from.

[robertthebruce]

Could be a good solution, but this option should be from 1497 to 1503.

[nikgaukroger]

Could be a good solution, but this option should be from 1497 to 1503.

Can make it 1497-1502 as we have new options starting in 1503 - the combined Pike and Sword & Bucklermen formations.

[robertthebruce]

Ok, after 1503 the formations of pikes, swordmen and shooters make the division by their own.