Cossacks

[marshalney2000]

Just picked up on RBS comments on the list in the latest draft.
Firstly, I am not as confident in this area as with my beloved Scots' lists so am open to lots of comment and suggestions.
Comments on RBs notes are as follows:
1 Cavalry to have bw* - I can certainly live with this and my only reason for not giving them a missile weapon was after the debate on my Border reiver cavalry.

2 Arquebusiers with swords - this was based on the comments made by george Gush in "Renaissanc eArmies" where he describes the Cossack foot as" the finest in the east" and having musket and sabre. I put it in as a talking point as towhether they shpould have an edge. A bit like the Irish brigade really.

3 Pikes and axes - I think I was in error here and they probaly should be brigaded with the muskets. I certainly agree that the axe gradually resulted in a phasing out of the pikes.
John

[rbodleyscott]

2 Arquebusiers with swords - this was based on the comments made by george Gush in "Renaissanc eArmies" where he describes the Cossack foot as" the finest in the east" and having musket and sabre. I put it in as a talking point as towhether they shpould have an edge. A bit like the Irish brigade really.

It gives them a bit more than an edge IMO. As soon as they start to win a combat they will cream the enemy. All musketeers were equipped with swords - sabres are just a type of sword. I don't think we should over-egg the pudding.

The "Finest in the East" may not be saying much.

[rbodleyscott]

This list needs an overhaul ASAP.

Should the muskets have swordsmen capbility or not?

Note haiduks and szekler foot do, but they don't also get pikes.

It is the combination of pike and shot with swordsmen capability in large numbers that I think may be a bit overpowering.

(Note that the Irish brigade are only in limited numbers.)

[rbodleyscott]

Musket/Swordsmen feel right standing alone but are indeed overpowered if they can double-dip with Protection from PIkes to cumulate POAs against mounted. Against steady mixed foot it only translates to an extra overlap hit pip if the BGs head in offset (which is not good to encourage).

I think the FOG primary role concept kicks in and Cossacks either focus on fighting loosely as medium foot musket swordsmen or on fighting in closer formed order beside the Pikes - require some of each type of BG. A Pike and Shot BG goes on each wing and maybe one in the middle, and the Shot ones fill in the gaps and are suitable for terrain.

[rbodleyscott]

/bump

[nikgaukroger]

I have had a look through the books I have on warfare in the Baltic region and the Black Sea steppe for any info on Cossack infantry that may help.

There is not a lot, however, what there is suggests that Cossack infantry fought as shooters from behind a tabor defense. I found this quote (1620's):

"They show the most fighting skill and competance when they are sheltered in a tabor (for they are excellet shots with firearms, their usual weapons), and when they are defending their positions."

and

"It is true that one hundred of these cossacks, protetced by their tabor, have no fear of a thousdand Poles, nor even of a like number of Tatars"

References to pikes I have seen are to "half pikes", but this seems to be a weapon used if you didn't have the usual arquebus/musket.

Therefore, I think that pike and shot formations are highly unlikely, otherwise there would not be so much emphasis on the tabor

[nikgaukroger]

Can I also ask whether the Light Lancers option for the Cavalry is actually the right one. I think John chose it because of how we ended up classifying the Border Reivers, however, I have always had the impression (and it is just that) that Cossacks were always primarily shooters in this period - which would suggest the Cv versions would be Carbine, Swordsmen.

[rbodleyscott]

Can I also ask whether the Light Lancers option for the Cavalry is actually the right one. I think John chose it because of how we ended up classifying the Border Reivers, however, I have always had the impression (and it is just that) that Cossacks were always primarily shooters in this period - which would suggest the Cv versions would be Carbine, Swordsmen.

Fine by me.

[rbodleyscott]

Therefore, I think that pike and shot formations are highly unlikely, otherwise there would not be so much emphasis on the tabor

Sounds good. So classify them similarly to Haiduks and Sezeklers.

[nikgaukroger]

Found this quote on Cossack cavalry:

"On horseback they are not the best. I remember having seen only 200 Polish horse rout 2,000 of their best men."

Same person who wrote the bits on the infantry.

[marshalney2000]

As I admitted before I am a little out of my comfort zone with this army - get me back to Scottish armies quick!!
I am a little uneasy re removal of lance categorisation as this remained a staple of Cossacks right through to the Napoleonic wars and beyond and indeed cossack lances were a source of terror to the French. I think the balance lies in the nature of their fighting where they seemed reluctant to face steady troops but rather wore them down and then charged in to rout the enemy when they became demoralised. Again this behaviour was evident in the Napoleonic period. In this respect they do however seem little different from the Border reivers.
Turning to the foot, I am not unhappy for the sword to be removed if a combined pike and shot formation as I was adding some colour but would not wish to make them too powerful. The halberds definitely were a gradual replacement for the pike but whether or not these were in joint formations is more sketchy. I do however agree with Nik that you would not line up pikes behind a tabor fortification. Does this mean however that these formation did not exist with the guys behind the fortifications being more of a commanded shot type of body. I se that in the dbr lists comment is made of some conventional pike and shot units exisiting.
Horde - I agree I probably got carried away with the average classification - certainly not as deserving as the maltesers in my view.
The Polish guns were captured and used during the Ukranian Revolt 1648 to 1657. The Tartar allies are similar.
Re breaking the army into differne tgroupings I tinkered with this but did not see a tremendous amount of difference between the various grouping to justify the complexity.
John

[rbodleyscott]

Musket Swordsmen: Like the idea with no-Pike BGs. It is OK for Pike & Shot vs. standard Pike & Shot as Swordsmen will only get an extra pip on overlap at ++ a + if the enemy is disrupted or worse. The way Swordsmen and being Protected Shot cumulate against horsemen is overpowered and quite wrong. Their primary tactical method will be to cooperate with the Pike..

Yes, I had not even noticed that. It is effectively a bug in the rules, but one that we cannot easily correct, so will need to deal with by avoiding the combo in the lists.

Hence we really must avoid having shot swordsmen in pike & shot BGs.

(The Irish Brigade slipped through, I fear, but at least there aren't that many of them).

[rbodleyscott]

Turning to the foot, I am not unhappy for the sword to be removed if a combined pike and shot formation as I was adding some colour but would not wish to make them too powerful. The halberds definitely were a gradual replacement for the pike but whether or not these were in joint formations is more sketchy. I do however agree with Nik that you would not line up pikes behind a tabor fortification. Does this mean however that these formation did not exist with the guys behind the fortifications being more of a commanded shot type of body. I se that in the dbr lists comment is made of some conventional pike and shot units exisiting.

Sadly we can't find out what the source of that was.

It might be safest to allow a few BGs of Cossack pike and shot (no more than 3 say) to cover the possibility that this statement was based on good evidence, but not allow the shot in them to have swordsmen capability.

[marshalney2000]

Seems a reasonable compromise.
John

[nikgaukroger]

If the tabor was so ubiquitous for Cossacks, should it be compulsory?

[rbodleyscott]

If the tabor was so ubiquitous for Cossacks, should it be compulsory?

Only if you think they always used it. (And what about Early Ottomans?)

[nikgaukroger]

If the tabor was so ubiquitous for Cossacks, should it be compulsory?

Only if you think they always used it. (And what about Early Ottomans?)

I think they did, however, I'm not keen on compulsory FF to be honest. Perhaps if we said *18-24, or some such instead, so that if they are taken there must be a goodly amount of them.

Or perhaps we should avoid the issue as I suspect in reality that would apply to a lot of armies, including many in the firt two books - i.e. if FF are used a lot would be used.

[rbodleyscott]

If the tabor was so ubiquitous for Cossacks, should it be compulsory?

Only if you think they always used it. (And what about Early Ottomans?)

I think they did, however, I'm not keen on compulsory FF to be honest. Perhaps if we said *18-24, or some such instead, so that if they are taken there must be a goodly amount of them.

Or perhaps we should avoid the issue as I suspect in reality that would apply to a lot of armies, including many in the firt two books - i.e. if FF are used a lot would be used.

Yup