Comments on: Cavalry Charges part drie http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/ 16th- & 17th Military History! History! ...Philosophy of the Mind??? Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:10:06 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: How to Get Six Pack Fast http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-874 How to Get Six Pack Fast Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:21:01 +0000 http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-874 This is quite a hot info. I'll share it on Twitter. This is quite a hot info. I’ll share it on Twitter.

]]> By: Lafayette C. Curtis http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-859 Lafayette C. Curtis Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:46:35 +0000 http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-859 I strongly agree that the proposition of the Dutch cavalry copying their Swedish counterpart's tactics is an upside-down conclusion. We have plenty of evidence that the truth was the other way around--just look many Swedish officers who went to the Netherlands to learn the Dutch tactics and then returned to apply those lessons to the Swedish army. Jacob de la Gardie is perhaps the most outstanding example. Another good way to establish the precedence is by looking at the chronicle of tactical encounters--and here we can find instances such as the Battle of Turnhout (1597) where the Dutch cavalry had employed the charge long before Gustavus Adolphus's name was known among the great powers in Europe. It might even be wrong to think that the pistol and shock action are antithetical to each other. The contemporary French training manuals (based on Henri IV's tactical ideas) I know of didn't really tell the cavalrymen to fire their pistols and then charge with the sword; they enjoined the cavalrymen instead to charge outright, treating their pistols as a particularly long sword or lance. This was deemed necessary because only a firearm had the necessary power to penetrate the reinforced armor of the time (and, as the example of Haselrig shows, it may even fail to penetrate in non-ideal conditions) and the cavalrymen of the time wanted to be able to retain the use of the cavalry charge's psychological shock while adopting the physical impact of the firearms. The result was a deadly combination of momentum and firepower that helped heavy cavalry to keep an important tactical role throughout the Renaissance. I strongly agree that the proposition of the Dutch cavalry copying their Swedish counterpart’s tactics is an upside-down conclusion. We have plenty of evidence that the truth was the other way around–just look many Swedish officers who went to the Netherlands to learn the Dutch tactics and then returned to apply those lessons to the Swedish army. Jacob de la Gardie is perhaps the most outstanding example. Another good way to establish the precedence is by looking at the chronicle of tactical encounters–and here we can find instances such as the Battle of Turnhout (1597) where the Dutch cavalry had employed the charge long before Gustavus Adolphus’s name was known among the great powers in Europe.

It might even be wrong to think that the pistol and shock action are antithetical to each other. The contemporary French training manuals (based on Henri IV’s tactical ideas) I know of didn’t really tell the cavalrymen to fire their pistols and then charge with the sword; they enjoined the cavalrymen instead to charge outright, treating their pistols as a particularly long sword or lance. This was deemed necessary because only a firearm had the necessary power to penetrate the reinforced armor of the time (and, as the example of Haselrig shows, it may even fail to penetrate in non-ideal conditions) and the cavalrymen of the time wanted to be able to retain the use of the cavalry charge’s psychological shock while adopting the physical impact of the firearms. The result was a deadly combination of momentum and firepower that helped heavy cavalry to keep an important tactical role throughout the Renaissance.

]]> By: David Evans http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-61 David Evans Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:41:32 +0000 http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-61 On the question of pistols and their effectiveness that's quite a good point. There is a reference in the English Civil Wars when Richard Atkyn was fighting Sir Aruther Haselrig, clad in full cuirassier armour. Atkn supposedly discharged one shot at Haselrig with the muzzle of his pistol almost touching Haselrig's armour, with no effect on Haselrig. Allegedly a Gentleman Pensioner at Edgehill had to kill a parliamentarn cuirassier using the poleaxes the pensioners had been issued with as all other weapons had failed to affect the cuirassier! On the question of pistols and their effectiveness that’s quite a good point. There is a reference in the English Civil Wars when Richard Atkyn was fighting Sir Aruther Haselrig, clad in full cuirassier armour. Atkn supposedly discharged one shot at Haselrig with the muzzle of his pistol almost touching Haselrig’s armour, with no effect on Haselrig. Allegedly a Gentleman Pensioner at Edgehill had to kill a parliamentarn cuirassier using the poleaxes the pensioners had been issued with as all other weapons had failed to affect the cuirassier!

]]> By: wapenshaw http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-8 wapenshaw Tue, 01 May 2007 17:41:40 +0000 http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-8 The arquebus has a long barrel. If you try to hold it out on the right side it becomes very awkward and unsteady. If you miss and you ride into the enemy formation there is a good chance the weapon will be knocked from you grasp. If you aim it to your left side you can rest the barrel on your left arm. Also, it will not be knocked from your hands. Since the pistol has a smaller bore, your best chance of killing your enemy is if you can get the pistol as close as possible. Some try to place the pistol up against the enemy's breat plate. Such an action would be impossible if you fired across your body to the left. Rich The arquebus has a long barrel. If you try to hold it out on the right side it becomes very awkward and unsteady. If you miss and you ride into the enemy formation there is a good chance the weapon will be knocked from you grasp. If you aim it to your left side you can rest the barrel on your left arm. Also, it will not be knocked from your hands. Since the pistol has a smaller bore, your best chance of killing your enemy is if you can get the pistol as close as possible. Some try to place the pistol up against the enemy’s breat plate. Such an action would be impossible if you fired across your body to the left.

Rich

]]> By: Gavin Robinson http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-7 Gavin Robinson Tue, 01 May 2007 16:38:55 +0000 http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/cavalry-charges-part-drie/#comment-7 Good stuff. I'm also sceptical about the idea that there were rigidly defined Dutch and Swedish schools which were totally different from each other, and that there was a sudden change from one to the other. It all seems a bit too convenient - it makes a good story but I can't imagine life was really like that. I'm not sure where the idea of the caracole as firing by ranks came from when the word is rarely used in the drill books and only to describe something else. I hadn't thought about the horse's field of vision influencing the direction of the charge so that's a really good point. I don't understand why cuirassiers should try to gain the right side and arquebusiers should try for the left side. Do you think there's a good reason for it? I don't want to assume that there is a good reason for it, but I don't want to dismiss it as pointless just because I don't understand it. Good stuff. I’m also sceptical about the idea that there were rigidly defined Dutch and Swedish schools which were totally different from each other, and that there was a sudden change from one to the other. It all seems a bit too convenient – it makes a good story but I can’t imagine life was really like that. I’m not sure where the idea of the caracole as firing by ranks came from when the word is rarely used in the drill books and only to describe something else.

I hadn’t thought about the horse’s field of vision influencing the direction of the charge so that’s a really good point. I don’t understand why cuirassiers should try to gain the right side and arquebusiers should try for the left side. Do you think there’s a good reason for it? I don’t want to assume that there is a good reason for it, but I don’t want to dismiss it as pointless just because I don’t understand it.

]]>