Tell me about warfare in the early modern era, basically through 16th to 19th centuries, things like the Thirty Year's War and American Civil War.
How did massed gunpowder work? How was cavalry used? I feel like this form of warfare is the most underrated, even to the point of people thinking things like fencing is all gay. Tell me about it, what it was like, horsemenship, swordsmanship, marksmanship, and leadership.
Remember someone screencapping a really good greentext on what it all was like, I was hoping that would help.
>>995720
30 Years war was so bad because it was 30 years of armies pillaging and ruining German lands, thus massive spike in disease and starvation for both civs and soldiers.
>>995720
go watch some videos of people playing Empire: Total War for a very basic uinderstanding
>>995817
Pillaging and killing germaniggers? Bad????? Sounds fucking awesome
>>996957
>edgy
>doesn't know it was all manner of factions fighting, Swedes, Frenchmen, and the Habsburgs included
Sure is /pol/ in here
>>997161
lel butthurt germanfag
>implying i visit fascist shit sites like /pol/
>>997188
>leftist having racialism
Wew lad
>>997188
Frog pls go.
>>995720
I can give you a really quick overview but it's basic and isn't very nuanced so people are gonna pick this apart.
1500-1550 AD Pikemen are the main branch of infantry during this period, their formations are augmented by a small number of handgunners equipped with matchlock arquebusses, older handguns, crossbows and occasionally longbows. Cavalry of this time were people in plate armor from head to toe equipped with lances. During this period the Spanish develop their famous Tercio formation. Over the course of this period the number of gunners increases while the number of pikemen slowly decreases.
1550-1600 AD
Initially the Spanish Tercio was still superior but Maurice van Nassau introduced a series of reforms aimed at making a formation smaller and less deep allowing more firepower to be unleashed on the enemy, he also introduced the countermarch. These reforms remained the main tactical doctrine and is the doctrine the Swedes learned. Around this period the number of gunners in a given formation is larger than the number of pikemen, both due to advances in infantry firearms and the absence of lance armed cavalry. Around 1550 a new type of wheellock mechanism is introduced which is suitable for use on horse, a pistolier or cuirassier equipped with it could kill lancers with a single shot while his horse and equipment were about a third as expensive. The introduction of pistol armed cavalry drove lance armed cavalry from the battlefield. The pistol armed cavalry however was not good enough to perform successful charges like the lancers had done earlier thus firmly establishing the dominance of infantry.
1600-1650 AD
Swedes take an extremely competent army into the thirty years war and proceed to win quite a few battles, they also introduced quite a few innovations. Among other things they told their pistol cavalry to drop all their armor except for a helmet and breastplate.
cont.
>>997241
cont.
Besides lightening the armor of their cavalry they also start using their cavalry to charge with swords drawn instead of taking potshots at the enemy with their pistols. The number of gunners in relation to the number of pikemen is still increasing.
1650-1700 AD
Changes from previous periods continue, the number of pikemen is ever decreasing, more and more armor is shed by all but heavy cavalry who now wear only a breastplate and helmet. Plug bayonets start becoming standard as the use for pikes is diminishing and the firepower ever increasing. The flintlock musket also starts replacing the earlier matchlock musket increasingly.
1700-1750 AD
Pikes abolished in most western European armies, bayonets now universal as are flintlock muskets. Emphasis on highly trained soldiers of the line deployed only 3 or 4 ranks deep. Many heavy cavalry regiments now also do away with the breastplate.
1750-1800 AD
In many ways the same as the previous period but with incremental improvements in most technologies. Frederick the Great shows how to properly use cavalry reminding the rest of Europe that it is still an important arm of any army.
1800-1850 AD
Napoleonic war sees conscription and nationalism leading to armies increasing in size tenfold occasionally, British were using special rifle regiments in the Napoleonic wars though their rate of fire is not that good. Cavalry still viable but increasingly hardpressed in this new battlefield of mass warfare. Some people claim European horse stock still suffers from the effects of the Napoleonic war to this day.
1850-1900
Initially the Minie bullet came into being allowing the firing rate of a smoothbore musket with the accuracy of a rifle. US cavalry never really had a thing for charges with swords drawn but this really came as a deathblow to cavalry charges on the western hemisphere. You also get stuff like revolvers, henry rifles and gatling guns.
>>997291
During the Crimean war European forces still use cavalry charges. Another prominent change is the breech loading gun, besides a high rate of fire it also allows one to load a gun while laying prone on the ground, something not really practical with a muzzle loading musket. It's effectiveness is quite well demonstrated in the Prussian-Austrian Bruderkrieg. All these changes combined result in looser more spaced line combat we see in the Franco-Prussian war. Cavalry charges still done but typically result in heavy losses. That said most post Napoleonic wars were colonial wars.
>>997241
Some notes on cavalry 1550-1650
Pistol cavalry were actually largely ineffective in combat, with the main tactic (the caracole) being easily broken by shock cavalry or otherwise being indecisive. Despite common thought, pistols usually could not break through armor, and almost all cavalry wore pistol proof breastplates. Where the new cavalry shined was in terms of discipline, in which it far outshined the typically undrilled and undisciplined lancer units. Regardless, all of this leads cavalry to fall out of favor somewhat.
When Adolphus comes around, cavalry see a resurgence and improvement. Adolphus took what he saw in combat with the Poles and applied it to his own forces, who now carried pistols for skirmishing but focused yet again on shock action. Because the cavalry of the time were now indoctrinated into the use of the caracole (basically rotating circles of cav firing pistols at each other), and as I have said shock action crushes the caracole, Gustavus Adolphus' cavalry more or less ushered cav back into importance.
Otherwise its a pretty good summary, just that through this period particularly cav use gets pretty confusing overall due to massive changes in warfare.
So much smoke from musket fire it's hard to see. Generals reliant on runners and messengers.
Discipline is key to warfare in this period and drilling becomes an essential component of this. Partially this is because armies are much larger than they ever were and due to risk of killing the person next to you with your gun.
Regiments start existing and honour becomes attached to your regiment and importantly, your regimental colours.
Unlike the middle ages, officiers and leaders are gentlemen who rarely engage in combat.
Artillery kills a lot of people. Swedes and later Napoleon prove how important mobile artillery is.
Wide range of formations with specific advantages and disadvantages to each. Only possible due to drilling.
War is more deadly and stressful than it had been before. Often around half of the soldiers wouldn't aim their weapons during action.
Ransoming non existent, soldiers main source of income through finding shit in dead soldiers pockets.
>>997401
I can link some work of La Noue a period tactician who argued pistol armed cavalry was superior to lance armored cavalry (because a lance failed equally hard against said armor at this period).
>>997401
Actually lancers charging in a line had more discipline than pistoliers in column formation rather than caracole
https://myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html
>"Whereupon I will say that although the squadrons of the spears [i.e. lances] do give a gallant charge, yet it can work no great effect, for at the outset it killeth none, yea it is a miracle if any be slain with the spear. Only it may wound some horse, and as for the shock, it is many times of the small force, where the perfect Reiter do never discharge their pistols but in jointing, and striking at hand, they wound, aiming always either at the face or the thigh. The second rank also shooteth off so the forefront of the men-or-arms squadron is at the first meeting half overthrown and maimed. Although the first rank may with their spears do some hurt, especially to the horses, yet the other ranks following cannot do so, at leas the second or third, but are driven to cast away their spears and help themselves with their swords. Herein we are to consider two things which experience hath confirmed. The one, that the Reiter are never so dangerous as when they be mingled with the enemy, for then be they all fire. The other, the two squadrons meeting, they have scarce discharged the second pistol but either the one or the other turneth away. For they contesteth no longer as the Romans did against other nations, who oftentimes keep the field fighting two hours face to face before either party turned back. By all the afore-said reasons, I am driven to avow that a squadron of pistols, doing their duties, shall break a squadron of spears."
>>997604
Overall I would say it probably was in most respects (theres a reason why it was adopted over shock), but at the same time was pretty ineffective and not the deciding force cav should be.
If you have it though, Id love to read it.
>>997618
>>997621
Key part is this
>The one, that the Reiter are never so dangerous as when they be mingled with the enemy, for then be they all fire.
After the initial clash between lancers and pistoliers the pistoliers could fire at point blank range at the face or thigh whereas lancers at this point could only rely on their sword. And that is all besides economic considerations.
>Blaise Montluc made note of the problems of the lance vs. the pistol: "With these arms (pistols) one can better fight en masse than with lances, because if you do not fight in line the lancers get into more difficulty, and the fighting in line is not as safe as in massed formations".
Really it was a bit of a dilemma however it is clear who won.
![05_Mtd_Arquebusiers[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/rg8tlKY.gif "05_Mtd_Arquebusiers[1].gif")
>>997401
>Pistol cavalry were actually largely ineffective in combat, with the main tactic (the caracole) being easily broken by shock cavalry or otherwise being indecisive.
This is meme history. Along with the "Adolphus invented everything" meme.
Caracole as pistoliers counter-marching was never a thing. If you look through period text it's hard to even find the word, and when you do find it it's never describing a countermarch, but instead some other maneuver.
If you read actual battle accounts from the period, sometimes the cavalry will be shooting and then wheeling off, sometimes it will be shooting and then charging, sometimes retaining the shot until contact. There was never this clear distinction where horsemen are purely "ranged" or purely charge.
>Gustavus Adolphus' cavalry more or less ushered cav back into importance.
When is this supposed time when cavalry was unimportant?
>>997618
That doesnt necessarily speak of discipline but rather the fact that reiters were accustomed to skirmishing and then retreating. Its for this reason that they could be (and were in history) easily broken from shock actions.
"The caracole required drill, and units accustomed to its use developed a discipline, responsiveness to command, and cohesion that made them far more effective on the battlefield than the knights of old, who had fought more as an aggregate of individuals."
From The Art of War in the Western World.
Overall, the reason why reiters supplanted their shock counterparts was largely due to their discipline and the fact that they could be controlled on the battlefield, not so much that their discipline meant they could withstand shock charges.
>>997667
What you're arguing is that putting a pistol in a man's hand instead of a lance somehow makes him more disciplined. Dubious.
The reason that the pistol replaced the lance is obvious and it's even spelled out in the period texts: the pistol was better.
>>997667
>The Art of War in the Western World.
Good framework but fully up to date and it regurgitates a few myths that have long been busted.
That said where do you read anything about skirmishing? He described a clash between lancer cavalry and pistol armed cavalry.
Moving in line is harder than moving in column and that goes for both infantry and cavalry, it is an established truth of linear warfare and you will find it in every military manual put to print. In a cavalry clash that is pretty pell mell the reiter had the advantage due to his pistol(s) and the fact that his equipment was way cheaper than that of a lancer.
>>997667
>and the fact that they could be controlled on the battlefield
This is a common misconception regarding medieval, and especially French, cavalry. When you put period sources to close scrutiny a different picture emerges.
>>997665
>When is this supposed time when cavalry was unimportant?
What should have been said is that they were not as important as they should have been before Adolphus. Adolphus certainly didnt invent everything, but give credit where credit is due, his reforms were incredibly important.
As for ranged cavalry, this is true that the distinction is certainly not one of pistol cav verses all other cav. Reiters utilized sabers as well as pistols and would charge as well, but by the time of Adolphus, he found that his own cavalry were too accustomed to pistol fire, and when faced against shock cavalry were far too easily beaten off.
>>997698
No, im arguing that the maneuvering required of the caracole, the most common cavalry maneuver of the time, required discipline that otherwise would not have been seen in shock cav.
>>997714
Id like to see some sources on this. Medieval cav were not drilled (to my understanding), and more often than not they charged without orders.
>>997703
>Myths
Such as what? Im curious to hear.
Can someone pique my interest in fencing/sword fighting on the battle field during this time, along with the accuracy of rifles/muskets?
>Im the pleb
>>997745
im learning Singlestick right now, so im happy to hear anything alongside him.
>>997743
>Medieval cav were not drilled (to my understanding), and more often than not they charged without orders.
http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Western-Europe-Century-History/dp/0851155707
Pretty much the new testament when it comes to medieval warfare history. The fact is that even the poets describing battles emphasized how well ordered the good guys charge was and how neat and close their line was etc. As early as Charlemagne cavalry failures are directly attributed to a lack of order and discipline. Cavalry drilling was done in formal and informal war games and of course during muster. Basic formation was called a conrois and could have anything from 25 to 100 horsemen who charged in concert. Again keeping order and keeping the line neat is emphazied in pretty much every article of medieval military writing, the templars code even had a set of penalties to be inflicted upon those who broke ranks or charged without order, the sole justification for charging without order was the clear and present danger of a fellow Christian who could not otherwise be saved.
If you want more details you can always look to cavalry from the seven years war or Napoleonic war. Keeping formation was absolutely crucial
I watched Waterloo yesterday. The size of the armies and the fact that you know that it's all real extras made it worth watching alone.
I imagine this is the closest you'll get to seeing how it really must have felt to be there when it happened if you were an extra in this film.
>>997743
>No, im arguing that the maneuvering required of the caracole, the most common cavalry maneuver of the time, required discipline that otherwise would not have been seen in shock cav.
Firing their pistols off at too far a distance to be effective was the cavalryman's natural instinct. Having the cavalry retain their pistols for hand-to-hand combat took more discipline.
>>997241
Regarding the whole issue of Infantry dominance, and cavalry firing at a distance, there's an argument that "caracole" tactics were used against pikemen when the effective range of their gunner wings was too short to cover the area directly ahead of the block, allowing cavalry a safe corridor they could ride down and fire on the pikemen from just beyond their reach. However, as firearms became more powerful and the ratio of shot to pike increased, it fell out of use.
>>996957
Shut the fuck up. Go be an edgy prick somewhere else, i just want a god damn thread without /pol/ being a little bitch and destroying everything. Grow up
>>998056
I've seen that argument made- can't remember by who. I'd like a link to refresh my memory. Anyway, the argument is extremely dubious.
Not only is there no evidence for this argument, but a historical pistoleer never would have even come up with such an idea. They did not share the modern historian's idea of what a musketeer's "effective" range was- maybe 75 meters. Soldiers of the 16th century didn't know what a 21st century historian would consider the effective range of a musket. Musketeers of the period were often inclined to shoot at targets hundreds of yards away. The bullet does not simply disappear once it surpassed it's "effective" range and the pistoleers hardly would have been able to ride down a corridor immune to return fire.
