Swedes in TYW

[Owen Cooper]

Does anybody know much about these?

Mad Dog and I played the first playtest of my 2mm Pike and Shot rules last Tuesday and did a Tercio vs Battalions clash. Next stage is to try and add Swedish triangular brigades to the rules but I have some questions about the formations they used and some confusion that my reading is directly contradicting the commonly held views.

Based upon what I've read Lutzen would appear to pitch shallow, firepower-orientated small battalions against a lesser number of deep, shock-orientated large formations expect that the former is the Imperialists and the latter the Swedes!

Owen

[Flashman]

I think I'vegot some books on the TYW somewhere. I'll have a look during the week. Tom probably has some uniform guides and poss something else

[Owen Cooper]

Cheers Steve.

My confusion is basically this - the popular view is that the Swedes developed shallow, firepower and movement orientated formations to defeat the deep, slow, melee orientated Tercios. Breitenfeld is often held up as the example of this and as a watershed in the development of Early Modern Warfare.

My rules currently support Tercios and the more modern Battalia formations and after some tweaking of numeric values in The Battle of Bilstonfeld last Tuesday we seem to have the interaction between the two sorted. This would do battles like Rocroi (French battalions vs Hapsburg Tercios).

I've started re-reading the Osprey Campaign on Lutzen and that states that the Swedes were in large formations (1100-2000 men compared to 500-800 for the Imperialist battalions with the latter deployed 7 ranks deep). Furthermore the illustrations of the formations seem to imply that the Swedish triangular brigade has more in common with a tercio than a shallow battalion formation. Certainly the Swedish formation leads with pikes and looks to be a revised form of tercio rather than the formation that we'd recognise from about 1690 onwards.

So that's why I'm confused as it seems that the Swedes were still a shock and deep formation army unlike the popular image. This is contradicting what people would expect the two armies to look and behave like on the tabletop. To return to Lutzen it would appear almost to be the complete mirror image of what one would expect.

Did they achieve battlefield success primarily through being well-trained, battalion guns and their "salvo then charge" tactic rather than through any advantage of formation? Is the "Swedes shallow, Imperialists deep" view not merely an oversimplification but also wrong?

I don't mind writing the triangular brigade into the rules in this fashion, but do need some backup to suggest that I am right in what I am thinking.

Owen

[Owen Cooper]

Ah... it just struck me, I'm not comparing apples with apples here.

Imperialist regiments by this time were deployed in Dutch style - two "battalions" acting in mutual support to form one "regiment". In my rules I treat this as one base - 45mm x 15mm with two castings on.

The Lutzen order of battle is talking about Brigades, one level of organisation higher than the "regiments" of the Imperialist army and a level that doesn't seem to be listed in any Imperialist OOBs (if indeed it existed). Below the brigade level are also "regiments" and these are what should be represented.

Problem has gone away. With a common frontage (45mm for all units) I just need to make sure that a base for Swedes represents less men then a Dutch one which represents about 500-750 for a paper strength of 1100.

Owen

[TOM]

Swedish squadrons were generally around 500-600 strong. Three of these were grouped into a brigade (although 4 squadron brigades were also experimented with in the late 1620s). A brigade, therefore, would be 1500-1800 strong but made up of three separate tactical units. If you have the Osprey Campaign 'Lutzen 1632' you should have figures for the Swedish brigades at this time. I would be inclined to represent only the squadron in your rules making the basic Swedish unit some 80 to 100 files in 6 ranks.

Imperialist tercios, used until Wallenstein took over after Tilly's death, tended to number around 1,000 plus men (half pike and half shot), organised as a pike block (some 500 plus strong) usually twice as wide as it was deep with 3 ranks of shot in front and sleeves of shot on either flank (in total some 500 plus strong) forming a unit of some 62 plus files in 16 ranks.

Catholic League tercios tended to be double this strength with some 77 files in 26 ranks.

Both Imperialist and League tercios would have a smaller frontage than a Swedish squadron, but would be some three or five times as deep respectively.

Wallenstein introduced smaller battalions of around 1,000 men (one third pike and two thirds shot) with the pike block reduced to 7 ranks, but still with 3 ranks of shot in front with the remaining shot forming sleeves as before (essentially a shallower tercio formation) giving a formation of some 100 files in 10 ranks. Again this would have a similar frontage to Swedish squadrons, but would be almost twice as deep. Again, if you have the Osprey 'Lutzen 1632', you'll know that the reserve line was made up of 5 regiments of some 500 men each (50 files in 10 ranks).

[Owen Cooper]

Thanks Tom.

I didn't realise the Catholic League had bigger Tercios than the Hapsburgs. I read that by Breitenfeld the Tercios were 10 ranks deep and about 1500 (7 of them IIRC) which suggests to me that the formation went through a long process of being thinned out to reflect the changing realities of the battlefield.

I've decided that a single Swedish "regiment" base should represent about 400-500 men allowing for understrength units, compared with the "Dutch" "regiment" base which has the same frontage but represents 500-800. This should allow the Swedes to be more economical with manpower when covering the same frontage. It also means that most brigades end up being three bases strong which fits as well.

My tercios have the same frontage, just twice as deep and I've assumed a strength of 1250+.

I'm also thinking that the first time a Swedish infantry unit gets into contact with the enemy it can have a free fire combat action straight away before it's melee combat action.

The rules are a little bit abstract - we use a Warmaster style system for moving wings/centre etc. and initiating fire and melee combat and then units are rated for strength boxes which are crossed off as damage is taken. Strength boxes are directly related to offensive power as well.

I want to get another test in as there are some new rules to incorporate and then hopefully look at uploading the rules at the website once they have been through another round of amendments and tweaks.

Owen

[TOM]

Owen,

the Imperial infantry centre at Breitenfeld was as follows:

Imperial regiments: Chiesa (1,000 strong), Gallas (900 strong),
Furstenburg (1.100 strong), Baldiron (1,100 strong), Savelli (900 strong) and Goess (900 strong).

League and Bavarian regiments: Alt-Tilly (2,200 strong), Geleen (2,000 strong), Blankhart (2,000 strong), Grotta (2,000 strong), Pappenheim (2,400 strong) and Wahl (2,200 strong).

Wangler IR (Imperialist - 1,200 strong) was assigned to the right wing and Holstein IR (Imperialist 1,500 strong) to the left wing.

There is a clear and quite consistent difference between the Imperial regiments and the League/Bavarian regiments.

The Imperial foot, probably due to the influence of Wallenstein, certainly used shallower formations than the League/Bavarian foot. These are the formations I outlined in the previous reply, but I've not come across any reference to 10 rank formations until after Tilly's death at the Lech.

What Tilly did do at Breitenfeld was to group his tercios into higher formations (not really brigades, because they were battle formations only and not campaign formations like the Swedish brigades) of three regiments, possibly in imitation of the Swedish formation.

Tom

[Owen Cooper]

Probably not the best idea to rely on wikipedia but that's where I read the 10 rank reference

The Imperial and Catholic League forces arranged their army in regiments of infantry and cavalry. The infantry formed up in large blocks of about 1500 men each, with a front of 150 men and a depth of 10 men.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Breitenfeld_(1631)

I give your figures a lot more credit though!

Fortunately the abstract "strength points" system I'm using means that exact numbers aren't critical, but I do want to ensure the relationship between the different sizes and depths of unit seems OK.

Just need Mad Dog to finish with his holiday nonsense (and for me to paint up another 12 cavalry regiments or so) and back onto the playtests.

[ASH]

Steve, try looking under the cooker for those books.

[TOM]

Owen,

might be worth a look at this website (and not only because it supports what I believe):

www.nsalmon.btinternet.co.uk/TYW/ideas.pdf

Tom.

[Flashman]

Ash, I believe you may be a being a touch cheeky

[ASH]

Me, cheeky.................................Never.

Well OK !

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[davbenbak]

I found an order of battle for Breitenfeld that list the number of companies in each horse regiment. About how many men were in a cavalry company? I've also seen references to the number of cavalry squadrens each side had. How many men in a squadren?

[TOM]

Nominally, Imperial and League cavalry regiments, whether they were cuirassier or harquebusier, totalled 1000 men. These had 10 companies each 100 men, but this was an administrative rather than a tactical division. A full strength regiment would have been formed 100 files by 10 ranks deep.

Swedish cavalry regiments, again nominally, were 1000 strong. These had 8 companies each 125 men and, again, this was an administrative rather than a tactical division. However, Swedish regiments were divided into 2 squadrons. A full strength regiment would have been formed into 2 squadrons each 125 files by 4 ranks deep.

A Swedish squadron, therefore, would be slightly wider than an Imperial or League regiment but the latter would be 2.5 times deeper.

In practice, units in the field would be very much under strength and the number of companies given for a regiment would only be a rough guide to it’s numerical strength. For example, while the Cronberg regiment had 850 men in 8 companies the Alt-Saxon regiment had 300 men in 10 companies.

The following is a breakdown of the regiments at Breitenfeld: name of regiment; type (C = cuirassier, A = harquebusier); (number of companies); strength.

Catholic-Imperial right wing
Cronberg C (8) 850, Schonberg C (9) 900, Baumgarten C (5) 500, Alt-Saxon C (10) 300, Wengersky A (6 to 10) 600 and Isolano Croats (14 to 20) 950.

Catholic-Imperial left wing
Strozzi C (5 to 10) 500, Neu-Saxon C (6 to 10) 600, Bernstein C (8) 400, Rangoni C (5 to 10) 500, Piccolomini C (6 to 10) 500, Merode A (5 to 10) 500 and Piccolomini A (10) 800.

Catholic-Imperial reserve
Erwitte C (9) 600, Montecuccoli C (9 or 10) 300, Coronini A (5) 400, Caffarelli A (5 to 10) 300 and Colloredo (6 to 10) 400.

Swedish-Saxon right wing
Stalhansk (4) 350, Wunsch (4) 350, Tott (12) 800, Soop (8) 400, Brahe (8) 400, Sperreuter (4) 150, Rhinegrave (12) 700, Aderkas (5) 300, Domhoff (4) 200, Damitz (4) 150 and Sperreuter (this was a German regiment) (5) 300.

Swedish-Saxon centre reserve
Ortenburg (10) 500, Kochtitzky (5) 300 and Schaffmann (4) 400.

Swedish-Saxon left wing
Caldenbach (5) 350, Caldenbach (4) 300, Baudissin (12) 600, Effern-Hall (12) 800, Courville (5) 250 and Taupadel Dragoons (4) 464.

The larger Swedish regiments with more than 8 companies are actually German regiments.

Hope that helps.

[davbenbak]

Yes, thanks this is great! I just found the Osprey Man-at-Arms 262 (Gustavus Adolphus cavalry). So from a minature war gaming perspective, if I'm using a scale of one figure to 100 men, Swedish cav units would have long but narrow bases (say 8cmX4cm each) with four horses (some large units would get two bases).
Imperial cav units should have shorter deeper bases (5cmX8cm)but would a wider base be needed to represent the room needed to carracole? The average unit looks to be 500 hundred men so each base would have 5 units (3 with 2 in the second rank) and two bases for some of the bigger units. Would harquebusier units need long narrow bases as I'm assuming they just lined up and fired their muskets at range before retreating to reload or did they carracole too?

Once again thanks for your help and timely reply.