TOM
Full Member
Gott mit uns
Posts: 102
|
Post by TOM on May 3, 2008 8:28:28 GMT
Aesthetically, I think your suggestion would represent the differing formations well.
There was not a great deal of difference between Catholic-Imperial cuirassier and harquebusier regiments. In fact, they seemed to have performed virtually identical battlefield roles and some regiments did change from one type to another. The only real difference would have been that of armour. Cuirassiers should, in theory, have worn three-quarters plate and harquebusiers buff coats, but the distinction was often blurred with ‘demi-cuirassiers’ (usually breast and back-plate only and sometimes armed with the arquebus) and ‘heavy harquebusiers’ (with breastplates).
All types would have performed the caracole, but there were several different variations of this manoeuvre. The ‘simple’ caracole involved the regiment closing to about 10 metres with each rank firing and then filing to the rear. This would require sufficient space between the files. The ‘true’ caracole involved the regiment closing to about 50 metres with each rank then advancing to 10 metres or so to discharge their pistols (the ‘limacon’ was similar except that fire was delivered by file rather than by rank). Again, this would require sufficient space between the files. The ‘Protestant’ caracole involved the regiment closing to range, the front rank firing and then the unit wheeling to the left to allow the right-hand file to fire. Harquebusiers, obviously, would deliver their fire at longer ranges.
There is very little information that I have seen concerning the frontages necessary to perform a mounted caracole, but all it would require would be sufficient space between files. I feel that this would probably not greatly increase the frontage of a unit.
|
|
|
Post by davbenbak on May 3, 2008 13:28:11 GMT
I sure am glad I found this site/forum! For some reason the site wouldn't let me register or I'd sign-up as a member.
Thanks for pointing out the difference in various units and formations. I recently discovered a stash of several boxes of plastic thirty years war figures made by Revell that I bought years ago. I'm now in the process of painting and basing them and have been surfing the net and looking at all the different miniatures rules for shot and pike era.
Prior to this the only knowledge I had of shot and pike formations came from the battle scene in the movie "Cyrano". Any other good historical dipictions in movies?
|
|
|
Post by Antony on May 3, 2008 23:21:07 GMT
If you are having problems registering with the site, have a look at the thread titled WHEN REGISTERING FOR FORUM!!!! A few people have had problems. Post your userid or whatever on that thread and Owen should be able to sort you out.
|
|
|
Post by davbenbak on May 10, 2008 14:30:04 GMT
Most of the painted pictures of the day show soldiers with black armour but I'm just not sure how that would look on 1/72 plastic figures. Maybe I'll do some of both to help destingush between units. Did one kind cost more that the other? One was prefered by a particular side or type of unit?
|
|
TOM
Full Member
Gott mit uns
Posts: 102
|
Post by TOM on May 11, 2008 8:17:04 GMT
Blackened or enamelled armour would almost certainly have been the norm simply to lengthen it's life by preventing problems with rust. 'Bright' (that is, untreated) and russetted (or 'sanguined') armour were sometimes used in the English Civil War and, presumably, may have been used during the Thirty Years War. The former was polished metal and the latter was browned giving it a bronzed appearance.
If you check in the MAA The Army of Gustavus Adolphus 2: Cavalry, the author suggests that Swedish armour, purchased from the Netherlands, would almost certainly have been blackened.
One painting method that works with 15mm metal figures is to paint the armour black and dry brush very lightly with 'chainmail' or similar to represent wear. I'm not sure that would work as well with plastic figures which tend to lack deep definition.
|
|
|
Post by Flashman on May 11, 2008 15:59:42 GMT
If you're using water based paints you could try a mix of black, red and silver, or red and gunmetal - which gives a good worn looking appearance.
|
|
|
Post by davbenba on May 12, 2008 13:26:20 GMT
Great. You all have been very helpful. Next question. My box of Revell "Swedish Cavalry" has a variety of figures that I am using for both sides. The ones with floppy hats and swords will clearly be Swedish, the ones with cuirass, helmets and pistol will be Imperial/League. There are some sword/cuirass/helmet with muskets slung on their backs so I suppose they will be the Arquebusiers but I also have some that are in 3/4 armour with full visor helemts and pistols. I was thinking of using them as my veteran Imperial/League units but my question is do any of you know if there were specific units that would have been fully armoured in this way? I also have some units that are 3/4 armoured cavalry but with lances that came in my boxes of Revell "Conquistadors" (I have been using some of their pikemen to suppliment my League terrcios) but I didn't see that they matched anything used by these two sides. Guess I could try and build a Spanish army too.
|
|
TOM
Full Member
Gott mit uns
Posts: 102
|
Post by TOM on May 14, 2008 19:56:51 GMT
Lancers, that is cavalry in 3/4 armour and equipped with the lance, had disappeared from Western European armies by the start of the Thirty Years War. They remained, however, part of Eastern European armies, such as the famous Polish winged hussars.
Having said that, Wallenstein raised a Leib unit in 1625 in Bohemia of 2 companies, totalling some 150 men, that is supposed to have been equipped with lances. As Wallenstein tended to be more 'progressive' than other Imperial commanders, it seems somewhat anomalous, however, that he would carry out such a retrograde step. The unit does not appear to have fought at Lutzen.
Imperial/League cuirassiers would generally have worn 3/4 armour, but individual troopers might well have been less well equipped. Moreover, armour was being progressively lightened in imitation of the Swedes. Harquebusiers could be equipped with anything from breastplate and helmet to buff coat. Some regiments would have been composed of both cuirassiers and harquebusiers. The best equipped troopers would, undoubtedly, have been placed in the front ranks. It would be quite legitimate, therefore, to mix armour types within a unit or to put more lightly armoured figures in the rear rank/s.
|
|
|
Post by Flashman on Jun 8, 2008 12:57:54 GMT
Have just come back fom Amshterdamsh. There's plenty of contemporary paintings on the early 17th century, so I thought I'd just add to the earlier comments re blackened armour. It looks sepia/dark brown in practise. Yo can read too much into museum exhibits (for nstance the curators have done a notoriously bad job at Bovington) but if I was painting blackened armour I'd undercoat black, then a coat of brown (say burnt sienna/black mix or umber with red) and afterward a very light brush of solver where the blackening has run off.
In terms of Vallejo or GW paints Graveyard Earth or Dark German Camo brown.
|
|
TOM
Full Member
Gott mit uns
Posts: 102
|
Post by TOM on Jun 8, 2008 14:09:08 GMT
Can you get me some solver (sic), Steve?
|
|
|
Post by Flashman on Jun 8, 2008 14:54:47 GMT
It's a mix of solder and silver, I would have thought you'd have known that.
|
|
TOM
Full Member
Gott mit uns
Posts: 102
|
Post by TOM on Jun 8, 2008 16:08:24 GMT
A 4 fl oz jar should be enough then, thanks, Steve
|
|
|
Post by Kelinsupt on Oct 5, 2019 19:33:12 GMT
Zithromax Single Dose Chlamydia Doxycycline Usa Price Quick Shipping Amoxicillin Clav Drug <a href=http://drugs20.com>cheap cialis online</a> Buy Real Kamagra Uk Order Original Propecia Levitra Blutverdunner
|
|