Seek some advice.

[timurilank]

I am nearly finished painting four Landskenct armies and have been looking at the various lists, DBA-HX and DBA-RRR. I had thought about the earlier period armies which still retained Gendarmes, but then, I am in a quandry as to how the Reiters should be fielded, as Pi or Cv.

The Reiter figure is more appropriate for the later period (Cv) as he is armed with two pistol, long boots and closed helm, no boar spear.

Which is more useful, the Reiter as Pi or Cv?

[Tony Aguilar]

I am nearly finished painting four Landskenct armies and have been looking at the various lists, DBA-HX and DBA-RRR. I had thought about the earlier period armies which still retained Gendarmes, but then, I am in a quandry as to how the Reiters should be fielded, as Pi or Cv.

The Reiter figure is more appropriate for the later period (Cv) as he is armed with two pistol, long boots and closed helm, no boar spear.

Which is more useful, the Reiter as Pi or Cv?

If you are in doubt, only put 3 figures on a stand. I know of several people who base all of their Pi as 3 to a stand anyway becuase they have trouble fitting them all on the stand, so it isn't a big deal either way. Just let you opponents know what each stand represent. I will, however, base mine as 4 to a stand. FWIW, there a very limited number of armies that would use "Reiters with boar spears" as an appropriate figure for Pi (the Reiters that are listed as Cv wouldn't have them).

[timurilank]

Thanks for the suggestion. I seems then, I shall organize these as two Imperialist armies, one of an early (Kn) and the othr, a later 16th century (Cv) with two German Minor states which would have a mix of both Kn and Cv.

Now the flags.

[Terry37]

Robert, One thing to keep in mind about the German Reiters during the time you are speaking of is that they were really trained to fight in carrocole, with the pistol being their primary weapon. This evolved into the standard fighting tactic for the Horse until Gustavus Adolphus started having his horse go charging in at full tilt and using their pistols as a close combat weapon. The first tactic became defined as the German Tactic and hte latter the Swedish Ta tic. Rupert brought it to England with him during eh ECW and it remained in England as the method for Horse to charge hte enemy. The French retained the carracole until well past hte WASS period. Marlborough is even credited with issuing his cavalry with 3 shots per campaign to encourage them to charge home with the sword instead of at the trot firing pistols.

Now all that said, were it me, I would consider basing them by the "tactic" that particular nation or general used - if carracle then 4 to a stand and if the Swedish tactic then maybe 3 to a stand as Knights.

My two cents.

[michael guth]

I cringe when I hear the words Reiter and Caracole in the same sentence. Reiter cavalry, or any firearm equipped cavalry could certainly achieve success using some sort of rotational fire or 'caracole' against pike armed foot without sufficient firepower support (Turnhout, Pinknie, Dreux). However, it was 'charging' Reiter cavalry in relatively deep formations as at Dreux in 1562 which led to the displacement of lance armed gendarmes by heavily armoured pistol and sword armed cuirassiers. This transition is nicely summarized by Oman on page 463 of his Art of War in the 16th Century, " Henry of Navarre's cavalry were all pistoleers in full armour, as the reiters had been, and like the reiters they were charging in deep formation."

The 'caracole', meaning a successive pistol discharge by ranks, was recognized as early as 1590 as a tactical error against enemy cavalry by the French commander de la Noue. The caracole appears to have been a convenient excuse for underpaid or poorly motivated Reiter to flee the field, as at Ivry.

By 1632 the term caracole appears to have changed meaning, as Crusoe in his Militarie Instruction for the Cavallrie describes it as deliberately parting ranks to the left and right to envelope and attacking enemy. Imperialist mounted arquebusiers and some Spanish cavalry apparently continued to attempt to use the original caracole up to and including the battle of Lutzen, where it is noted by Wallenstein to be ineffective. Subsequently Imperialist mounted arquebusiers are converted to 'light horse', the prototypical New Model or Gustavan cavalry with breast and back plate.

There is much confusion over the term 'charge' during this era. There is no existing copy of an instruction by Gustavus Adolphus that cavalry should deliver its charge 'at the gallop'. Nor did Gustavus eliminate the use of the pistol by cavalry going into the attack (see Brzezinski's The Army of Gustavus Adolphus 2 Cavalry). Gustavus' decision to support his cavalry with shot was not because they were superior charging cavalry, but because they were ill equipped and ill mounted and unlikely to stand up to Imperial cavalry without increased firepower support.

Abandoment of a full harness for the Cuirassier was also driven by the same strategic consideration which led to a reduction in the number of pikemen-a requirement for longer, harder marches. Not because a lighter equipped regiment could defeat a more heavily armoured regiment in a frontal charge.

In DBA RRR it is open to question whether the heavily armoured cuirrassier should be 4-3 gendarmes, while the light horsemen of Gustavus, or the ECW should really be the more lightly armoured and more mobile 3-3 cavalry troops. But, then how would Gustavus' half armoured horse get the support factor for accompanying shot? (In DBR this could be handled by having more categories of pistols, but at addtional rule complexity).

I also suspect that the 3-3 cavalry type would be much more respectable on the DBA RRR battlefield if we were playing on 30 inch, rather than 24 square inch boards; as their mobility would be much more important with wider flanks as at Wittstock.

Poorly paid and motivated mercenaries caracole, the best Reiter did not.

Mike Guth

[Tony Aguilar]

I also suspect that the 3-3 cavalry type would be much more respectable on the DBA RRR battlefield if we were playing on 30 inch, rather than 24 square inch boards; as their mobility would be much more important with wider flanks as at Wittstock.


30" boards work better for DBA and DBA-RRR.

[timurilank]

It seems I shall base the Reiter as 3Cv, as these can be used with other liists.

[maerk]

I am confused: Around 1560, both the I/5bc Spanish Imperial and the I/8g Valois French army list contain an element described as "German (Mercenary) Reiters". For the Imperials they are classified as Pi while for the French these are classified as Cv.

I suspect that these are the same troops in both armies and thus should be the same element class? Either Pi oder Cv?

Maerk

[Rich Gause]

I am confused: Around 1560, both the I/5bc Spanish Imperial and the I/8g Valois French army list contain an element described as "German (Mercenary) Reiters". For the Imperials they are classified as Pi while for the French these are classified as Cv.

I suspect that these are the same troops in both armies and thus should be the same element class? Either Pi oder Cv?

Maerk

DBR has grading factors, S,O,I, and F for superior, ordinary, inferior, and fast. DBA RRR translates PI(S) or (O) to PI, PI(F) to Kn, and PI(I) to Cv.

[maerk]

(...) DBA RRR translates PI(S) or (O) to PI, PI(F) to Kn, and PI(I) to Cv.

So the Imperial Reiters were of superior or ordinary quality, which in DBA-RRR makes them Pi, and the Mercenary Reiters in French service were of inferior quality and are consequently classified as Cv. This I understand.

What troubles me: Is there a historical background for the distinction between the reiters in imperial and french service?

Maerk

[Tony Aguilar]

So the Imperial Reiters were of superior or ordinary quality, which in DBA-RRR makes them Pi, and the Mercenary Reiters in French service were of inferior quality and are consequently classified as Cv. This I understand.

What troubles me: Is there a historical background for the distinction between the reiters in imperial and french service?

Maerk

I think the rationale for the ones classed as Pi is that they were more likely to charge home after unloading their pistols as opposed just unloading their pistols and falling back to reload. If I remember correctly, the ones classed at Pi are ones armed with boar-spears also and after mid-1500s there are no more "Reiters" classed as Pi. You will find troops called Reiters in other services which are not Pi as well, not just in the French service.

[Tony Aguilar]

A relevant discussion about reiters and their boar spears below:

http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?p=96589

[maerk]

Thanks for your commentaries, Rich and Tony!

In fact, the Imperial army list says "German Reiters with boar spear and pistols", while the French list just says "German Mercenary Reiters". So - if I got it correctly - it is really about a different way of fighting: The guys with the boar spears went into the fray after releasing their shots, while the pistol-only guys didn't. But all of them are called "Reiters".

So I will try to find figures with boar-spears for the Pi elements and figures with pistols for the Cv elements (:D - it just sounds odd, sorry).

Maerk

[Tony Aguilar]

Thanks for your commentaries, Rich and Tony!

In fact, the Imperial army list says "German Reiters with boar spear and pistols", while the French list just says "German Mercenary Reiters". So - if I got it correctly - it is really about a different way of fighting: The guys with the boar spears went into the fray after releasing their shots, while the pistol-only guys didn't. But all of them are called "Reiters".

So I will try to find figures with boar-spears for the Pi elements and figures with pistols for the Cv elements (:D - it just sounds odd, sorry).

Maerk

Those manufacturers that make Reiters make them in both varieties - Essex, Old Glory, Minifgs, and Freikorps just to name a few.