Halberd militia - what's the point?

[JaM]

btw one of the examples how effective Spanish Arquebusiers and Musketeers were is Battle of Jemmingen - whole battle was decided only by mobile Mangas firegroups that intercepted advancing Dutch infantry with deadly fire - they killed or wounded 7000 Dutchmen (from army of 10 000...) and lost only 300 own men(80 killed 220 wounded)...
http://www.geocities.com/aow1617/Jemmingen2.html


like your hummor... but Spanish Tercios did conquer the World.... Look at the map of 16th century, they controled whole Iberian Penisula, Naples, Low Countries, Mexico,South America, Philipines,Berberic Coast,Spanish King was Holy Roman Emperor.. etc... 16th Century was a Spanish Century...

[delra]

Was this infantry approaching at 30-40kmph with 4m gaps between rows? What was their armour? Did they have horse's body to protect them?

[gracul]

btw one of the examples how effective Spanish Arquebusiers and Musketeers were is Battle of Jemmingen - whole battle was decided only by mobile Mangas firegroups that intercepted advancing Dutch infantry with deadly fire - they killed or wounded 7000 Dutchmen (from army of 10 000...) and lost only 300 own men(80 killed 220 wounded)...
http://www.geocities.com/aow1617/Jemmingen2.html


like your hummor... but Spanish Tercios did conquer the World.... Look at the map of 16th century, they controled whole Iberian Penisula, Naples, Low Countries, Mexico,South America, Philipines,Berberic Coast,Spanish King was Holy Roman Emperor.. etc... 16th Century was a Spanish Century...

Swedes were not using Spanish deployment tactics, they used Dutch tactic because they knew that only suistained fire could defeat huge Pike Square. Spanish Pike Square had one dissadvantage - lots of soldiers didnt fight because they were too in the rear as Pike Square was a 360 degree formation - Dutch used a line deployment instead that allowed them to bring more musketeers into the front. Swedes went even further and they reduced Pikemen even more - you dont need long pike if you are defending formation against Reiters, so they adopted short pike and reduced numbers of Pikemen even more in favour of musketeers. I didnt read about war Sweden against Poland, but my guess is that they mostly used their light cavalry against any possible flanking maneuvers.

Important thing is, Spain developped Tercio tactics because they were facing French Nobility with best horses and in best armor. Using cavalry against formation that is best in the world in killing enemy cavalry is not very wise at least. And comparing Spanish Tercio to Russian Pikemen or other is a huge underestimation...

Lord_Calidor:

Neat!

And i thought that spain could just afford the ships to conquer new lands... didn't know tercios were able to walk on water.
Proove of tercios conquering south america + mexico ?

[JaM]

Read something about Spanish military of 16th century... Every soldier was member of Tercio. ( Even Cavalry usnit were called Tercios) Even soldiers detached to New World were Tercios. Check the books... Even Cortez had majority of his small army Pikemens... IT were Spanish Tercios who were fighting in Lepanto on board of Christian Galeys...

here you have... read this and you will understand
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TercioUK.html


Guys, really, those are just basic historical facts... spend some time reading about Military history if you dont know about that...

[JaM]

http://www.geocities.com/aow1617/fleurusuk.html

Battle of Flerus - Several Protestant assaults were ruined by skirmish fire from a Chassart farm, where 800 Spanish Musketeers fired from prepared baricades. Farm was about 200m away from atacking Protestant cavalry...

[delra]

Let's stop laughing at each other and discuss facts instead.

It were European illnesses who conquered Aztec and Inca empires, not pikemen and musketeers.

If population wasn't decimated by illnesses, Spaniards would be able to grab small colonies there at best. They were simply lucky. They (unintentionally) brought African slaves with smallpox and a few years later Incas were down to 10% of their original population. And it was just a start, one epidemic was breaking after another decimating any resistance they could encounter in both Aztec and Inca empires.

Name one country in the history which could defend against enemy invasion after losing more than 90% of its population, including all best leaders and generals.

My point being: Spain didn't even need Tercios there./ep

[JaM]

not true - Illness in Tenochtitlan spead after Spanish surrounded the city. Then they applied standard European Siege Tactics and practically wiped out whole city - who didnt die in battle died from illness,because nobody was burrying bodies - they were just thrown into Lake... Aztecs were wiped out, because they believed Spanish are gods that were forced to retreat, but they promised once they will return and claim the land for themself and kill all nonbelievers - by luck that legend got to Cortez and he used it. Anyway, in every battle few Spanish soldiers were able to resist 100x more natives without any problems because of their supperior tactics and weapons. Imagine what was able to do a pikemen formation against unarmored natives - they were like hot knife striking the butter. natives were terified from musket and cannon fire, and cavalry - they thought Rider and horse are one being...

check this document:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...16723366&hl=en

[delra]

They very quickly realised those are not gods and started a rebellion. It would succeed if it wasn't for illness. Hard to draft soldiers for rebellion when there's no men left in your country though.

Without epidemic, there simply wouldn't be enough Spaniards to subjugate the whole country. Smallpox was biggest helper. Much bigger than pikes and muskets.

Look at Africa, much closer, even lower level of civilization and still wasn't subjugated until machine gun era. If muskets and pikes were so good, why they didn't manage to conquer Africa?

[JaM]

watch that document.

[cottontail]

It wasn't illness that defeated the Aztecs. It was a combination of Spanish military prowess and politics. Spain was able to use the Aztec's native enemies against them, improving the odds. Not to say I don't respect the Spanish conquistadore's military finesse on the battle, on the contrary, they were very brave ( though a little greedy) and very effective soldiers.

[delra]

But Tenochtitlan wouldn't fall without smallpox epidemic inside...

[JaM]

It would. They surrounded the city. They had no food.As during sieges in Europe, another diceases would emerge...

[delra]

Except it's a different continent and a small Spanish force is surrounded by a whole nation of people who slowly discover they don't really like this newcomers... It's not Italy where Spanish ships can drop reinforcements every week.

I think his Aztec allies would eventually turn against him if they saw he fails to succeed there. What drew more and more Aztec to his side were his successes. A long and costly siege is an opposite of that.

I can imagine how it would look like, one of the allies would decide to turn against him and he would lack force to punish that. After that more and more allies would start turning and suddenly Spaniards would be there alone. Surrounded by tens of thousands former allies who understood Spanish tactics very well and weren't as afraid of it (evil you know is easier to defeat). That would probably kill (literally) their ambitions of conquest for a while.

[JaM]

watch that document...

[Severloh]

how did a discussion about halberd militias ended up with aztecs dying of aviary flu?

[delra]

Severloh: You have to read it to understand it.

JaM: I'll stay with my opinion that smallpox was a huge (if not decisive) component of fast progress of Spain to subjugate Aztecs and Incas...

Poland and Spain share very similar history in fact. After two centuries of their "golden age" both countries fell like a house of cards.

Do you have a theory why Spain has fallen to Napoleon and eventually lost its whole empire?

[biohaker]

Well if those pikes were historical, so be it, let them be in SS!

[JaM]

Incas maybe, but not Aztecs. If you watched that document, you saw there that Cortez had Aztecs surrounded by his native Allies that hated Aztecs more than anything else. Because Tenochtitlan was in the middle of Lake, his brigantines armed with cannons were able to prevent any resuply - if there wasnt smallpox,then they would die from hunger or other dicease that was totally normal during sieges. Aztecs never before witnessed that warfare tactics - they fought flower-wars, brutal Spanish tactics and Strategy was totally new to them.

Diceases were very common during Sieges. Practically dicease killed more men than was killed in fight.

[Lord_Calidor]

Alright, to digress a bit from chemical warfare in the 16th century, and return us to the right tracks. I've started to read Osprey Publishing's Warrior series book, The Polish Winged Hussar 1576-1775. It has been written by Ricard Brzezinski, and illustrated by an acquintance of mine (I had no idea he did this book, and was pleasantly surprised) mr. Velimir Vuksic, also an editor and illustrator of the Husar militaria magazine.

I'm only a few pages in, but right at the first page, there's a bomb. Brace yourselves, Hussar fanboys, coz this is gonna hurt. Quote:

"It is also time to reassess one or two other accepted "facts" about the Polish hussars - for example that these heavily armoured horsemen were able to change formation during a charge and, thanks to their extra-long lances, to ride, almost nonchalantly, over pike-armed infantry. Such claims are sheer fantasy.

The object of this book, then, is not to 'diminish the beauty' of the hussars, but rather to show them as they really looked, lived and fought, 'warts and all'. Thus the basic equipment of ordinary hussars is shown, not the jewelled weapons and karacena scale armour of senior officers. Even so, there is more than enough splendor to go round."

Stay tuned...

[delra]

You have us at disadvantage here since you can pick anything going along with your theories from that book and we can't check if quoting was honest. :-)