Historical discussion thread

[Geronimo2006]

Post anything historical you feel might be useful for the mod team here.

Before posting, try out the mod first so you don't end up requesting something already in there.

In particular I am interested in Caucasus armies like Georgia.

[CommanderBC]

Sweden: Smålands Ryttare - The regiment of cavalry that Gustavus II Adolphus rode with in the Battle of Lutzen where he died.

Cuirassiers armed with two pistols. They fired both pistols in short succession before charging into enemy lines. This tactic greatly helped with the victory at Breitenfeld which was a crushing victory for Sweden and Saxony against The Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic League.

[8907654738]

Geronimo, thank you very much for making this mod, although would you mind doing something? The name "Austria" was changed to "Habsburg Monarchy" as it better reflects the nature of the state: The territories of the Austrian Habsburgs were not juridically unified in any way, just unified by a common monarch, who ruled them in an "indivisible" manner. The austrian habsburg territories also lacked an ability to carry their own foreign policy, making the institution of the monarchy the principal bearer of sovereignty rather than an specific territory. The same thing happened in Spain.
The name "Spain" is inaccurate from a 17th century point of view as "officially", "juridically" and "on paper" Spain didn't exist at all: In fact the Spanish Monarch didn't even have a title called "King of Spain". His titles all referenced to the territories he ruled, which had nothing in common apart from a common monarch. However, they lacked the ability to have a common foreign policy and were ruled "indivisibly", making like in the Austrian case the institution of the monarchy the principal bearer of sovereignty rather than a specific territory.
In Denmark, something similar happened: Norway and Denmark were juridically different, had separate coinage and even different army establishments: However, the difference was that the monarch ruled both territories absolutely, so both Denmark and Norway had no ability to conduct their own foreign policy nor even their own internal policy, but still in the Danish case it happens the same thing: The principal bearer of sovereignty ends up being the institution of the monarchy like the other two cases, although it is a more absolutist monarchy.
In contrast, Sweden, France, England and some others were countries that were unified with a single title (King of Sweden, King of France, King of England...) and the other territories were ruled like dependencies, like the Thirteen colonies, the Swedish German territories and the French colonies located in the eastern part of Canada.


So, would you mind changing the name of "Spain" to "Spanish Monarchy" and Denmark to "Danish Monarchy" (As well as renaming Sweden to Kingdom of Sweden, France to Kingdom of France and so on)? Thank you very much.

[Geronimo2006]

Geronimo, thank you very much for making this mod, although would you mind doing something? The name "Austria" was changed to "Habsburg Monarchy" as it better reflects the nature of the state: The territories of the Austrian Habsburgs were not juridically unified in any way, just unified by a common monarch, who ruled them in an "indivisible" manner. The austrian habsburg territories also lacked an ability to carry their own foreign policy, making the institution of the monarchy the principal bearer of sovereignty rather than an specific territory. The same thing happened in Spain.
The name "Spain" is inaccurate from a 17th century point of view as "officially", "juridically" and "on paper" Spain didn't exist at all: In fact the Spanish Monarch didn't even have a title called "King of Spain". His titles all referenced to the territories he ruled, which had nothing in common apart from a common monarch. However, they lacked the ability to have a common foreign policy and were ruled "indivisibly", making like in the Austrian case the institution of the monarchy the principal bearer of sovereignty rather than a specific territory.
In Denmark, something similar happened: Norway and Denmark were juridically different, had separate coinage and even different army establishments: However, the difference was that the monarch ruled both territories absolutely, so both Denmark and Norway had no ability to conduct their own foreign policy nor even their own internal policy, but still in the Danish case it happens the same thing: The principal bearer of sovereignty ends up being the institution of the monarchy like the other two cases, although it is a more absolutist monarchy.
In contrast, Sweden, France, England and some others were countries that were unified with a single title (King of Sweden, King of France, King of England...) and the other territories were ruled like dependencies, like the Thirteen colonies, the Swedish German territories and the French colonies located in the eastern part of Canada.


So, would you mind changing the name of "Spain" to "Spanish Monarchy" and Denmark to "Danish Monarchy" (As well as renaming Sweden to Kingdom of Sweden, France to Kingdom of France and so on)? Thank you very much.

I'll change some of those names. Historians refer to the Danish-Norwegian state at this time as Denmark-Norway. Norway's separate institutions were largely abolished in the early 17th century.

[8907654738]

Okay, thank you very much.

[tombergr]

Is it possible to estimate when the new mode will be available?

[Geronimo2006]

While I don't have information on Swedish militia uniforms, a clue might be the uniforms of the "Tremannings" regiments in the Great Northern War, which wore grey coats and karpus caps. So I've attached a preview of them below.

Is it possible to estimate when the new mode will be available?

I'm still adding things. When I know the release date I will let you know. I'm looking at working with Hip63 on an installer when its finished.

[8907654738]

While I don't have information on Swedish militia uniforms, a clue might be the uniforms of the "Tremannings" regiments in the Great Northern War, which wore grey coats and karpus caps. So I've attached a preview of them below.

Beautiful units, although be careful with those turnbacks as they weren't majoritarian during this time yet. They started to become so when they were officially introduced by Karl XII in 1706. So, before this year, although they were sometimes worn, the majoritarian cut was the one of a regular plain justaucorps - in short, the exact same cut as of an English infantryman during the Nine Years' War. Also, if you can, try to add a cravat to the units, as although they were not officially stipulated, they were extremely fashionable during this time, so they were probably worn almost by every soldier.

[Geronimo2006]

Beautiful units, although be careful with those turnbacks as they weren't majoritarian during this time yet. They started to become so when they were officially introduced by Karl XII in 1706. So, before this year, although they were sometimes worn, the majoritarian cut was the one of a regular plain justaucorps - in short, the exact same cut as of an English infantryman during the Nine Years' War. Also, if you can, try to add a cravat to the units, as although they were not officially stipulated, they were extremely fashionable during this time, so they were probably worn almost by every soldier.

Actually from.the Hogman website, it seems the turnbacks were introduced in an on-off basis. They were introduced in the 1687 reforms, mostly abolished in the 1699 reforms and then reintroduced in 1706. There is a picture on the website of the 1687 uniform and it clearly has turn backs. The artillerymen however did not have them at this time.

Also the Swedes dropped the cuirass in the second year of the GNW though there is reference to the last time it was seen being at Helsingborg. The Battle of Helsingborg was in 1710. The Hoggmann website says that the typical Swedish cavalry man at the end of the 1600s wore a leather buff coat, with a breastplate over it. ome cavalry wore tricornes but karpus caps were also used at times.

The website also mentions lots of cavalry regiments wearing the blue/yellow uniform. But how do we reconcile this with the leather buff coat description? Its possible that it was worne over the blue coats. We know that this did happen with Bavarian carbiniers in Spanish service.

The site also says that the long coat was only introduced in the cavalry in the mid 1690s, and the buff coat became a waistcoat. So I would assume that the blue/yellow uniform became visible in the cavalry then. I do wonder though if they still wore the breastplate in most cases or not?

[8907654738]

Actually from.the Hogman website, it seems the turnbacks were introduced in an on-off basis. They were introduced in the 1687 reforms, mostly abolished in the 1699 reforms and then reintroduced in 1706. There is a picture on the website of the 1687 uniform and it clearly has turn backs. The artillerymen however did not have them at this time.

Also the Swedes dropped the cuirass in the second year of the GNW though there is reference to the last time it was seen being at Helsingborg. The Battle of Helsingborg was in 1710. The Hoggmann website says that the typical Swedish cavalry man at the end of the 1600s wore a leather buff coat, with a breastplate over it. ome cavalry wore tricornes but karpus caps were also used at times.

The website also mentions lots of cavalry regiments wearing the blue/yellow uniform. But how do we reconcile this with the leather buff coat description? Its possible that it was worne over the blue coats. We know that this did happen with Bavarian carbiniers in Spanish service.

The site also says that the long coat was only introduced in the cavalry in the mid 1690s, and the buff coat became a waistcoat. So I would assume that the blue/yellow uniform became visible in the cavalry then. I do wonder though if they still wore the breastplate in most cases or not?

Sorry for replying late again. Well, I honestly think that the 1687 uniform didn't include turnbacks, as I saw other sources state that turnbacks were only sometimes worn before the 1706 reform, however now that I think about it as they existed anyway feel free to maintain them as uniformology for this period is a bit complex. And yea, artillerymen never wore turnbacks.


As for the cuirass of cuirassers, I don't really know much about them, however I know that some countries still kept them (albeit in small number) during the WSS, so Sweden most likely kept them as well, but it was by no means majoritarian at all, almost every cavalry regiment wore coats. As for what you say about cavalry regiments wearing buff coats before long ones is very interesting as I used to think about it a lot when I used to visit that webpage more often. But, in my honest opinion, I think that cavalry regiments wore those buff coats during the Scanian War, and after it they would have been replaced by the justaucorps, judging from how fashionable it was back then. I think that you've already made some cavalry units for Sweden based on the Scanian War that already wear the justaucorps.


As for the breastplate I would say that it was sometimes worn during the NYW and sometimes not, but I'm not entirely sure as I'm more experienced in things like coats and hats of uniforms and so on.


Here there are some pictures showing some uniforms from around this time (In the case of the 1683 uniforms, some time before). I don't know if they're very helpful as they mostly depict the 1683 and 1706 reforms, although they may be useful for hats and colours (An user from a forum called the League of Augsburg, which is an alternative name of the Nine Years War, said that the current theories about the Swedish uniforms are incorrect, and he postulates that during this time Swedish uniforms still wore the Scanian War uniforms, although this is a bit off-topic). Sorry if images are too big, I don't know how to resize them here:

[Geronimo2006]

Thank you.

There are actually period buffcoats and armour in Swedish museums. This is the Drabant uniform from 1695, but its colour isn't clear as its black and white. If anyone could shed light on what it was, or whether it is just a leather buffcoat, I would be grateful.

[8907654738]

I think that what the black and white picture depicts is some sort of breastplate with a justaucorps underneath it, I doubt the grey item is just a buffcoat, it must be a breastplate.

Edit: It is probably a breastplate. This is a picture of an Adelsfanan cavalryman from Livonia in 1709, and wears a breastplate under the justaucorps, so well the item of the other picture is probably a breastplate as well.

[Geronimo2006]

I think that what the black and white picture depicts is some sort of breastplate with a justaucorps underneath it, I doubt the grey item is just a buffcoat, it must be a breastplate.

Edit: It is probably a breastplate. This is a picture of an Adelsfanan cavalryman from Livonia in 1709, and wears a breastplate under the justaucorps, so well the item of the other picture is probably a breastplate as well.

During the Scanian War some Adelsfan wore armour but not all. The Adelsfan were the traditional feudal levy of the Baltic nobility. During the Scanian War in the 1670s, they wore buffcoats, sometimes with breastplates. I have seen plates online where Adelsfan wear grey coats in 1696 without armour. So perhaps they had both heavy and light cavalry in the 1690s, but on the other hand, officers sometimes wore armour under their coats around this time, so I wonder could that soldier be an officer?

I also understand that under the "Ga Pa" (meaning "Go on") military doctrine, that while the cavalry had firearms, they were not supposed to use them. The Carolean army (Swedish army from 1683 onwards) tactics emphasised the melee more so than other armies, in part because the Swedes were often outnumbered on the battlefield and attritional exchange of firepower would mean defeat in those circumstances.

[8907654738]

During the Scanian War some Adelsfan wore armour but not all. The Adelsfan were the traditional feudal levy of the Baltic nobility. During the Scanian War in the 1670s, they wore buffcoats, sometimes with breastplates. I have seen plates online where Adelsfan wear grey coats in 1696 without armour. So perhaps they had both heavy and light cavalry in the 1690s, but on the other hand, officers sometimes wore armour under their coats around this time, so I wonder could that soldier be an officer?

I also understand that under the "Ga Pa" (meaning "Go on") military doctrine, that while the cavalry had firearms, they were not supposed to use them. The Carolean army (Swedish army from 1683 onwards) tactics emphasised the melee more so than other armies, in part because the Swedes were often outnumbered on the battlefield and attritional exchange of firepower would mean defeat in those circumstances.

Thank you for the input. I don't think that what the image depicts is an officer as Google Images says it's a trooper. However that source could be wrong as well so it's a bit uncertain.

As for the Gå–På military doctrine, it was also used by cavalry which was extremely offensive and in fact made up almost half of an army during battles (At least during the Great Northern War). And yes, it emphasized melee combat as the Caroleans were trained to use offensive tactics, due to the extremely inferior number of men compared to other countries' armies. During the Battle of Narva, for example, the Russians were at least four times as large as the Swedes. This is why I recommend giving the Swedish troops in ETW mods less numbers/smaller numbers but much stronger attacking and defending ability that other factions to accurately represent this situation during late 17th century and early 18th century Sweden.

[Geronimo2006]

From further research, it seems that cuirasses were still used by at least some Swedish cavalry in.the Great Northern War. But there are stories about some soldiers throwing them away. They were unpopular with the soldiers because they were not comfortable and could sometimes cause injury. One soldier pointed out they didnt protect the Duke of Holstein. Charles XII seems to have supported the cuirass though. At Helsingborg in 1710 some cuirasses were worne. There is some doubt though that they were used in Russia though they were in Poland.

It seems that the Drabants entered the GNW without them, though the Life Guards (possibly the same regiment I am not sure?) are mentioned as having them in 1703.

[Geronimo2006]

Thank you for the input. I don't think that what the image depicts is an officer as Google Images says it's a trooper. However that source could be wrong as well so it's a bit uncertain.

As for the Gå–På military doctrine, it was also used by cavalry which was extremely offensive and in fact made up almost half of an army during battles (At least during the Great Northern War). And yes, it emphasized melee combat as the Caroleans were trained to use offensive tactics, due to the extremely inferior number of men compared to other countries' armies. During the Battle of Narva, for example, the Russians were at least four times as large as the Swedes. This is why I recommend giving the Swedish troops in ETW mods less numbers/smaller numbers but much stronger attacking and defending ability that other factions to accurately represent this situation during late 17th century and early 18th century Sweden.

Yes but I think the snow storm that blew in the faces of the Russian army played an important role in that defeat at Narva in 1700.

Something interesting is that under the 1687 reforms, it seem a black neck tie was worne, but was tied at the back rather than the front.

The bayonet was not standard for musketeers until the Great Northern War, unlike the grenadiers. The Ga Pa doctrine involved an initial volley of musket fire, followed by a charge with bladed weapons like swords. The musketeers did have swords. So I will not give Swedish musketeers bayonets but they will have swords as a melee weapon instead.