Most distinctive armies of early pike and shot? (1500-1550 period)

[Inhuman One]

I'm working on writing down a videogame concept for a strategy game that would be most similar to age of empires 3, but with a fictional continent and a much more focused timeframe.
The fictional continent is to give me some freedom as a writer and also to allow me a nice amount of freedom with putting the faction list together that should all play quite differently.

Anyways, it is quite difficult to track down information about national armies in a very specific timeframe, pictures and such. It can be from any country in the world really, as long as it does not seem far fetched that they could build ships capable of going to this new continent in the pacific ocean.

The timeframe is 1500-1550. I have not picked a specific date yet, but my fondness for zweihander wielding landsknechts made me decide to go with this timeframe because the zweihander was not really used before or after this.

So the Holy Roman Empire is certainly a country that had a very distinctive army at the time.

Spanish and Portuguese too of course. When people think of these countries in a historic context, they tend to picture conquistadores in partial plate with morion helmets and muskets riding horses.

Japan also very distinctive at this time, the heyday of Samurai so I would want to include them. But I also want to include another asian nation in this.
Korea did not have its distinctive turtleships yet at this point, though I think that both China and Korea would be pretty unique. Korea just seems more of a naval power to me though so I lean towards them.

I really have no idea about how distinctive the English and French would be in this timeframe, did they have anything that stood out? I have the feeling that western european armies where pretty similar at the time save for maybe the english having their longbows?

Venice or another Italian State also seems plausible to me, since they had naval power but again I am not sure how distinct their troops where at the time.

Ottomans had their Jannisaries so I suppose they looked pretty unique too?


Either way I would love to see pictures and hear about examples of armies of this time period.

[Condottiere 40K]

Then it's too bad the Swiss didn't bring their Alphorns to battle.

Assuming the historical Samurai matched the pop cultural ones, it would have to have been the Japanese.

[EmperorBatman999]

The Spanish should be noted for more than just their Conquistadores. As the creators of the Tercio, they were some of the first pioneers of pike-and-shot tactics.

Rather later in the period (perhaps outside your timeframe), but certainly worth noting, was Sweden, especially under King Gustavus Adolphus. The Swedes would become famous for their degree of discipline and drill (later evolving into the Caroleans of the very early 18th century, which were so disciplined, it impressed the British and Prussians and were regarded in their short lifespan the best infantry in Europe). The Swedes also during the Thirty Years War developed mobile warfare tactics, taking advantage of strategic positions before the enemy could reach them. Gustavus Adolphus's artillery reforms would change the way artillery was used in Europe from that point because of his emphasis on the positioning and portability of guns being more important than caliber size. Your Swedish analogues could potentially be a faction focusing on highly disciplined infantry with rapid-moving cavalry and artillery.

The Barbary Pirates and Ottomans, if you wanted some cultural diversity, were also at their heights as well. Having a faction with a strong naval focus and a combination of elite heavy musketeers supporting large armies of somewhat technologically dated rabble (the Ottomans used a lot of foot archers in their armies into the 18th century), with rapid light cavalry and good swordsmen.

Poland is a solid go-to for cavalry forces, particularly their Winged Hussars, but will not have particularly outstanding infantry.

Since you were looking for an Asian factions, the Mongols were still considerably strong actually in this period, even if groups like the Timurids were on their way out. A Mongol faction in 16th century warfare is less out-of-place than one might think, but on the other hand, horse-archer armies might be included with the Ottomans.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

With Korea you will probably have problems to recreate the Army. Joseon as it was called back than was dominated by inner struggle of several parties which isolated the entire country. I can't really recall to have ever seen armour from that timeframe that comes from Korea. But anyway their Naval capabilities were quite limited at the time. They had a significant fleet under Taejong but weakend the fleet later so that it was in an misserable state by the time of the Japanese Invasion.

[LinusLinothorax]

Poland is a solid go-to for cavalry forces, particularly their Winged Hussars, but will not have particularly outstanding infantry.

Is it just me or are the Polish Winged Hussars like one of the most overrated military forces in history? What made them so magnificant except of mass-using plate armour in a time it was out of fashion everywhere else?

[TWWolfe]

Is it just me or are the Polish Winged Hussars like one of the most overrated military forces in history? What made them so magnificant except of mass-using plate armour in a time it was out of fashion everywhere else?

well, they had a record of winning against overwhelming odds, even charging against pike squares and winning.

[Inhuman One]

I checked the polish winged hussars, but it seems its a bit after the intended time period that they got their wings. So they would need to have something else distinctive to offer to grant them a spot on the roster, I plan to only have eight playable faction and one of those includes the natives of this fictional continent. I'd prefer to have fewer factions but with very unique rosters rather than have many with just one or two unique units.

The Spanish certainly had their tercio's too and I would like to give that to them as well. Along with some sword and buckler men. They had a great and diversive army. Choosing spain would mean no Portugal though because of similar armies at the time.

Good points about Korea, I had not looked up the state of that region yet in this period. And an interesting point about the Mongols, but perhaps the Chinese may be a better choice here because Mongolia is land locked? And China is also very distinctive, but the challenge is to find information about their armies during 1500-1550.

Regarding Japan, I'd try to keep it reasonably accurate. I'd likely give them more than one samurai units to recruit with different weaponry, and if they even get ninja's they would look like a commoner with the ability to disguise as enemy workers or something like that. If I'd decide to put in some sort of spy/stealth mechanics but if not, no Ninja's. It's not a priority.

Sweden is a great suggestion, I will certainly look up information about them and their armies during this period since a Scandinavian faction during this time period might be a nice breath of fresh air, it would bring something new to the table.

Did not consider the Barbary pirates yet but that would certainly be something unique, and Ottomans are of course a valid option.

[Condottiere 40K]

Apparently, the Lannister armour is based on the Samurai.

[VINC.XXIII]

Is it just me or are the Polish Winged Hussars like one of the most overrated military forces in history? What made them so magnificant except of mass-using plate armour in a time it was out of fashion everywhere else?

I guess its have to do with the James III Sobieski charge at Vienna

Skip to 2m46

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Tureuki]

And I thought historical depictions in cheesy Turkish serials and movies were bad.

[VINC.XXIII]

And I thought historical depictions in cheesy Turkish serials and movies were bad.

Most of european ones are bad too, but not as bad as turkish ones, particulary Fetih 1453. Anyway accuracy in depiction of equipements in movies wasn't the object of my post, I meant about how a particulary type of soldiers can be overrated because of a positive historiographic construction.

From another hand, I noticed that Napoléon I's Lanciers Polonais benefited of an equally(but not well know in comparison of winged hussards) positive treatment in french context. So assuming polish cavalry didn't fundamentally usurpated the positive a priori that peoples may feel when approaching the question of XVIIth century Winged Polish Hussards.

[Inhuman One]

Alright.. I am trying to lock down my list of eight factions.

For now I am leaning towards:
-Spain
-Japan
-China
-Holy Roman Empire
-Ottoman Empire
-England (maybe)
-Sweden (maybe)
-Native population

England and Sweden are still a bit uncertain though.. since Venice is also very tempting. I decided to go with Ottomans in favor of Barbary pirates, since I think the Ottomans might have a greater variety of troops to offer on land.

But the thing is, I'd like to know how the armies of England, Sweden and Venice where different from the spanish armies at the time. England had its longbows yes, but what else? Sweden kicked butt, but did they have any particular forces that would stand out? Something to make into their unique units?

Seems that England, Sweden and Venice are all three good contenders, but I'd have to go with only two of them. Other suggestions are still welcome of course, as long as they are not too similar to the other factions on the list.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

How about the Mogul Empire? The heirs of Timur in India would prove to have an very interesting roster. By 1525 their Army was pretty bad ass and modern.

[Anna_Gein]

France had a nice mix of modernity in early 1500. They still used "compagnies d'ordonnance" based on longbow archer at the begining of . Along them they fielded crossbowmen two. The prestigious gendarmes heavy cavalry. During this period "lanciers légers" = medium cavalry " increased in importance until they were indistinguishable from the proper gensdarme. France used many mercenaries too. The French king was the only one with a system of standing tax collection while every other prince had to negotiate with the"parlament", "cortès", "diet" or what local assemblies existed in their principality before they could raise taxes. As a result the french King was filthy rich. Francis I created "French Legions" similar to the spanish tercios although they never reached the same level of capacity. They were organized on a regional level just like the tercios. France did not used individual firearm as extensively as the Spanish kingdoms and the Empire but had the greatest artillery arsenal and used it extensively. The Scots Guard and the Swiss Guard already existed.

Overall France offers you a synthesis of the best XV century warfare could offer with newer troops. Its administration was developed like no other state. Finally its soldiers were a mix of nobles, low births and foreigners all organized in standing formations. It can offer you a lot of opportunities if you want to describe complicated social relations. Despite its monetary resource the French court was not used to the Burgundian pump. An interesting difference with the House of Austria who could be both pomp and poor.

[EmperorBatman999]

England and Sweden are still a bit uncertain though.. since Venice is also very tempting. I decided to go with Ottomans in favor of Barbary pirates, since I think the Ottomans might have a greater variety of troops to offer on land.

But the thing is, I'd like to know how the armies of England, Sweden and Venice where different from the spanish armies at the time. England had its longbows yes, but what else? Sweden kicked butt, but did they have any particular forces that would stand out? Something to make into their unique units?

Seems that England, Sweden and Venice are all three good contenders, but I'd have to go with only two of them. Other suggestions are still welcome of course, as long as they are not too similar to the other factions on the list.

The Ottomans and the Barbary Pirates are often times put into one collective group anyway for depictions of this era, so giving the Ottomans corsair ships and Barbary infantry would fit for satisfying the Barbary Pirates.

As for the Swedes, they would have the Finish Haakapeliitta as cavalry. As an Easter Egg, maybe Sweden could have leather cannons, but otherwise they should get normal brass cannons that would be faster and able to reposition quicker.

[Condottiere 40K]

An early introduction of the wooden cannon by the Japanese.

[Inhuman One]

Didn't know France had that much going for it, though I likely won't use political situations too much.. Aside from refering briefly to the ruling monarch who send these expeditions to the new continent. I do plan to write a story for campaign mode once I have the factions locked down. The main characters will likely be fictional but I will try to find a good balance between making them a bit relateable but fitting for their time period. I won't ignore the bad stuff like age of empires 3 did. And its certainly not going to be some black and white story with clear good and evil.

Mogul Empire is also a good suggestion, I had been thinking about India and they certainly have a unique millitairy.

Hm.. this only increases the possible options though.. this means the last two open slots might go to Sweden, England, Venice, Mogul Empire or France.

[Salvo]

Is it just me or are the Polish Winged Hussars like one of the most overrated military forces in history? What made them so magnificant except of mass-using plate armour in a time it was out of fashion everywhere else?

Don't judge them so fast my friend

First of all of this "old fashioned" plate armour was used because of Polish tactics concept, where cavalry were ment to be an iron fist crushing the enemy in a strong final push.
And no, they were not the only heavily armored cavalry at the time, take a look at famous Pappenheim's cuirassiers:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The reason why in Poland cavalry was so popular is because there was more open grounds, what favoured big cavalry masses over patient infantry manouvers.

Second let's remember about their outstanding training and personal skills. Please take a look at the post below, where I explained part of it in my cavalry tactis thread here at TWC.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Still from what I see You also seem to recognize cavalry as mainly a supporting formation for the infantry with exceptional example of it’s individual use.
The problem is that in this battle both sides seem to understand cavalry as a standalone formation! Was it a common thinking in that time or an extraordinary one? Was the understanding of cavalry as a big, massed fist common in the period?
Well of course we see examples of standalone cavalry charges with some success, but they are really rear or were performed by Polish winged hussars, who are for me an acceptable example especially when we compare their ordnance.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No doubts winged hussars has bigger chances of breaking the enemy lines.
A good example here is a battle of Kliszów in 1702 where Saxon cavalry under Flemming couldn’t break through Swedish infantry, while the hussars in the same battle managed to break some of them.
But still even this heavy knights of the era simply needed some support and if not infantry, than the light cavalry. Polish cavalry tactics were mainly focused on multiple cavalry charges combined with light cavalry skirmish support and close combat assistance. In fact I even read that the hussars had formations similar to Rome’s maniple’s:



Where they provided spaces between the units to make sure they can easily reinforce or reorganize.
So even the heaviest cavalry of it’s times, who gained the biggest fame of the period did not fight alone!
How does it look in compare to Ramillies big standalone cavalry masses?

Last but not least... The facts are on their side. There were several battles, where they prooved their potential

But of course together with the time they were getting old fashioned and finally disappeared.

I guess its have to do with the James III Sobieski charge at Vienna

No!
It's terrible

If You'd like to find a better wingded hussars video better watch this, where they charge in 4.40 It's an old Polish movie "Potope" aboute famouse Deluge war with Sweden in 1655-1660

I checked the polish winged hussars, but it seems its a bit after the intended time period that they got their wings. So they would need to have something else distinctive to offer to grant them a spot on the roster,

True.
At the time they were a light cavalry in a Hungarian style.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You can find a usefull info about them and other units of the era in this old thread with XVI century mod for Medieval 2 Kingdoms.
There was also a nice video preview, even with this XVI century hussars present in 1:48.

Good luck with Your project man!

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

The Mogul Empire is interesting because they have a mix of Mongol-like Cavalry consisting of Mongols, Kazachs, Uighurs, but also Persians with artillery consisting of cannons. This combined with the already in India living Arab population and perhabs a few native Indian units like Elephants. And its the timeframe when they were actually badass and not the decadent monarchy they are 200 years later.

[Salvo]

Either way I would love to see pictures and hear about examples of armies of this time period.

I've just founded out this mod - Italian Wars!
Loads of amaizing previews and materials in there, hope it's usefull for You