>Swiss pike square defeated the French cavalry. >Landschnekt added shot to the pike square to defeat the Swiss

>Swiss pike square defeated the French cavalry
>Landschnekt added shot to the pike square to defeat the Swiss
>Spanish tercio added mobile musket bastions and shield-bearers to the mix to defeat the Landschnekt
>Sweden turned the square into a line with highly mobile artillery to defeat the Spanish
Until the maxim gun and QF artillery changed warfare forever, was there any other major leaps in dominant tactics between the 1630s and 1880s? Gustav Adolphus seems to have set the stage for the next quarter millenium of warfare.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't orange guy spiced it up with line formations first?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wut? They kept going after "swedish brigades" were invented. It might not be immediately obvious but there was constant reform all the time

      yes the Dutch were extremely important. Gustav II Adolf adopted more ideas than he (his army) came up with, not just from the Dutch either his cavalry was heavily influenced by having fought Poland-Lithuania a lot

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >his cavalry was heavily influenced by having fought Poland-Lithuania a lot
        It was simply a return to older charge based tactics as opposed to short lived shot based ones, and he wasn't the only one to do that.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Different tactics in battle (hollow square)
    Changes in order of battle
    Huge changes in logistical efforts for raising armies on a political level

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I recall the Germans also with their new guns were able to go prone instead of standing in a line.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stop.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you ever look up this fella named Napoleon Bonaparte, they named an era of warfare after ol boney
    youd think someone who goes to /k/ would know about him

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Frederick the Great revolutionized linear tactics through the use of oblique marches and other battlefield maneuvers that required highly drilled troops.

    Napoleon went even further, by finding tactics that utilized combined arms to make an often poorly drilled conscript army into a winning army, such as the attack column, artillery concentration into a grand battery, and the use of dispersed marching and concentrated fighting to overwhelm and defeat smaller enemy forces in detail.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Frederick the Great revolutionized linear tactics through the use of oblique marches and other battlefield maneuvers that required highly drilled troops.

      Despite it being his signature tactic, Frederick actually stole that from the ancient Greek general, Epaminondas. Ironically, Ep was also a gay military genius. Maybe Frederick felt some affinity for him.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Epaminondas
        Underrated

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Looking at things as a series of discrete leaps rather than a constant evolution of tactics isn't all that helpful.
    Landschnekts and tercios were both developing at the same time, and the Spanish rodeleros played a similar role in the tercio to landschnekts with halberds and zwiehanders or English billmen and halberdiers.

    You also need to consider how force composition of each of these groups changed over time (rodeleros and becoming obsolete over time, the numbers of pikemen vs missile troops changing as firearms became more effective).

    Also
    >The importance of bayonets, and plug vs socket bayonets.
    >The changing role and equipment of cavalry.
    >Developments in shipbuilding and naval combat
    >Castles and siege technology

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Landschnekt
      It's Landsknecht morons. Are your brains too smooth to remember spelling? If so, let me give you a hint: The etymology is very similar to english knight. Lands-knecht aka lands-knight, the servant of the land. That's a whopping two letters difference.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's Landsknecht pl Landsknechte
    Landschnekt isn't a word but sounds like land snail.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >land snail.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Die Schneckenknecht

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/Yt7kHJR.jpeg

        >Die Schneckenknecht

        A Knecht can only be male. The female equivalent would be a Magd (=maid).
        But then we wouldn't know if die Schneckenmagd has a shell or not. So it's either die Nacktschneckenmagd ( nude snail maid) or die Häuslesschneckenmagd. ( Snail maid with a house)
        If she's from my area, most likely would be die Weinbergschneckenmagd ( vineyard snail maid)

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think I have the PDF anymore, but at some point between the end of the civil war and WWI the meta was literally stand in lines and shoot at each other using rifles with metallic cartridges. Rifle tech outpaced canon/artillery tech (and also there were a bunch of colonial/injin conflicts at the time pumping the numbers up), so the top casualty producing weapon was literally rifle fire and armies were legit lining up and using the fricking volley sights and mag cut offs and shit. Its crazy when you have shit like the boer wars and san juan hill where it was legit dudes with mausers shooting at people from like a quarter mile away

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I read an interesting paper a few years ago, I think it was written shortly before the great war, arguing that because of smokeless powder improvements, that engagement ranges in the future would routinely be in excess of a mile, the author assumed everyone would be equipped with a large bore rifle with a telescopic sight. He wrote about how everyone would be firing from static field fortifications. Pretty much just armies of dudes with .50 cals sniping each other at extreme ranges from bunkers or trenches and calling in artillery. The author also (correctly) assumed that propellant and explosive improvements already occurring in naval technologies would be applied to field guns, and speculated about accurately firing over the horizon using infantry spotters with radios wireless equipment (radios) and using artillery to counter the enemy's fortified positions/entrenched sniper infantry. I wish I could find the paper, the author fairly accurately described exactly how ww1 trench warfare would play out, except he didn't assume military leaders would think sending waves of men into presighted artillery fire would be part of it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        neat

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Was it Jan Bloch?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Possibly, but I don't remember it being as long a read as The Future of War. I feel like the paper I read was more like someone's doctoral dissertation. I went through a period where I read a ton of pre-war engineering/military papers from my old university's online archives when my old student login still worked and I really am not sure. I no longer have access or I would check my history and find it. There was another cool paper in the same archive about the various chemical weapons used in the great war, including how to manufacture all of them in "small quantities, suitable for the laboratory" as the author put it. He ended the paper with the opinion that the new Tabun being developed in Germany would revolutionize warfare much as the machine gun had done in the last war, especially if it were deployed by air against population centers. Some of those interwar scientists were bloodthirsty sons of b***hes. I need to see if I can get access to those archives again as an alumnus, there was a ton of really cool stuff I wish I had saved.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    napoleon invented "the nation at war"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We're talking about tactics here, and that's not tactics.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >was there any other major leaps in dominant tactics between the 1630s and 1880s
    there was a lot of progress in the transition to clausewitzian manuever warfare and light infantry tactics, especially later in the 19th century.
    read deep battle by georgy isserson

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Swiss pike square defeated the French cavalry
    >Marignano
    The Tercio was the defining leap to infantry based armies over cavalry and even that is still just an unintelligent non-nuanced take, considering the role cavalry played throughout the age of pike and shot.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Tercio was just the formalized application of Swiss Pike formations with designated handgunners. It was the Swiss that demonstrated the superiority of well drilled and disciplined infantry over heavy cavalry as the core of an army. Everybody after just built on that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Marignano
      the swiss were defeated by the infantry, the cavalry only stepped in when they began to rout

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine making a livelihood around being a mercenary. Imagine having hacked to death several people with a 6'' sword.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >6'' sword
      Ah yes, the feared Smurf heavy infantry.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not only did I frick that up but it wasn't the picture I wanted to post either.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      17th century was absolutely fricking insane, yet gets basically zero recognition in media. It's bizarre.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When the Grimm brothers collected their works on their travels through Germany there were some places completely devoid of all kinds of folklore, the 30 Years War had devastated those parts to the point that it was basically an extinction event for the people living there. The people that grew up in the wake of the war basically had society reset to square one. Truly apocalyptic. Right after the war it was commented that you could ride through the countryside for days without meeting a soul, all the villagers were dead. It is interesting to note that these areas absorbed the memory of the war as new folklore, parents would for example scare their children into behaving or the Swedes would come for them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >parents would for example scare their children into behaving or the Swedes would come for them.
          Bet' Kindlein bet', morgen kommt der Schwed.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >tfw we will never see a massive Thirty Year's War epic with thousands of extras and actors from corresponding nations
        Feels fricking bad man.
        Also: gotta love these death tolls
        >Largest pre-World War conflict in Europe
        >4-12 million casualties according to wikipedia
        >Overshadowed by every little rebellion in China

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        alatriste is an absolutely terrible adaption of an amazing book series, but it at least has one of the only depictions of the push of pike that i can recall

        i implore you to not actually watch the full movie though, just read the books

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cromwell movie from 1970 had pike battles, but it wasn't as good and detailed as the one in Alatriste.

          https://i.imgur.com/21SYtor.jpeg

          >Swiss pike square defeated the French cavalry
          >Landschnekt added shot to the pike square to defeat the Swiss
          >Spanish tercio added mobile musket bastions and shield-bearers to the mix to defeat the Landschnekt
          >Sweden turned the square into a line with highly mobile artillery to defeat the Spanish
          Until the maxim gun and QF artillery changed warfare forever, was there any other major leaps in dominant tactics between the 1630s and 1880s? Gustav Adolphus seems to have set the stage for the next quarter millenium of warfare.

          His Majesty Gustav Adolf started to utilise trench warfare (sort of - he wasn't first tho', ukrainian Cossacks did it too, but he was first in westerm Europe) against polish cavalry for his pikemen and musketeer block were no match for them in open field.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I was baffled by this movie. It felt like a bunch of completely disconnected events, like an episodic TV series but you removed half the episodes, and then put them together to make a movie.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's what happens when you try to condense a 5 (at the time) novel series into a 2 hour movie
            it'd be like trying to make a two hour movie about sharpe, but 75% of the movie is condensed 3 minute episodic summaries of each book
            i really cannot fathom the idiocy involved in whoever came up with that idea
            each book in the series would have made a perfect self contained movie
            i got monkey pawed hard on this

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        because most people in media don't care about history and instead try to paint everythin pre-"enlightenment" as les evil dark ages

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If pike and shot was so great, why did the Ottomans never adopt it?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because the Ottomans were a moron pile of multiethnic shitters ruled by israelites and homosexuals.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    added shot to the pike square to defeat the Swiss
    Landsknecht did no such thing, they where just a cheap copy of the Swiss, pike and shot was a Spanish thing.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They absolutely integrated shot in a formalized matter. By 1517 it was an imperial decree and all other missle weapons were abolished in favor of firearms.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    French and Milanese heavy cavalry were beaten badly multiple times by English archers and men-at-arms

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A ukraine thread died for this shit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Modern warfare is cringe and gay. I'm only here to discuss self defense and pre-WW2 kino.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Napoleonic supply depots and American Civil War railroads don't count as tactical, but they did change the foraging meta which significantly changed strategy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Napoleonic supply depots
      I'm ignorant about the subject, would you care to elaborate?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Socket Bayonets meant that you didn't need tercios because your muskets could fend off cavalry charges. Socket bayonets are why they stopped using pike and shot.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the effectiveness of shot is what killed off the pike
      tercios were already getting taken apart by linear firing lines and everybody was upping the ratio of shot to pike
      the socket bayonet was just the final nail in the coffin for the pike

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bayonets were fricking stupid.
    >use black powder for shooting
    >put bp in barrel
    >bp doesn't work wet
    >put KNIFE at barrel opening?!?
    >stab dude
    >blood go everywhere
    >barrel gets blood in it
    >bp gets blood in it
    >can't shoot
    Just shoot them and stab the nearby ones with a long sword, stupid

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Never post again.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How did the cavalry respond during that period to actually counter the blocks of a hundred guys with big anti-cavalry spears?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      converted to carrying pistols instead of relying on shock
      then they transitioned back to shock after blocks of pikemen went out of favor/vulnerability to other cavalry who relied on shock

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most cavalry would shoot a pistol volley or 3 at close range and then charge in. Really heavily armored cavalry could just charge straight in, but that was expensive and uncommon. The Poles had really long lances and could use those to charge in. You could also ride around a pike square and try to get in behind them.
        "Common knowledge" online will tell you that pikemen or horse archers are invincible, but that was far from the truth.

        Did the old style of basically a knight on horseback ever really go away then? A lot of the pike and shot/early modern stuff I've looked into makes it seem as if the pike square basically killed off that kind of heavy armored cav.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Heavy cavalry never really went completely out of fashion because its a big force multiplier for competent soldiers. After some time humans simply replaced the horse with the tank.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In western Europe yes, in Poland - no. Then people like Gottfried Pappenheim that fought in polish army for a while adopted some of polish tactics and re-introduced cavalry charges of pike and shot formations. Still, his cuirassiers never used lances like polish cavalry (winged hussars and petyhorcy), so their charges weren't as devastative as polish charges (using lances was pretty hard, but polish nobility was training with lances from the young age, unlike western soldierst) but they had some effectiveness since western troops weren't actually used to hold off cavalry charges anymore, because caracole tactic was commonly used back then.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pic rel a Harquebusier from 1616.

          If you mean by knight a heavily armored man on a horse then no. Even lancers were still employed but their usage decreased in the 17th century only to reemerge in the middle of the 18th century - but by then armor was of course decreased to a cuirass and a helmet (at the heaviest).
          >as if the pike square basically killed off that kind of heavy armored cav
          Not the pike on its own but with the combination of ever better getting shot.

          https://i.imgur.com/nR4E4G3.jpeg

          In western Europe yes, in Poland - no. Then people like Gottfried Pappenheim that fought in polish army for a while adopted some of polish tactics and re-introduced cavalry charges of pike and shot formations. Still, his cuirassiers never used lances like polish cavalry (winged hussars and petyhorcy), so their charges weren't as devastative as polish charges (using lances was pretty hard, but polish nobility was training with lances from the young age, unlike western soldierst) but they had some effectiveness since western troops weren't actually used to hold off cavalry charges anymore, because caracole tactic was commonly used back then.

          >Then people like Gottfried Pappenheim that fought in polish army
          I could only find a single english source for that - the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica entry on him, which reads: "At the outbreak of the great war he abandoned the legal and diplomatic career on which he had embarked, and in his zeal for the faith took service in Poland and afterwards under the Catholic League"
          If they by "Great War "they mean the 30 Years War then it is wrong as he was already in Bavaria as he served for the Aulic Council from 1617 to 1619. By 1619 he was instated as a Rittmaster - a cavalry officer.
          And if they mean by "Great War" the Polish-Swedish War of 1600-1611, then it is also wrong as Pappenheim studied in 1607 in Tübingen and changed in 1610 to Altdorf. There is not mentioning of him ever travelling to Poland in german sources. Do you have any other sources?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Unfortunately only some vague informations. On polish wikipedia it says pretty much the same stuff like you mentioned. There's some german bibliography mentioned there, but I have no clue if it's the source.
            Anyway - it's pretty possible, since he became a catholic and Poland was very catholic. Plus Polish Kingdom (and polish aristocrats who had their private armies) was hiring many western troops at that time, since Poland had pretty shitty infantry and didn't usually muster reiter cavalry. So if it's true - he had to have a brief experience in polish army somewhere between 1618-1620.

            Speaking of which - Gustavus Adolphus also re-introduced cavalry charges to his army because of his experience with polish cavalry, altough he got his experience from the other side of a lance.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most cavalry would shoot a pistol volley or 3 at close range and then charge in. Really heavily armored cavalry could just charge straight in, but that was expensive and uncommon. The Poles had really long lances and could use those to charge in. You could also ride around a pike square and try to get in behind them.
      "Common knowledge" online will tell you that pikemen or horse archers are invincible, but that was far from the truth.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As others have already pointed out: shot was either integrated to the cavalry or they were so heavily armored that they still could charge home against pikemen. The latter of course became less and less feasable and for the first example the Reiter (heavy personal armor and pistols for close range fire; pic rel) is the most well known form. But there were other ways of giving cavalry fire support as well. Harquebusiers were a type of cavalry that was armed with carbines and those were often attached to cuirassiers. Think of 18th century Dragoons.
      And I know that the Swedes in lieu of Harquebusiers used light infantry to support their cavalry attacks.

      Most cavalry would shoot a pistol volley or 3 at close range and then charge in. Really heavily armored cavalry could just charge straight in, but that was expensive and uncommon. The Poles had really long lances and could use those to charge in. You could also ride around a pike square and try to get in behind them.
      "Common knowledge" online will tell you that pikemen or horse archers are invincible, but that was far from the truth.

      >The Poles had really long lances and could use those to charge in.
      Not always successful mind you. There was a battle from the Polish–Muscovite Wars where the russians employed german Landsknechte which successfully resisted multiple charges of the Hussaria. Only when polish artillery was brought into a flanking position through a forested area, the formation of the Landsknechte was breached and the Hussars attacked finally fruitfully. Sadly I don't remember which battle it was.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Until the maxim gun and QF artillery changed warfare forever, was there any other major leaps in dominant tactics between the 1630s and 1880s? Gustav Adolphus seems to have set the stage for the next quarter millenium of warfare.

    >Levee en masse
    >Light cavalry
    >Light infantry
    >Napoleonic artillery

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >major leaps in dominant tactics
    I leapt on your mom with dominant tactics.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *