Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yep I'm referring to a formation of infantrymen, consists of pikes, and two types of shots (Arquebusiers, and Musketeers)
and i'm referring to Renaissance era. up to 30 years war. (maybe a bit beyond)

1. Is it neccessary for every pikemen to wear body armor? does "Cuirass and Morrion" better than heavier full plate maile ?
2. Why don't Pikemen wears shields? several centuries ago. Hoplites belonging to Alexander the Great, are an infantrymen wearing bronze armor, and wields a very very long pike.. in conjunction with large bucker shield!!! does Greek pike has the same lengh as Medieval ones? and why don't medieval and renaissance pikemen wield shields? is it really useless compared to pikes W/O shields.
3. What are the differences between Arquebusiers and Musketeers? if weapons (as it was named) aren't the only distinctions. Why don't musketeers wear cuirass? (but some sitll wear helmets) but wears leather vest instead? does leather vest provide any protection (against weapon) to a musketeer? . an infantryman with matchlock gun is designated as arquebusier instead of musketeer.
4. in some googling results. Musketeers also holster a sword too! if the infantrymen in a tercio is usually drafted from peasantry. how do they get a sword? and do they really use ones in close combat just like D'artagnan and his trio? if they're always deployed next to pike formations
5. What is an actual function of halberd? does it works really the same way as pike? i've seen that sometimes halberdiers are deployed in the same line as pikemen (and i believe they aren't officiers to the unit he's assigned to)
6. Do Landsknechts and Condottieri forms a part of tercio?


^ French 16th century musketeer. note that he has a sword too! wears had instead of helmet, but it looks like that his leather vest has some protective property


^ Dutch 'musketeer' unit. wearing morrion helmet.

1. Is it neccessary for every pikemen to wear body armor?
No. They had as much armour as could be got, and the heavily armoured men would be in the front rank.

does "Cuirass and Morrion" better than heavier full plate maile ?
Full plate is more expensive and restricts mobility. Only generals wore full armour. Even they reduced the amount of armour worn during the period. It was impossible to make bullet proof armour which wasn't excessively heavy.

2. Why don't Pikemen wears shields? several centuries ago. Hoplites belonging to Alexander the Great, are an infantrymen wearing bronze armor, and wields a very very long pike.. in conjunction with large bucker shield!!! does Greek pike has the same lengh as Medieval ones? and why don't medieval and renaissance pikemen wield shields? is it really useless compared to pikes W/O shields.

The shields carried by Macedonian pikemen were used against arrows. They would not be bullet proof. It was probably impossible to make a bullet proof shield that could be carried by one man. Therefore shields were no use against other European armies equipped with muskets.

Sword and buckler men carried small shields to be used together with their sword.

3. What are the differences between Arquebusiers and Musketeers? if weapons (as it was named) aren't the only distinctions. Why don't musketeers wear cuirass? (but some sitll wear helmets) but wears leather vest instead? does leather vest provide any protection (against weapon) to a musketeer? . an infantryman with matchlock gun is designated as arquebusier instead of musketeer.

The arquebus was shorter and lighter than the musket, which had to be rested on a stand. Both were matchlocks. The arquebus was in use at the start of the 16th century, having been developed from the mediaevil handgun. It got longer and heavier until it turned into the musket. Later on, the musket was made shorter and lighter until it became the firelock (flintlock musket) around the end of the 17th century. They weren't two types of weapons mixed in one army like SMG and rifle in WW2.

The leather coat defended against edged weapons to some extent. The metal armour tended to go to the pikemen as they were supposed to get into close combat.

4. in some googling results. Musketeers also holster a sword too! if the infantrymen in a tercio is usually drafted from peasantry. how do they get a sword? and do they really use ones in close combat just like D'artagnan and his trio? if they're always deployed next to pike formations

Not all soldiers were drafted. The Spanish infantry in the early to mid 16th century were experienced soldiers from the "reconquista" of the Spanish peninsula and wars in the New World. They were skilled and had high morale.

At that time, it was more common for people to own basic weapons. Some nations had laws about it, so that either individuals or communities had to maintain stocks of weapons and armour. The king also would have stocks of equipment to issue to new troops, or would give money to the colonel or the soldiers, who would buy the weapons needed.

5. What is an actual function of halberd? does it works really the same way as pike? i've seen that sometimes halberdiers are deployed in the same line as pikemen (and i believe they aren't officiers to the unit he's assigned to)

The halberd was an effective melee weapon if used properly, however by the 16th century it was turning into a badge of office rather than a weapon for mass deployment. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, sergeants still carried weapons like spontoons, half-pikes and halberds.

6. Do Landsknechts and Condottieri forms a part of tercio?
These were German and Italian mercenaries. The tercio was a Spanish infantry formation like a regiment. An army containing tercios might have also have had Lansknechts and/or Condottieri in attached formations.

Lone Cat wrote:Yep I'm referring to a formation of infantrymen, consists of pikes, and two types of shots (Arquebusiers, and Musketeers)
and i'm referring to Renaissance era. up to 30 years war. (maybe a bit beyond)

1. Is it neccessary for every pikemen to wear body armor? does "Cuirass and Morrion" better than heavier full plate maile ?
2. Why don't Pikemen wears shields? several centuries ago. Hoplites belonging to Alexander the Great, are an infantrymen wearing bronze armor, and wields a very very long pike.. in conjunction with large bucker shield!!! does Greek pike has the same lengh as Medieval ones? and why don't medieval and renaissance pikemen wield shields? is it really useless compared to pikes W/O shields.
3. What are the differences between Arquebusiers and Musketeers? if weapons (as it was named) aren't the only distinctions. Why don't musketeers wear cuirass? (but some sitll wear helmets) but wears leather vest instead? does leather vest provide any protection (against weapon) to a musketeer? . an infantryman with matchlock gun is designated as arquebusier instead of musketeer.
4. in some googling results. Musketeers also holster a sword too! if the infantrymen in a tercio is usually drafted from peasantry. how do they get a sword? and do they really use ones in close combat just like D'artagnan and his trio? if they're always deployed next to pike formations
5. What is an actual function of halberd? does it works really the same way as pike? i've seen that sometimes halberdiers are deployed in the same line as pikemen (and i believe they aren't officiers to the unit he's assigned to)
6. Do Landsknechts and Condottieri forms a part of tercio?

1. At the time, it was viewed as such. Cuirass is just another fancy word for full plate that is worn about the torso.
2. The greeks did not use pikes, they used spears. The main reason they did not use shields, is because in organized fighting techniques of the day, it was important that a pikeman had both hands available for striking, blocking or bracing themselves.
3. the Arquebus is basically a matchlock, hand cannon, whereas a musketeer carries a musket. The musket is much much closer to what we use today, and as such the power it was capable of rendered most armor obsolete. the Musketeers probably wore leather instead of plate, due to their lighter weight weapons, and their fighting techniques required them to have "dueling" skills. Leather allows the wearer to maintain his maneuverability in a fight, when compared to plate.
4. During the time period you are referencing, many European nations had begun to organize their military under the State, rather than a manorial lord. As such, there were state armories, who made, or manufactured "identical" weapons for use by the common soldier. The sword went from a status symbol and a weapon, to simply a weapon.
5. a halberd works much the same way as a pike, the axe head can be used to chop, and the pointy spear end can be used to stab. This is especially useful on manning a walled fortification. The spear point of a pike may only reach so far, but the power generated by the speed in a blow of a halberd can cause much damage from a distance.
6. AFAIK, the Landsknechts and Condottieri are units of themselves. They were quite possibly their own tercio, however at least the Landsknechts are more known for their "other" weapons. And if memory serves, the Condottieri were a form of mercenary army for hire (and would often stage battles when hired by two opposing factions at the same time)

oops i've forgot to say that Arquebusiers still wear half quarter platemaile and morrion helmets by then. when a formation of 'musketeers' become distinct to Arquebusiers.

but do Musketeers really fight melee combat with swords. and do they really gets sword training too?

Lone Cat wrote:oops i've forgot to say that Arquebusiers still wear half quarter platemaile and morrion helmets by then. when a formation of 'musketeers' become distinct to Arquebusiers.

but do Musketeers really fight melee combat with swords. and do they really gets sword training too?

It wouldn't have been the Three Musketeers otherwise

I did a lot of research on Renascence pike and shot formations a few years ago when I was putting some armies together, lets see what I remember. wall of text attack

1. Soldiers generally had to provide there own kit, most men would have some type of armour usually at least a quilted jack (metal plates covered in layers of cotton). Typically the front two ranks would be made up of the most heavily armoured men, as they would take the brunt of the fighting. Full plate would be very rare due to the cost. The heaviest armour you would likely see on a pikeman was half plate with perhaps some thigh protection. Morrions became virtually universal across Europe so would be very common, even if a man had no body armour he would probably have a morrion.

2. Bucklers were sometimes used in conjunction with pikes but fell out of use later in the period. I think the main reason why you dont see shield is they had become obsolete equipment in general. The improvements in armour quality had rendered them pointless.

3. Arquabuses are smaller caliber than muskets, quicker to fire and easier to reload. Early muskets were very big and complex weapons, essentially cannons shrunk down to man size. It could take up to 3 minutes to reload one according to a contemporary source I forget the name of. The illustration you have is of a Aquabusier armed with a caliver rather than a Musketeer, and from the looks of it he is wearing a quilted jack. Jacks were the most common armour of the period, usually made up of metal plates cut from old sets of armour covered in layers of cotton to provide impact protection. leather armour didn't really exist in the Renascence, the only stuff I can think off is deer hide used by Highlanders. You do get raw hide Buff coats later in the period.

4. Swords were a common side arm by the Renascence period. Basically swords had become easier to make, so were far more common than before.

5. Halberds and most pole arms started as peasant weapons made from modified farming tools. They weren’t as good at stopping cavalry being much shorter than pike, but were more versatile being able to stab and slash rather than just poking at things. Weapons like the bill could be used to drag people off horses and chop the ends of pikes. The pike became the the wonder weapon of the age thanks to the Swiss tactic of using pike blocks as offensive formations rather than defensive. Every one started ditching ploearms in favor of the pike in the hope of emulating the success the Swiss had. Polearms hung on in England for a long time and proved effective against scots pike blocks at the battles of Flodden and Pinkie Cleugh.

6. Landsknechts fought in the Swiss fashion rather than in Spanish Tercio. I am a bit hazy on the difference in styles these days but the, but the Swiss way of fighting was very offensive orientated using fast moving pike blocks to smash through the enemy lines.

If you can be bothered reading all that hope some of it helps

1. Soldiers generally had to provide there own kit, most men would have some type of armour usually at least a quilted jack (metal plates covered in layers of cotton). Typically the front two ranks would be made up of the most heavily armoured men, as they would take the brunt of the fighting. Full plate would be very rare due to the cost. The heaviest armour you would likely see on a pikeman was half plate with perhaps some thigh protection. Morrions became virtually universal across Europe so would be very common, even if a man had no body armour he would probably have a morrion.

3. Arquabuses are smaller caliber than muskets, quicker to fire and easier to reload. Early muskets were very big and complex weapons, essentially cannons shrunk down to man size. It could take up to 3 minutes to reload one according to a contemporary source I forget the name of. The illustration you have is of a Aquabusier armed with a caliver rather than a Musketeer, and from the looks of it he is wearing a quilted jack. Jacks were the most common armour of the period, usually made up of metal plates cut from old sets of armour covered in layers of cotton to provide impact protection. leather armour didn't really exist in the Renascence, the only stuff I can think off is deer hide used by Highlanders. You do get raw hide Buff coats later in the period.

possibly you referred 'soldiers' to pikemen and arquebusiers rather than musketeers. but do 'Musketeers' wear quilted jack (if you say that it is something similar to modern FlaK jacket) beneath leather vest too?
and the degrees of protections do raw hide buff coats provide? i'm not sure if i've saw an infantryman wearing it without breastplate on top of it. but in English civil war, Cavs wear this alot.


^ hope this one corrects.

=^.^=

Musketeers would wear Jacks as well, they would dress just like an Arquabusier only there weapons were different. Jacks are generally worn over the cloths, but you can also wear more armour over the jack, such as a breast plate. Jacks could provide excellent protection as they had metal plates to stop blows and the quilting to soften the impact.

heres a picture of one, it has a layer of iron plates in between two layers of padding.



Buff coats must have provided a good level of protection because they started to replace metal armour. Though I think thats more down to cost and mobility. Buff coats started life as arming jackets, you would wear plate over the top of them. They had to be tailored to each individual, because if the shape was wrong the person could find it very hard to move there arms as the hide was so stiff.

Mobility became more important than protection later in the Renaissance with the increasing amount of guns. So thats why you see cavalry in buff coats and not plate, also they were cheep to make.

Did anybody else think of a Call of Duty game set in the Renaissance when they saw the thread title?

Lone Cat wrote:
1. Is it necessary for every pikeman to wear body armor? does "Cuirass and Morion" better than heavier full plate maile ?

Not better, cheaper. however at this time plate mail was obsolete, you would take plate, either half or full. chain will not stop a pike, or a bullet, whereas plate can. The advantage of late is that it deflects the energy of the shot. True field plate was bullet proof and tested with a double power puistol charge at point blank range. This testing dent was not hammers out, so field plate would appear marred from the outset, but that dent was a sign of quality. Shot did not out-develop armour, it out priced it. Very few could afford bullet tested plate.
For a soldier a cuirass with or without backplate box and thigh plates and helmet was all you need. It covered the bits that mattered. Late cuirass was replaced by a buff coat of two thicknesses of boiled leather, though that was to stop blade and slow grapeshot, not to stop bullets.

Lone Cat wrote:
2. Why don't Pikemen wears shields? several centuries ago. Hoplites belonging to Alexander the Great, are an infantrymen wearing bronze armor, and wields a very very long pike.. in conjunction with large bucker shield!!! does Greek pike has the same lengh as Medieval ones? and why don't medieval and renaissance pikemen wield shields? is it really useless compared to pikes W/O shields.

Several reasons, most of which are covered.
- First armour technology had improved, or more accurately you could 'mass produce' rolled plate, something the classical Greeks could not, and do so out of superior metals.
- Second bullets go straight through shields.
- Thirdly that would cause spalling , so a shiled is an instant shotgun effect device. This is probably not the type of 'protection' soldiers have in mind.
- Fourth cuirass is better weight distributed than a shield, so its easier to just wear the armour.
- Fifthly its easier to control a pike with two uninterrupted hands, and enables rthe wielder to switch posture. A Macedonian and later phalangite has his shield partly strapped, this effectively immobilised the left arm limiting the range of movement,
renaissance commanders knew their classical history and know the weakness to pike and shield formations because the utter reaping the late Greek armies suffered at the hands of the romans is well documented.


However as an educated lot it would not be unusual for the thought of shields to come up. Commanders would have rejected this for three main reasons.

- Renaissance commanders had a classical education and therefore knew the critical weakness (against small blades) that pike and shield formations suffer as proved at Cynoscephalae.
- Actual numbers under arms was vastly superior to what the greeks could field as the national economic scale was much larger in later history. pike and shield required a lot of training, this simply was not practical with the vast pike formations deployed by European powers.
- Renaissance pike fought in mixed formation, mixed formations and body shields dont work. A body shield is not a personal defensive tool, it covers oneself and part of ones neighbour. It only really works if everyone in line has one.

Lone Cat wrote:
4. in some googling results. Musketeers also holster a sword too! if the infantrymen in a tercio is usually drafted from peasantry. how do they get a sword? and do they really use ones in close combat just like D'artagnan and his trio? if they're always deployed next to pike formations

Muskets were heavy and unwieldy, they were also fragile enough in part that using them as large blunt impact weapons is not a good idea. Muskets needed a rest to fire because they were so unwieldy. Furtherrmore bayonets were not invented yeat, and wouldnt be much use if they were.
Carrying a sword is a good idea, musketeers were largely gentlemen, good 'middle class' stock, they could usually afford a sword.

Lone Cat wrote:
5. What is an actual function of halberd? does it works really the same way as pike? i've seen that sometimes halberdiers are deployed in the same line as pikemen (and i believe they aren't officiers to the unit he's assigned to)

a halberd is a defensive weapon used in line holding actions. Contrary to popular belief a pike formation was not a defensive formation except when facing cavalry. Pikes were used on the offence and needed to press forward for best result. This was refered to as the 'push of pike'. Halberds were knightly weapons for the most part carried by heavy infantry and used to hold a static position. They were very good at what they did, but declined before pike because a unit that is intended to stand still is at the mercy of gunpowder troops and because other than pike themselves all melee advances were later performed by cavalry. Melee infantry was a thing of the past so the halberd faded.
It still remained in use for 'internal security' and remained a popular policing weapon well into the Napoleonic era. Technically they are in use today. The Vatican guard are technically and ceremonially a unit of halberdiers.

I dont know the answers to the other questions, or they were answered comprehensively enough I have nothing to add to them at this stage.

^ nevermind then.

now on to the lessions the renaissance noblemen leant from the battle between Greeks and Romans.
1. Did the noblemen taught that romans used a formation of swords+shield troops called 'Legionairy to fight the greek hoplites? (and won)?
2. by the time of Renaissance. did the medieval formations of sword+shield armed infantryman still exists? if so are they consists of citizens with better caste than those of pikemen and (maybe) firearm-wielding troops? and did Landsknecht found out that two-handed greatswords are better than swords+shield.
are those swordsmen trained to exclusively fights pikemen formations?
Does that really works?

Lone Cat wrote:
1. Did the noblemen taught that romans used a formation of swords+shield troops called 'Legionairy to fight the greek hoplites? (and won)?
2. by the time of Renaissance. did the medieval formations of sword+shield armed infantryman still exists? if so are they consists of citizens with better caste than those of pikemen and (maybe) firearm-wielding troops? and did Landsknecht found out that two-handed greatswords are better than swords+shield.
are those swordsmen trained to exclusively fights pikemen formations?
Does that really works?

By the time the renaissance completely took over Europe (as it is a difficult date to pin in every major European power), most nobles would have learned more from their country's extensive battles. England and Spain were known to still use formations of longbows almost to the 1500s. Not sure exactly what this "legionary" formation you are talking about, it is completely made up I'm afraid. The Romans had many names for their formations, such as the Testudo, but I dont think that their cohorts or maniples (depending on the time frame) carried any specific name other than those two. At the same time, I think that the nobility of the day who did learn about Greek and Roman victories/defeats would learn more from the allegorical lessons than the tactical. This is because the Greeks and Romans did not have huge fething cannons aimed at their lines, they had archers and various forms of catapults, both of which do less overall physical damage.

2. By the time the Renaissance kicked off, the French organizational "revolution" was beginning to take root across all of Europe. This means that nearly ALL soldiers were drawn from the ranks of the peasantry, and were only led by Knights or other higher ranking nobles. The Landsknecht sword was a very difficult one to make, and so was only given to the most veteran of the units. It's usage in battle was much like any other "pure" two-hand sword, like the Claymore. So, because the guy wielding one was quite obviously a veteran, and presumably knew how to gut a man in a million ways before you could blink an eye, he was seen as something incredibly ferocious and fearsome. Thus, the Flamberge (the sword you are referring to), was much more a fear tactic designed to cause the enemy to break ranks. Of course, it wasn't a purely ceremonial weapon, and so those who were foolish enough to get within range found out just how much of a veteran the guy holding it was.

During the Ren. period, there were obviously a ton of changes going on, so it is quite difficult to say outright that unit formation type X was designed to defeat unit formation type Y (in this case, Landsknecht mercenary, and pike-n-shot). The pike was originally given to stem the heavy cavalry charge, and with the rise of gunpowder weapons the Lance became a less formidable weapon. With more and more cannons around, many knights ditched their lances for smaller spears and their traditional swords/axes/maces/warhammers, etc. The tactic became to use the horse's weight and momentum to carry them into the formation from a flank or the rear (where the pikes were not facing) and when the horse was slowed down, they would set about hacking and slashing about killing the infantry, try to disengage, and come round for another go)

It was during this period that we see a significant change from "Line up the troops, march them up abit, shoot some arrows, charge with the other guys, break them, and have tea by sunset" to, "line up, load, aim, fire!, shift formation, aim, fire!, move up, rinse repeat, all the while the cannons are doing their thing" This is seriously over simplified, but the rise of gun powder significantly altered the way that wars were fought.

Very interesting read with some very knowledgable replies.
Thanks.

^ And you comes from Italy right? ok how many does Berretta contributed to renaissance warfare? and who are the biggest clients by then?
yep I got it right. Berretta firearms company startes its oprations in Renaissance. possibly the oldest firearms business firms on earth.

So which technology or discovery is/ are required for the "musket" to becomes lighter, cheaper (requires less Iron to make), and friendlier to user ? to the point that it completely replaced "Arquebus" ? but surely not Bayonets i believe.



so in this clip, can anyone tell me which class of these matchlock firearms are? are those falls into the class of Musket? or Arquebus?
and in the same clip. where does pikemen go in trench fight (or more accurately, siege) if the defender doesn't sallying, yet. the trench fighting seems to be the jobs of arquebusiers/musketeers and artillery crew.

The firearms in the clip are muskets. Arquebus were still in use at the start of the 17th century but were mainly used by cavalry because of there small size. As the century goes on the word Arquebus gets replaced by Carbine to describe light firearms.

Found this nice illustration showing the differences in size between an arquebus, Caliver (a type of standardized caliber arquebus used all over Europe) and musket



Pikemen would generally have a sword or other hand weapon to fight with beside his pike. Polearms like Halberds were quite commonly issued to pikemen during sieges as well.

and by the time muskets become cheaper, an arquebusier gets upgraded into musketeer. right?
and does that mean dragoon takes arquebus as the earliest weapon and later rename it carbine. or are there still distinctions between the two? supposed that both are either flintlocks, matchlocks, or snaphance.

so in the same campaign. pikeman can swap his polearm once they fight a different battle? (and does that imply that halberd is for confined space.??)

and when was the first time 'Grenadier' unit shows up?