I noticed that the Sword & Buckler Men in the 'Italian States' list (The Italian Wars) are graded as "Drilled Close". However in the Pre-Cordoba Trastámara Spanish list, they are "Drilled Flexible". Is this a deliberate distinction? If so, why? A lot of the 'Spanish' troops would have been Italian in any case - mercenaries, Neapolitans, etc.
But is there evidence that the Italian concept was different from the Spanish adoption? It would seem that being 'flexible' is key to their use as support for the pikes, quickly exploiting gaps and weaknesses in the enemy formation. It would make sense that they would be flexible in order to cover rough ground to flank pikes, storm BUAs, exploit breaches in fortifications, etc.
The Spanish are graded Superior, and the Italians Average. Is there a basis for this? - the Spanish took the Italian idea and expanded and emphasised their use, but was the difference qualitative? There is only a small TuG of 6 allowed in the Italian States list, so presumably these guys would be specialist mercenaries. Is there any reason why they should not be graded the same as the same troops employed by their opponents/allies?
So, can the Sword & Buckler Men on the Italian States list be changed to "Drilled Flexible", and Superior, for consistency?
cheers
Dean B
IIRC the Spanish ones were the ones that had success, therefore, their being better makes sense.
Not sure why they are Flexibles though.
The Spanish certainly used more of them, as per the ordinances mentioned in the army list notes. Many of the Italian States probably either could not afford them, didn't have means to recruit many of them, or didn't see the value in them (e.g. relied on city militias or landsknechte instead). The lists reflect this different emphasis (Spanish get 8-24, Italian States get only 0-6). All well and good.
My point is, is there anything to suggest that these were were not essentially the same troops, whether in Spanish or Italian service?
On further consideration, perhaps grading the Spanish Rodaleros as Superior is a bit of stretch? They comprised 1/3 of the infantry (as per official ordinances), and I'm not aware of anything to suggest they were elites. No-one else in the Italian Wars gets superior line troops (apart from the Swiss), so I'd expect there needs to be some evidence to grant 1/3 of the Spanish infantry that status? They were not notably effective head-on: at Seminara in 1495 they were routed by Swiss wading out of a stream only 3-men deep . At Gargliano (1503) they presumably played a role, but the victory was won by ruse, rapid maneuver and surprise, not the quality of the bucklermen.
On the other hand they were effective against pike that were already engaged frontally or enemy arquebusiers, or moving with and protecting their own arquebusiers. All suggesting loose or flexible formation, and nothing to suggest superior status.
cheers
Dean B
Quote from: Olympian Games on May 26, 2020, 01:26:40 PM
The Spanish certainly used more of them, as per the ordinances mentioned in the army list notes. Many of the Italian States probably either could not afford them, didn't have means to recruit many of them, or didn't see the value in them (e.g. relied on city militias or landsknechte instead). The lists reflect this different emphasis (Spanish get 8-24, Italian States get only 0-6). All well and good.
My point is, is there anything to suggest that these were were not essentially the same troops, whether in Spanish or Italian service?
Well as far as I know they were different in that one lot were Spanish and another were Italians (I don't think they are identified as mercenaries hired from outside of Italy) - they could well essentially be the same but, as mentioned, IIRC the Spanish ones did have their effective moments whilst the Italian ones were, as far as I can see, nothing special; that could well be enough to justify a different quality in the lists as that is the sort of thing quality is there for. However, see below on your next point.
Quote
On further consideration, perhaps grading the Spanish Rodaleros as Superior is a bit of stretch? They comprised 1/3 of the infantry (as per official ordinances), and I'm not aware of anything to suggest they were elites. No-one else in the Italian Wars gets superior line troops (apart from the Swiss), so I'd expect there needs to be some evidence to grant 1/3 of the Spanish infantry that status? They were not notably effective head-on: at Seminara in 1495 they were routed by Swiss wading out of a stream only 3-men deep . At Gargliano (1503) they presumably played a role, but the victory was won by ruse, rapid maneuver and surprise, not the quality of the bucklermen.
A fair question based on that analysis. Certainly they can't have been that good as the Spanish ditched them fairly quickly in Italy.
Quote
On the other hand they were effective against pike that were already engaged frontally or enemy arquebusiers, or moving with and protecting their own arquebusiers. All suggesting loose or flexible formation, and nothing to suggest superior status.
I don't think the functions you mention really justify any specific formation. Like most rules the formations in MeG are a lot about how they behave in terrain - is there anything that suggests they were used in poor going for example? I'd see them as Close without indications to the contrary.
I do wonder whether the classification in the FoG:R lists has influenced the MeG ones - there are similarities.