Home Forums Renaissance Breitenfeld Question

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #85914
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    For my education on this battle, why would/did the Imperialists put all their irregular/hussar-type cavalry on one flank and all their cuirassier type units on the other?

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #85916
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    The simple answer is they wouldn’t/didn’t. The exact dispositions of the cavalry are not known but there were ‘heavy cavalry’ were on both flanks. Probably in relatively equal numbers. The location of the Croatian light horse is not known for certain.

    #85917
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    That is great, thanks very much. I was re-reading an old scenario (from MW050) and this is how it described the deployment. I thought it sounded a bit odd.

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #85930

    Whirlwind: you’re a Napoleonic gamer, I believe?

    The wealth of material for that period is astounding. Someone’s recorded the colour of the Guard’s socks at Wagram, I’m sure.

    I found when I moved into the SYW & then the TYW, the drop off of detail in military history was amazing. So when Hwiccee writes, ” The exact dispositions of the cavalry are not known” that could read as a description for much of the period.

    donald

    #85998
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Ha! Thanks Donald.

    Although there is a lot written about the Napoleonic period, I think it is only relatively recently when there has begun to be a real effort to make the non-English primary sources available to an English audience.  The majority even of the French stuff has never been translated into English, never mind the German or the Russian.  The (in)famously bad-tempered Napoleonic forums are in part a reaction to this.  So I guess it makes sense that the situation regarding the TYW is far more parlous.

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #86000
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    A quick look in Peter H Wilson’s Europe’s Tragedy has Pappenheim on the left (presumably with a lot of cuirassiers) and Furstenberg on the right with League ‘heavy’ cavalry and Isolani’s Croats on the extreme right, with Erwitte with more cavalry in reserve behind Tilly’s centre/right.

    His sources are not clear at a quick glance as he doesn’t have a proper bibliography and the notes are not revealing a lot on primary sources on first inspection. (I’ll have a closer look later, probably).

    Daniel Staberg usually has some info which looks good – although he can be frustratingly dismissive of everything except Swedish sources. I wish he’d write a book or push someone else in the way of some of his research so they could write it.

     

    #86035
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Peter Wilson is a first class historian and I think very reliable. He is probably the best writer in English at the moment on this war. But his battle descriptions in Europe’s Tragedy are mainly overviews as it is a relatively small book covering the whole war.

    Daniel Staberg is a possible very promising potential author but as yet has not written anything. He has been working on the ‘definitive’ account of this battle for sometime. But as has been mentioned this will not provide all the details we as gamers might like, for the simple reason that they just don’t exist.

    I don’t think Staberg is dismissive of everything non Swedish but of much of the information out there used by English historians and thus by gamers. For this era and really up to around the SYW era much of the history in English is not good and many of the details are unknown or misunderstood. A lot of the time you can’t just ‘push the research’ on to someone else as it is a complicated matter of piecing together bits and pieces, hints, half suggestions, etc. There simply are not nice clear texts telling you everything, again up to around the SYW.

    On this era, and why the Swedish stuff is less easy to dismiss, the best information we have in English comes from Swedish sources and so what we in the English speaking world is ‘less wrong’ about them than others.

     

    #86067
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    Hwiccee, I was being somewhat tongue in cheek re Daniel. I have always found his thoughts on other forums and his blog, Kriegbuch, extremely interesting and helpful. My frustration simply lies in wanting to read his complete works as a coherent whole before I peg out! For example I’d like to read his arguments in full about why Poyntz was wrong about the Imperialist formations at Breitenfeld, a primary source, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was correct (he was with the Saxons at the time after all).

    With regards to Daniel handing his research over to another, I wouldn’t expect or ask for such altruism in reality!

    I wasn’t pushing Wilson as a perfect source – just one account from, as you say, a first class historian.

    Off hand I have no idea why Wilson indicates the Croats starting on the right, except secondary accounts say they pursued the Saxons when they broke – is this another myth from a questionable source – on the Swedish left. Again I confess I haven’t tried following this to a primary source – I know Daniel counts their initial disposition as unknown.

    The more access to any primary and good secondary sources from central and northern Europe the better as far as I am concerned. I have no desire to preference poor English sources over good European ones!

    Anyway, definitely not trying to bring a whiff of bricoles into this! Always happy to hear other views.

     

     

    #86083
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    What are ‘bricoles’?

    Guy I was agreeing with you generally but just trying to point out that this is a problem generally and not just for the TYW.  Much that ‘we know’ about the ECW and the whole period up to the SYW is based on not very sound info.

    I too despair at ever reading a full account by Daniel, but it does look like he might produce something soon and whatever it is like I am sure it will be an interesting read.

    I don’t know on Wilson and the deployment there. But I think from the little I know that Daniel is right in that we basically don’t know. So I guess this is a ‘best guess’ interpretation of the deployment. Something that might be of interest is this – https://www.amazon.co.uk/L%C3%BCtzen-Battles-Peter-H-Wilson/dp/0199642540 . A friend of mine has it and says it is great, mine is in the post and I can’t wait 🙂

    #86107
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

     

    ‘Bricoles’ is a very poor joke from an ancient rambling fight on the Napoleonic Boards at TMP where people were arguing essentially for the sake of arguing about something that didn’t matter. I apologise for dragging it in here.

    I  am really looking forward to Daniel producing a full account. He has produced some amazing stuff on the various forums.

    I understand the problems with sources not existing despite our desire that they do – see my comments re Mohacs elsewhere on TWW- this board I think.

    I’m fascinated now where the Croats chasing the Saxons comes from – I don’t think its from Monro and its not in Poyntz  – but lots of people mention it – which on reflection, even if it is true doesn’t mean they started off with Furstenberg on the right, just they had moved there by that stage of the battle. Hmm.

    Lutzen looks good – I hadn’t realised it had been published yet – off to buy a copy!

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Guy Farrish.
    #86215
    Hwiccee
    Participant

    Guy,

     

    OK on ‘Bricoles’. Something I missed but then most stuff on TMP is in my opinion ‘missable’.

    Yes on Daniel – another good post by him on TMP recently, he is one of the few there worth reading.

    Talking about reading, my copy of Wilson’s Lutzen book arrived. I have only had time for a quick look but it looks really good. I am sure it was meant to be published a lot later on but my friend told me it was out, so I was also surprised it was out.

    Sources/Croats: Yes and this on sources was really addressed more generally. On the Croats and indeed much of the Imperialist/League deployment is ‘best guesses’ from limited information.

    #86246

    For my education on this battle, why would/did the Imperialists put all their irregular/hussar-type cavalry on one flank and all their cuirassier type units on the other?

    While “we don’t know” is a good and probably correct answer, there is a tactical reason behind loading up one side vs the other with heavier/better cavalry and it seems to apply well to this battle.  The Imperialists opened the battle with a flank attack directed specifically on the Saxons.  Swedish left or Imperialist right.  Assuming the plan was to turn the Swedish flank and catch them in a vice by holding the center and Swedish right/Imperialist left, it would make sense to load up the Imperialist right with better troops able to carry out a shock attack and break the enemy quickly.

    Whether this was a planned maneuver or not is anyone’s guess.  Certainly, the Swedes spotted the danger and adjusted accordingly.  Also interestingly, the Swedish cavalry on their right made very short work of the Imperialist cavalry opposing them, turning the battle into a revolving door battle.  Kind of suggests that the Swedes not only had numbers but a qualitative advantage on that flank.

    John

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

    --Abraham Lincoln

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.