Military reforms during Pike & Musket era - especially Sweden

I am presently working on a new system of military reform based techtrees for the next release of PMTW for MTW VI ( and possibly PMTW2 as well).

So there is a question what military reforms you think are so important in the warfare between 1480 and 1700.


In addition what reforms were important enough in Sweden to implement them in the mod ?

Obviously Gustavus Adolphus will find its place here, but what else ?



Regards Cegorach :duel:

The reforms of the Gran Capitan in Spain or Peter the Great's reforms in Russia....

I'm not on my brightest today, but I'll give you more info when I manage to find it.

Spain would be good. Russia - I have enough.

Regards Cegorach :book:

Here:

Quote:

---

The Spanish Tercios were the new infantry unit of the Kings of Spain which combined the firepower of the harquebus (later the musket) with the pikes. The Tercios would form the elite forces of the Spanish monarchy during 200 years. Contrary to others troops they fought only for one master, the King of Spain. .

1.2 The origin

After seven centuries of war against muslin warriors, the "reconquista" of Spain was over in 1492. These wars had created an original Spanish army where the infantryman had as much importance as the heavy knight. In 1495 the Spanish King Fernando V "El Catolico" (the Catholic) reorganised the defence of his reunified kingdom. The first permanent forces were the capitanias or companies of 100 to 600 men. A capitanias used to have pikemen (called lanceros), crossbowmen or rodelos (buckler and stabbing sword men) and handguners. In january 1496, a royal ordinance was published to fix the company staff, mainly: 1 captain, 1 alférez, 1 sergeant, 1 barber and 1 chaplain.

From 1496, the Spanish began to send troops to fight in Italy against the French and some Italian princes. In 1500 the Spanish army in Italy, had 3042 infantrymen (23 capitanias), 300 men at arms (3 companies) and 300 "jinetes" (3 companies of light horsemen). The infantrymen were armed with 4.6 m pikes (called lanzas in Spanish), crossbow and some fire handgun (27% of the total).

Around 1504 the Spanish commander Gonzalo de Córdoba (called el Gran Capitán) organised groupment of 12 - 16 capitanias, the coronelía (colonelcy) manded by a Coronel (Colonel). In 1509 for the expedition to Oran, the coronelia of Vianelo had 16 capitanias and 2762 hommes,the coronelia of Don Francisco Marqués had 13 capitanias and 1950 men, but the coronelía of Antón de Avila had only 8 capitanias and 1659 men. We have an average of 172 men per capitanias.
After, the coronelía was composed of 6 and 4 companies of 300 men. By 1525, the 7050 Spaniards were divided in 33 companies of infantry. Each company had between 100 and 350 men with an average of 27% of Harquebusiers.

In 1534, the Spanish troops in Italy were reorganised in three units. In 1535, the name of Tercio appeared to design these units called Lombardia (Lombardy), Napoli (Naples) and Sicilia (Sicily). Their mission was to protect the Spanish territories in Italy.

---

from: http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TercioUK.html

AFAIK the two bigger Swedish reforms (if you exclude GIIA's reforms) in this period was Gustav Vasa's reform and the Caroliner reform. I can try to dig up better info if you want to.

don't forget the great military reforms in England. The New Model Army in the Civil War was the first permanent standing army in the British Isles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

AFAIK the two bigger Swedish reforms (if you exclude GIIA's reforms) in this period was Gustav Vasa's reform and the Caroliner reform. I can try to dig up better info if you want to.

---

I would be greateful for the 2nd one especially. ~;)

Ironside ??? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

Ironside ??? ~:confused:

---

Sorry missed your response for a while and then I had a little bit too little time to search. What information do you want?

They are very late as it's around 1680-1720 they were mostly used.
Some rough combat information I've found is that the Swedish warfare was extremely aggressive.
The infantery was 2/3 muskets and 1/3 pikes, fighting in units of 150. 10% of the musketeers was granadiers. Charging the enemy after a few close range salvos ws primary combat method.
The cav was overdimentioned compared to the other countries. Charging with blank weapons in a dense wedge formation with blank weapons. 125 men units.
The same type of units as the other nations seems to been used, although many troops were "drafted" through the alloment system.
link 1
Link 2

And the word Karoliner (Carolines) wasn't used before 1769. ~D

Gustav Vasa waged war with about the same armies as any other 1500s potentate - mercenaries. Acute shortage of nearly everything, starting with money, meant he also had to fall back on peasant militas. This wasn't as bad as it might sound like - Nordic peasant levies were a cut above the norm over the whole Middle Ages, never stopped fighting in solid shieldwall formations and hence were a potent force in the rugged Scandinavian geography - all the more so as the general poverty of the land made true feudal troops impractical and few in number. In 1500s they formed up into large pike squares flanked by gunners, and while they generally seem to have been unable to hold their ground against professional Landsknechts in a push of pikes could at least make a credible attempt.

The reforms of Gustavus II Adolphus were pretty much a further refinement of those began by others in for example the Netherlands (which were fighting a very long and tedious war of independence against Spain), and to a large degree dictated by the necessities of the Swedish strategic situation. For one, Sweden was poor in both money and men and could not really afford the huge mercenary armies that were the norm in continental Europe. For another, he had a succession dispute to fight with the Polish branch of the family and it was found out the hard way the standard tactics of the day didn't work all that well against the still rather Medieval Poles.

For example, the norm of cavalry combat was the much-maligned caracole (Italian for "snail", I've read) - the armoured horsemen would essentially carry out a version of the infantry countermarch, discharging their pistols at the enemy and retiring to reload as the next rank took their place. This is not to say shock tactics weren't used, just that they were normally only employed against infantry arquebusieurs and the like with whom it would be rather suicidal to trade fire with armed with a wheellock pistol. Personally I think this technique has gotten more bad press than it deserves - after all, how else is a pistol-toting horseman going to attack pikemen from the front if not by shooting at them ? - it's just that it was performed even when shock action was actually the optimal move, and normally at ranges beyond what the pistol was effective at...

This in turn owed to the fact that virtually all the cavalrymen were professional mercenaries; their gear, training and particularly horses were what they earned their living with, and as a result they tended to be reluctant to risk said expensive assets more than necessary. In a sense they were professional military slackers; drawing their pay for doing as little as they possibly could... ~D

Infantry, for their part, still tended to fight in huge tercios at least halfway into the Thirty Years' war, with huge blocks of armoured pikemen flanked by arquebusieurs. Artillery tended to consist of heavy-duty pieces with certainly impressive range and power but very limited mobility - siege guns moonlighting as field pieces, really. But then again they inflicted some frightful carnage in the tight ranks of a tercio too... The problem with the tercio system was twofold. First, the formations were very unwieldy and difficult to maneuver. Second, they were wasteful - bar the extremely uncommon case of one getting surrounded by enemies (which had happened rather often early in the history of Early Modern European pikemen), most troopers in it would never come to blows with the enemy and really just stood there sweating.

Now, G. II A. ran into severe problems when trying to use the local variant of this system against the Poles. The most important was cavalry, as that was easily where the Poles were at their strongest and the Swedes at their weakest. The Polish cavalry was still essentially medieval in ethos, armament and tactics - they charged home with lances and proceeded to lay about with gusto in the ensuing melee; cavalry trying to caracole in a modern, civilized manner against such archaic onslaught tended to get rudely skewered, cut to ribbons and routed, leaving the infantry high and dry. The infantry had it better; after all, even with the extra-long special lances the Poles used there just plain isn't much shock cavalry could do to disciplined pikemen. But the infantry was too slow moving and generally limited to win anything on its own, especially as the Poles could call upon mercenaries and some native forces of equal calibre to face them down.

What Gustavus did was change the rules. He took a page from the Poles' book and put his cavalry on the offensive - the soldiers were taught to discharge their pistols from some five paces ("once you see the whites of their eyes"; regulations-grade cavalry body armour couldn't be reliably pierced farther off with the things anyway) and then charge home with the second pistol, the sword being really more of a backup weapon. It wasn't exactly the perfect counter to the five-meter Polish lance, as Carolus X would later repeatedly find out during his Polish campaign, but worked well enough and was a nasty surprise on the battlefields of Germany.

The infantry and artillery were done over too. The thigh-guards of the pikemen were ditched to improve maneuverability and generally lessen the burden, a newer and lighter type of musket (which didn't require a musket-rest) adoptes, and the troops organized into the precursor of the later standard "sleeved" formation (where two units of musketeers operate around and take cover behind one unit of pikemen), the rather complicated "Swedish battalion" which was made up of three such sections and which eventually proved to be too unwieldy in practice and simplified. The focus of the infantry was now on firepower, not push of pike. The musketeers were the primary killing arm of the infantry; the pikemen protected them from enemy cavalry and pikemen and led shock charges against weakened units, but were no longer the primary arm (as evident by the 2:1 musketeer-pikeman ratio).

Moreover salvo fire (which was for a while known as "Swedish fire"), where two or (optimally) three ranks of musketeers fire simultaneously for maximum physical and psychological impact, was introduced, initially probably as an anti-cavalry measure but found very useful against nigh anyone too.

Light three-pounder regimental guns were also introduced to further add weight to the infantry firepower. These light pieces were small enough to be moved by just a few horses or if need be manhandled by their crew and could thus keep up with maneuvers and powerful and rapid-firing enough to make an impression on the enemy.

The artillery arm was generally improved and calibres standardized to simplify supply, creating a powerful force that was at least initially able to handily out-shoot their Imperial opposite numbers.

Conscription and general improvements in adminstration were introduced to allow the poor kingdom gather and mobilize the resources it needed.

When Sweden, armed with all the above, took part in the Thirty Years' War (more or less making it a 30- rather than 15-year one) initially swept the field with their adversaries. Then the adversaries learned their lessons and started using all the same tricks, in about three years...

.
Various attempts between the 17th and 19th centuries happened in the Ottoman Empire. Need to look up a few thick books before being able to provide details.

:book:
.

Alas, for the most part they went bust and usually got the person responsible lynched by the Janissaries on the side. The Sultan who finally managed to get some much-needed reforms going quite literally did so over the dead bodies of that troublesome Praetorian Guard - his loyal troops apparently ended up blasting the Janissaries' barracks with artillery right in the middle of the city after a day of street fighting...

Incidenatlly, a little addition to my earlier post. Much has been made of the Swedish use of conscripted armies during the Thirty Years' War, but often somewhat erroneously. Native conscripts played an important role, true, but primarily as occupation forces and manning the innumerable fortified places around which the war really revolved (and more often than not failed to go anywhere...). The Swedish commanders considered the conscripts more reliable and by far more cost-efficient for that sort of thing; their field armies, like everyone elses', were primarily made up of foreign mercenaries (German-speakers being the majority, not in the least due to the theater of operations) who were considered better for actual campaigning.

'Course, by the end of the century the backbone of most all European armies would be conscripted citizens, and Swedish tactics had come to disdain firepower in favor of determined shock attack with cold steel (the introduction of the bayonet sort of helped)... :dizzy2: Around it goes; indeed, the Swedish and Russian armies facing each other in the Great Northern War at the beginning of the 18th century were about the last ones in Europe to still have pikemen, the Russians to counter the rightly feared Swedish cavalry and the Swedes to add some extra oomph to the infantry charge...

Well, yeah, but the guards, Semenovskiy and Preobrazhenskiy used bayonets. As did grenadiers. IIRC the russians main defence against the swedish cavalry were lancers with long lances, the kinda polish approach to the question.

By that time most infantry had muskets with bayonets. The Swedes and Russians were quaint for still retaining some numbers of pure pikemen.

The answer Peter the Great and his advisors devised for countering the Swedish shock power was both simple and rather ironic - firepower. Lots of it. Peter knew right well he had neither the time nor the resources to match the stubborn gå på approach of the Swedes, all the more so when they were fired up into near-religious zeal by royal propaganda, a virtually uninterrupted run of recent victories and the sheer charisma of their young king Carolus XII. Doubly so for the cavalry; Peter had neither the men nor the horses that could face the Swedish cuirassieurs on equal terms.

So the infantry relied on musketry and regimental guns to plain blast apart the Swedish lines, and the Russian regular cavalry was almost pure dragoons - mounted infantrymen with muskets and swords for backup (dragoons were the all-purpose "workhorse" cavalry for assorted campaign duties, so this had other benefits too). The idea was that the dragoons would distrupt the Swedish cavalry wedge with musketry and then attack it with their swords; in practice they usually ended up parting ranks before the oncoming chevron, which actually did work fairly well all things considered but tended to leave both units rather confused.

Peter actually had to formulate most of this when he was busily rebuilding the Russian field army from virtual scratch, the Swedes having all but wiped out the old one in Narva. The decisive battle of Poltava was the culmination of a long campaign which saw the Russians lay waste to much of Ukraine to weaken the Swedish through scorched-earth strategy, constant harassement and sheer campaign attrition. Russian firepower won the battle, and with it more or less the war; but even with all the factors counting against them (the least of which wasn't a stark numerical inferiority) the Swedes very nearly routed the Russian centre, and had it cracked they might well have carried the day in the confusion. Tells something of just how thoroughly pressing home the determined attack was indoctrinated into the Swedish troops, how far loyalty "to King and Country" could push them, and just how correct the Russians were in patiently wearing them down over the long, grueling campaign.

....just as they always did. I don't really know why people kept invading Russia and everyone ends up beaten by the climate, harassment and guerrilla tactics, and yet there is always someone who tries again...

"If you want to lose a war, try to conquer Moscow."
- attributed to Gen. Montgomery

It's actually not such a losing proposition, if you know what you're doing and have the sense not to try penetrating too far. The Polish-Lithuanians and Swedes both used to kick the Russians around a fair bit during their heydays, for example, and in the early 1600s a Swedish army cheerfully occupied Novgorod for several years. Even the Great Northern War was perfectly winnable for the Swedish - had Carolus XII had the sense to stop chasing after the Russian main army all over East Europe and instead marched towards the newly-built St. Petersburg, Russia's main outlet to the Baltic and the apple of Peter's eye, he'd likely been able to bring the Russians to a set-piece battle on his terms and/or been able to open negotiations from a position of strenght. But then again he never was famous for his strategic insight.

And of course the assorted steppe nomads, nevermind the squabbling Russian principalities themselves, were right competent at campaigning out there.

Please get back to the topic, I am greateful for any information even if I know 90% of presented data or so - there is always a chance I will get something more.


Of course I don't agree with some statements especially about whellock using Husaria professionals wielding one use 5,5 meter hollow lances in first two ranks and beeing able to shatter pikemen formation without really serious losses clasified as medieval barbarian-like knights, but I won't discuss this matter here.


Overall I want to prepare a series of building structures in MTW VI and possibly (somehow limited use) in RTW BI editions of PMTW which will combine several factors:

unit production, income, weapon/armour/whatever upgrades and will affect other factors like happiness, mercenary magnetism or even religious beliefs in a province - MTW VI is very flexible when it comes to this.

Some factions will get its full trees ( Poland is done as always, Russia is pretty ok, some other factions as well) some just plain, for all one, some won't get anything at all ( Tatars, Cossacks etc).

For this reason I will be greateful for looking at:
tactic changes, new taxes/infrastructure etc + a colourful portrait of the ruler + and/or his advisors I can use for the mod.

See this as a good example:

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b...ach/batory.jpg

Now overall you know what to expect. :book:

I will be especially greateful for more about late Swedish reforms and the Dutch ones.

Regards Cegorach ~:cheers:

What that one Dutch general (don't recall the name, although he's a pretty famous figure) changed wasn't so much the troops or their armament, but their deployement and formation. As opposed to the old tercio approach he began deplying his troops in thinner line formations instead, although I've read he seemed to have a bit of an obesssion with neat geometric shapes which limited them a bit.

Gustavus II Adolphus took the idea further, and more or less laid the groundwork for the "sleeved" pike-and-shot formation that'd remain the international norm until the bayonet dropped the pikemen from the rosters.

After that we apparently get to the familiar tactic of musketeers drawn up in long wide lines three or four deep marching to musketry range, delivering a salvo (in a weird kind of a game of "chicken!" between their officers) and then maybe pressing on with a bayonet charge. The Swedes seem to have moved to this tactic sometime during the reign of Carolus XI (his son inherited both the adminstration and the army as essentially finished products, and made no further modifications that I'm aware of), although they then went on to specialize in extremely aggressive tactics - a bit of a necessity really, as Sweden simply didn't have the manpower base to recruit large armies and dogged ferocity in close combat was the best bet of a small force for beating larger armies which in a firefight would simply shoot them to bits.

On the side of this the Swedish cavalry all but abandoned the (now flintlock) pistol and began emphasizing the sword tip instead - apparently a bit of a rarity in Europea at a time, as most cavalries seem to have preferred the edge. In any case they were pretty good at it.

reforms:
1536:
*Landryttare (the name is from 1544) is created (pistol-armed (some had other ranged weapons) horsemen drawn from rich farmers who are paid and equiped also in peacetime, they caracole, they have difficulies with low morale and shooting skills, (but could still butcher infantry without major problem))
*The nobility is reduced by removing the frelse (taxexemption and war duty) status of the most of the nobility (all riddare (knights) and chosen väpnare ("squires", those are not youths but was the title most nobles had) continued to be nobility).
*There's an attempt to improve the native infantry, I don't know the outcome, only that pikes got common.

around 1600:
*The doctrine of the landsryttare is changed, they charge with swords and no longer caracole (but they still have pistols as backup weapon). Their skills have also improved now.

1619:
*A regular infantry force is created (levied soldiers serving most of their lives in the army).

1683:
* It is now the villages, not the state, that is responsible for raising infanterists.
* The cavalrymen are now called rusthållare but is recruited the same way as in 1536 and onwards.

1683:
* It is now the villages, not the state, that is responsible for raising infanterists.
* The cavalrymen are now called rusthållare but is recruited the same way as in 1536 and onwards.[/QUOTE]



Very useful, thanks !

Regarding the last one - 'rusthållare' was the term the cavalrymen were called ?

Regards Cegorach ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

Very useful, thanks !

Regarding the last one - 'rusthållare' was the term the cavalrymen were called ?

Regards Cegorach ~;)

---

No, it think the closest translation is of rusthållare is "keeper of the arms", or something like that.

Ryttare (both singular and plural) and kavalleri (singular kavallerist) are Swedish words for cavalrymen.

Hi!

The consequence of the reform in 1680s was that Sweden now had an army ready at all times, the necessity of this was shown at Fehrbellin and during the Danish attempt to reclaim Scania in the 1670s.

Not only did the reform let Sweden have an army ready at all times it also led to Sweden having an army that relative to the population of the country was very large at least compared to other countries at the time.

At the outbreak of the great northern war in 1700 Sweden could muster approxamatly 76000 men which was enough to face 3 countries of which at least two had populations several times larger then sweden. (russia for instance could muster 40000 on the swedish front, Poland/Sachsen and Denmark even less).

Included in these 76000 are also standing forces such as garrisons and some special regiments and I think also the navy (must look this up as im writing from my head).

Not only was the army large, it was also probably the best led, best organised and best trained army in europe at the time, in game terms it should mean high morale troops and highly skilled troops (the swedes didnt run from or loose a battle until poltava, at least not the fieldarmy under Charles XII, 9 years of constant fighting).

Charles XI who was the organiser of this reform himself traveled across the empire inspecting his troops everywhere and at anytime. Regular training and careful planning of mobilisation routs to ports and so on ment the army could be (and was) mobilised very rapidly in the event of war. Thus Denmark was nocked out of the war in a lightning strike at Denmark with aid from English and Dutch navies (obligated to help with this from earlier treaties).

It also ment that 10000 Swedes could crush the 40000 Russians at Narva soon there after. And after that on to Poland where winged husars or not Charles XII and the karolins won battle after battle and finally also forced a new king upon the poles.

The organisation was so "good" at stomping out new troops that before the peace of Nystad 200000 men out of a population of about 2 million had died in the service of the Swedish army. Add to this that at the time of the war there also was a very hard plague hitting sweden and some very bad cropyears and still Sweden could muster the armies this shows the strenght of the system.

I will get into detail how the system was built and soldier conscripted but i need to do some rereading before i do this.

The system lived on into the 2000th century but was then hopelessly obsolete since massed conscription ment even larger armies were mustered by this time.

Ill get back on the organisation.

Kalle

Oh, and of course, as mentioned by others above, the tactics employed by the swedes was very offensive. Infantry fired one volley when they saw the white in the eye of enemy and then charged. Cavalry hardly fired anything at all instead charging home with swords, riding in very dense wedgeformation, knee behind knee.

Such a tactic of course required enourmos disciplin, morale mainly through grouppressure, u dont turn and run when ur friend from the village back home is next to u and training of course, swedes were even ordered to keep their heads straight up when advancing towards the enemy.

Imagine seeing this wall of men coming at u stopping at nothing. Artillery, grapeshots, musketfire the wall coming closer in spite of the hits taken. Morale starts to crumble in the enemy line as the swedes come closer and closer. Shots start to be shot in panic when the first line of swedes kneel, second line stands behind a little bit bent allowing for the third line to stand straight and double up as it was called and all fire at once a massed volley from the earlier mentioned very close distance and then i suppose a rousing battlecry as the swedes storm forward with pike, sword and bayonet. Often this sight alone would be enough for the enemy to start panic and run.

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

Regarding the last one - 'rusthållare' was the term the cavalrymen were called ?

---

I'm a little unsure of the meaning of rust (could be akin to rusta = prepare for war, or russ = horse), hållare means holder. 'keeper of the arms' is a good translation.

A rusthållare didn't pay tax, but had to have one man ready for war as a cavallerist, either himself or a servant (sven), and had to have a horse that wasn't used for ploughing etc, but ridden many times a week, and also have war equipment at home.

Hi again,

The reform of 1682-83 is in Sweden called "nyare indelningsverket" (= the younger or newer allotmentsystem).

It consisted of three parts:

1) Payment of military officers (introduced in the older allotmentsystem by Gustavus II Adolphus). This was possible through giving the officer a piece of land and some taxrevenue from other homesteads. The amount depending upon the rank of the officer. System now greatly incresed thanks to the reduction - see below.

2) Rusthållet = a homestead or farm who agreed to maintain a cavalrysoldier with horse and in return recieving relief from taxes. The rusthålllare could get additional support from other farms (augmentshemman) if he needed it to be able to maintain the cavalrysoldier. Nota bene the Rusthållare is not the cavalrysoldier - the Rusthållare is the person responsible for equpping and supporting the cavalrysoldier.

3) Det ständiga knekte- och båtsmanshållet = system for keeping an army and navy force constantly equipped, trained and ready for mobilisation and war. A number of farms, usually 2-5, formed a "rote" that was responsible for equpping and supporting either an infantryman or a navyman (coastal areas). In return the farmers that consisted the rote were safe from being drafted into the military but not from taxes. Nobility and a few other groups were not included in the rotesystem.

Through the reduction done by Charles XI (reclaiming of land givven to nobility in thanks of favors and soldiers i.e. the crushing of the feudalsystem) this reform was possible as the crown now had lands to give officers and a stable economy.

This reform gave Sweden an army and navy that was selfsupporting (at least it didnt cost the state anything more).

Contracts were written between the state and the provinces. Basically each province was obliged to have an infantryregiment ready through the "rote"system. One regiment = 1200 soldiers divided into several companies. Rotar that were close together formed companies = 150 soldiers. That ment that soldiers in the same company knew eachother from back home, felt secure and were not willing to run from battles as it would be to desert his friends.

The homesteads that were part of the rote were obliged to support the soldier with a small homestead and some soil on wich the soldier could grow crops and whatever. If needed the soldier should also recieve cash, grain and so on from the farmers who consited the rote.

As mentioned in previous posts training and so on was a normal part of the soldiers life.

On the bad side of this system was that there was no real plan to get reserves which was badly needed soon after the war started. Charles XII worked around this by letting several "rotar" group together and together they had to support yet another soldier. In this way first 3-männingsregementen (3 rotar together support one new soldier) then 4- and 5-männingsregementen were formed.

Kalle

Some Swedish generals commanding "Karolinerna" (swedish phrase for this new army after the kingname Charles which is Karl in Swedish)

Karl XI - Victory at the battle of Lund 1676, personally created the new army after the war against the danes - probably the best army in the world until 1709.

Karl XII - Karl XI:s son - Victorious at many big battles (for instance Narva, Kliszow, Holowczyn (perhaps his greatest victory, splendid manouver crushing a larger russian force of the new modern kind).

Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld - Field Marshal serving under Karl XII - Planner of battle of Narva and early tutor of Karl XII on the art of war - Victourius on his own right at Fraustadt annihilating a larger army of Saxon/Poles and Russians

Magnus Stenbock - General, after Gadebusch Field Marshal - One of Karl XII:s favourites (until he surrendered the second army against impossible odds at Tönningen - the kind of odds the swedish king seemed to enjoy) Victorius at Helsingborg when the Danish rejoined the war and at Gadebusch, surrendered the second Swedish fieldarmy at Tönningen.

Carl Gustaf Armfeldt -General - leader of the northern force aiming to capture Trondheim during Karl XII last attempt to turn the tide. After Karl XII was shot dead Armfeldt led his troops back across the border through the high mountains where most of his army froze to death (about 3000). Still skeletons and equipment can be found on both the Swedish and Norwegian side.

Carl Adam Lewenhaupt - General - Victorious at Gemäuerthof, looser at Ljesnaja (which proved disastrous as he carried with him the supplies that was need by the main army). Also took the decision to surrender the fieldarmy to the russians at Perevolotjna after Poltava (Karl XII was by then on his way to Turkey)

Should put these guys in ur mod as Swedish generals ~:)

Kalle

Thanks for your efforts. I will probably have some questions later.

Here is one of the results:

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b...reformaszw.jpg

Regards Cegorach ~:)

Questions are welcome of course :)

Kalle

So here is a question.

Some time ago I was given several files about various armies - two were about Swedish and Danish forces during their earlier wars i.e. untill something around 1577.

Here is an example:

'The basic unit of the Swedish infantry was the fänika (lit 'ensign', plural fänikor, from the German fähnlein) or company commanded by a "hövitsman" (captain). 12 companies formed a regiment and there were 4 regiments in all: the 1st or King's Own Regiment, the 2nd regiment, the 3rd or Arquebusiers regiment and 4th regiment aka the Ship's regiment which supplied troops to the navy.

Each company was made up of 525 men, who were divided into 5 ‘quarters’ each of 5 files, each file had 21 men. In battle a fänika formed up in two units, a ‘slaktordning’ (the battle-order) and a ‘förlorade hopen’ (the forlorn hope). The ‘slaktordning’ had 315 men in 21 files each 15 ranks deep: 90 arqubusiers, 54 halberdiers and 171 pikemen.
The remaining men of the company formed the 210 men strong "forlorn hope" which had 20 pikemen, 22 halberdiers, 42 pistol armed sword-and-buckler men and 126 arquebusiers.
The companies could either fight independently using these sub-units or would be joined in to larger groups of several companies. The combined unit formed by the companies "slaktordningar" were called a "phalanx" and would be made up of 4-8 companies. The phalanx was in turn supported by the combined forlorn hopes of the companies.
The soldiers were recruited either by voluntary enlistment or a primitive form of conscription known as "utskrivning" (lit "writing out").
The Gårdsfänika was the Royal foot guard unit and had its own organisation; instead of 5 ‘quarters’ it had 8 with a total of 381 pikemen, 171 halberdiers and 288 arquebusiers, 840 men in all.
In battle 210 men acted as a forlorn hope while the remaining 630 men formed the 'battle-order' a square 21 files wide and 30 ranks deep.'

The text describes first swedish reforms as made by Erik XIVth not Gustav Vasa. ~:confused:

So who did it and another thing is - is the name 'slaktordning' good to name a unit of Swedish militia from that time ?
I have already named the early reforms as 'utskrivning' - I wonder if the name is acceptable ?

Regards Cegorach ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

So here is a question.

The text describes first swedish reforms as made by Erik XIVth not Gustav Vasa. ~:confused:

So who did it and another thing is - is the name 'slaktordning' good to name a unit of Swedish militia from that time ?
I have already named the early reforms as 'utskrivning' - I wonder if the name is acceptable ?

Regards Cegorach ~;)

---

IIRC Gustav Vasa started the reform, while Erik XIVth improved parts of it.

Slaktordning translates as slaughterorder. We weren't that bad (or good ~;) ) at the time ~;p My guess is that it should be slagordning (=battle-order). And no, it doesn't fit as a unit name. Doesn't make sense in Swedish (edit: as a word for a unit that is, the word itself works well).

Utskrivning is acceptable, but not good. Sadly I've got no idea on a better name for it except "äldre indelningsverket" ("indelningsverket" then becomes "yngre indelningsverket").
Any other Swedes that got a good idea on that one?

Regarding "slaktordning" and "förlorade hopen".

Both terms existed and were used.

"Förlorade hopen" means something like "the lost bunch" (not a unit one would want to be in ~;) ) and was units with inferior training and equipment and they were not ment for frontline duty but as scouts and such, in a pinch I guess they would be commited to battle also.

"Slaktordning" was a bit trickier as its not easy to find good info on it, no modern encyklopedia will have that word in it. But since ive studied german for six years it was not hard to understand where the word comes from.

Sweden had for long time been under heavy influence from Germany (Lübeck and the Hansa) and the langauge reflected this. In german the phrase Schlacht means battle and Schlachtordnung would be battleorder and the Swedish word "slaktordning" comes of course from the german word and has later developed into "slagordning" (battleorder) which sounds more natural today.

The phrase can thus not be used as a unitname but should be used as a word describing how the entire army has positioned itself for battle.

I would not use "förlorade hopen" as a unit name either since it describes more a part of the army then any specific unit I think.

More on the rest in ur post coming later.

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

IIRC Gustav Vasa started the reform, while Erik XIVth improved parts of it.

Slaktordning translates as slaughterorder. We weren't that bad (or good ~;) ) at the time ~;p My guess is that it should be slagordning (=battle-order). And no, it doesn't fit as a unit name. Doesn't make sense in Swedish.

Utskrivning is acceptable, but not good. Sadly I've got no idea on a better name for it except "äldre indelningsverket" ("indelningsverket" then becomes "yngre indelningsverket").
Any other Swedes that got a good idea on that one?

---

Thank you Ironside. ~;) :bow:

I still need a good name for the unit.
For now I will use utskrivning as the name for the reform, because I need something different than another version of allotment, I hope you will find something better :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

Regarding "slaktordning" and "förlorade hopen".


I would not use "förlorade hopen" as a unit name either since it describes more a part of the army then any specific unit I think.

More on the rest in ur post coming later.

Kalle

---

Thanks !

I still need good Swedish names for the reforms and the unit, about forlorn hope - I know and I wasn't asking for any information regarding this ~;)
- the name for the unit is what I need ~:)

Here they are - see for yourself ~;)

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b...ormydrzewo.jpg

~:grouphug: