Anachronisms ?

[Calmarac]

ETW starts in 1700 and continues to 1799, although many posts on forums are discussing weapons, units and tactics from the Napoleonic wars and even later. Now I know that in TW games we start with basic units and 'tech up' over time, but even so I'm puzzled by some of the choices in the game.

I should say my main interest is the British army and it's battles, so I'm foggy on tactics and units used elsewhere and I might be very wide of the mark.

Pikemen

Surely the introduction of the bayonet had made the pike redundant by the by the end of the 17th C? AFAIK they were last used (by the ill equipped rebels) at the Battle of Sedgemoor in 1685.

Although the days of the pike were numbered, due to the invention of the bayonet, in 1685 the infantry still comprised a balance of musketeers, providing a devastating firepower, and the pikemen whose most important task was the defence of the infantry against cavalry attack.

And they appeared again at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690

William’s professional army had the advantage of greater numbers and better equipment. While the Jacobites carried matchlock muskets and pikes, many of William’s soldiers had the superior flintlock muskets and bayonets.

In both cases it was 'ill equipped' forces resorting to out of date equipment, the regular armies using bayonets instead.

I can't find any accounts of pikes being used by regular armies after 1700.

Dragoons as mounted infantry

From The Battle of Blenheim 1704

Horse and dragoons carried swords and short flintlock muskets.
Dragoons had largely completed their transition from mounted infantry to cavalry and were formed into troops rather than companies as had been the practice in the past. However they still used drums rather than trumpets for field signals.

At Naseby in 1645 the New Model Army Dragoons rode forward and lined Sulby Hedges, dismounted and poured fire into the Royalist cavalry flank. Later they remounted and joined the attack on the infantry in the centre.

But as quoted above, by 1704 this practice had declined and thoughout the 18th Century dragoons were used in the same way as regular cavalry. Despite all cavalry carrying short muskets/carbines I can't find accounts of them being used on the battlefield.

Grenade throwing

Grenades were known and used (in seiges) during the English Civil War but -

Grenade usage declined significantly in the early 18th century, a fact that can be attributed to the improved effectiveness of massive infantry line tactics and flintlock technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier

Again I can't find any references to their use as a battlefield weapon in the ETW time frame. I supect we'll see a lot of 'hand grenade battalions' in the game though.

Infantry Square

I know squares evolved from the schiltron and the English Civil War 'hedgehog' (musket men sheltering beneath the pikes firing out at the cavalry. As a reenactor I've been in several, and btw you can just about reload while kneeling, with a short enough barrel)

And the square was certainly known about in the ETW time frame. There's a picture here from a 1745 British manual.

So it's not an anachronism to have it in the game but I'm puzzled as to it's use on the 18th century battlefield. Later Napoleonic battle accounts are full of infantry forming square in the face of cavalry, but again I can't find any 18th century descriptions.

On the contrary there are many references to infantry in line defeating cavalry by firepower and steadiness. At the Battle of Minden in 1759 six British and two Hanoverian batallions advanced in line against the cream of the French cavalry, driving off three successive mass charges.

It seems the thinking was that steady infantry in line could cope with cavalry - unless hit in the flank, hence the square option. But it doesn't seem to have been in (much?) use during the bulk of the 18th century, reappearing in the Napoleonic period. That seemed to be the thinking during my tabletop miniatures wargaming days too.


I should add that I do like the idea of having so many options in the game, they all add tactical variety and interest (and the pike / dragoon / grenadier inclusions hopefully point to an English Civil War 17th century mod in the future). I just worry about what sort of 18th century battlefield I'll see, with my brave lads being blown to smithereens by hand grenades, rockets, land mines and incendiary phosphorus shells.

And I do hope this doesn't sound too much like a rant, it's just my nerdy grognard nit picking ... or should that be grognerd ...

[Sheogorath]

On the matter of pikes, they were used at least up until the Napoleonic Wars. I know the Swedes made use of them during the Great Northern War in mixed formation with muskets, and the Russians issued them en masse to everybody they could get their hands on during and after the 1812 campaign.

Basically they were 18th century equivalent of the AK-47. Available in large quantities (since a lot of countries just threw them into store houses), cheap to maintain, easy to train people to use (this is the blunt end, you hold that. This is the sharp end, stick it in the enemy.) and it never, ever, jammed.

It was, essentially, a weapon for desperate times.

But it could be effective if used in large numbers. A pointy bit of metal on the end of a stick is not something to be underestimated. Ten thousand of them is probably cause to run away very fast.

[Sol Invictus]

I agree completely with your observations. It seems that CA had to throw in some little used or anchronistic techs in order to flesh out the tree. As far as Pikes are concerned, the Swedes still used them in conjunction with their Musket armed Infantry through the Great Northern War and the Russians armed the Moscow Militia with them at Borodino, but they were never committed to the battle; fortunately for them most likely.

So yes, Pikes were for the most part a thing of the past in the 18th century.I also agree about Squares being rarely used since armies didn't seem to really need them. The only historical account of a Square being used in combat during this period that I have read is when Prussia used them in Silesia during the Wars of the Austrian Succession, but these were used in defense against raids from Grenzers trying to capture supply columns, not against Cavalry.

Since armies formed in solid Lines across the front, there were few opportunities for Cavalry to find a vulnerable flank. Usually when Infantry did find themselves outflanked or attacked from the rear, several Compamies would simply wheel toward the threat or the rear rank would simply perform an about face.

So it really seems that for the era Pikes, Grenades, and Dragoons in their original role had already almost completely been abandoned and Squares had not quite found their later role yet. I guess as Players it will be our choice what units to build and what tactics to use. Personally, I doubt that I will be building many Pike units.

[lars573]

OK first off the game starts in 1700, but when it ends is open for debate. Around 1800 would be a better description.


And Pikemen would be used in the early 18th century. But they become less common as the bayonette become more refined.

Dragoons were trained to shoot on foot. Just because most of them never did in 18th century doesn't mean much.

Grenadiers were issued their grenades in the 18th century. Just not the fuses. The officers kept those until it was time to use them.

[Sir Beane]

OK first off the game starts in 1700, but when it ends is open for debate. Around 1800 would be a better description.


And Pikemen would be used in the early 18th century. But they become less common as the bayonette become more refined.

Dragoons were trained to shoot on foot. Just because most of them never did in 18th century doesn't mean much.

Grenadiers were issued their grenades in the 18th century. Just not the fuses. The officers kept those until it was time to use them.

Actually we're almost certain it ends in 1799. There's screenshot evidence and interview evidence, so there's not much doubt now really.

[lars573]

Believe that when I play the game. Ever since RTW the ending is less of a concrete thing. They might judge the winner in 1800.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Yes, I think the winner is decided in 1799 but you should be able to continue to play on. I think it was mentioned in an interview somewhere that you can continue but the time does not advance or something like that.

[Meneldil]

1799 as the end date is just stupid.

MTW, RTW and M2TW had significant starting/era/ending dates. What the heck is this 1700-1799 period ?

[lars573]

The 18th century, that's what. The age of elighenment. Of course we have no idea on what the turn:date ratio is like.

[Megas Methuselah]

Despite that, I do wish they included the Napoleonic era. I guess it'll just be an expansion of sorts...

[Incongruous]

Dragoons continued to use their firearms even after they were reformed into cavalry proper.

Pikeman were used by poorly trained forces all the way into the French revolution, to some effect, it will be useful to have when your luck is down.

[Polemists]

The 18th century, that's what. The age of elighenment. Of course we have no idea on what the turn:date ratio is like.

Hate to break facts to you but it was mentioned in another thread that CA is doing the two turns=one year model again.

You can probably mod it out later of course, and customizing events happening through adjusting a file number, but the out of box game is going to be two turns a year.

So you have 198 turns to play ETW grand campaign, I could be wrong of course if they change the dates or something but the 1700-1799 seems pretty solid.

It's not a period like MTW or Rome's four hundred year span. So it may seem short to many, but it's just way it is.

[lars573]

With only 200 turns I might actually finish more than one campagin. For the second time ever.

[Polemists]

exactly, while CA is going for a more fast paced, quicker momentum game, hopefully with new ai, new battle system, and new graphics there will be tons of replayablitiy (and I think there will). Even playing the same faction again is now different because of individual faction tech trees. Plus with emergent factions, colonies, and like, you new know who you might end up facing.

For those turtles in the crowd who enjoyed the 50 years build up, it pulls some of that away, though hopefully with quicker armies and buildings a couple years will be more then enough time to build up before you begin.

[Fisherking]

Getting into some of the other points, other than pikes; platoon firing should be able to defeat a cavalry charge, particularly with fixed bayonets. Squares would be primarily if you are facing attack from more than one possible direction.

Particularly in Brittan many cavalry units were reclassed as dragoons and dragoons were used more and more in only the mounted role.

The reason for this had nothing to do with their flexibility or lack of it. With more units classed as dragoons it meant that there was a greater need for cavalry.

However, the reason that the units were made dragoons is a key factor if you examine it. It was dragoons were paid less than cavalry.

Regardless of the actual 18th century situation I think it is good to have that tactical option.

The same could be said for grenadiers. They were not used as grenade tossers but as shock troops, though in the game they may retain the grenades.

Tactical flexibility is never a bad thing to have despite historical considerations. There are many historical possibilities that we will not be given. I won’t turn my back on the ones we have.

By the way, Washington was forced to equip some units with pikes a time or two due to shortages. I think at Princeton some companies were so equipped.

All excellent questions that you have asked though Calmarcac.

Good post!

[Sheogorath]

Dragoons (and 'mounted infantry' in general) function largely depended on who was using them. Even their role within the cavalry tended to vary. The Russians employed them as medium cavalry, using them for situations where Hussars were too light, but which didn't warrant attention from the cuirassiers.
I think the Austrians continued to use Dragoons in the mounted infantry role up until WWI, but I could be wrong. That would be uncharacteristically intelligent for the Austrian military leadership.

Cossacks were well known to act as mounted infantry when the situation warranted. Some hosts, like the Don, weren't willing to give up their horses, but the ones with less of a reputation were more than willing to run around on foot if it meant more loot at the end of a fight.

Very practical people, Cossacks.


For Grenadiers, Fisherking is exactly right. Grenadiers in the 18th century and onwards were the heavy infantry. They were the tallest men available and every measure was taken to up their intimidation factor, although I gather that sorting mustaches by unit soon fell out of favor on account of making everybody look silly.

[Kalle]

1/3 of the Swedish infantry at the start of the 18th century was armed with pikes. They were shorter then normal, 4 metres. They were not being used because the Swedes lacked other weapons or as a desperate final resort. Instead they were an essential and integrated part of the Swedish extremely offensive strategy based on shock, superior morale, training and manouver.

Basically they were used for charging the enemy (together with the other infantry and cavalry) and a four metre long pike would be a definite advantage versus a musqet with bayonet in this situation. Once distance was totally closed the pikemen also carried a sword or rapier.

The value of this weapon and the tactic of attack attack attack was demonstrated again and again from the year 1700-1709 against enemies (almost always vastly superior in numbers) from a wide range of other nations (mainly Denmark, Poland, Sachsen, Russia).

If Marlbourough had faced the Swedish army at Blenheim instead of the French he would most likely be in over his head.

After Poltava in 1709 the pikes importance diminished in Sweden also.

I do not know if you could say it is easy to learn how to use a 4 metre long weapon in a tight military formation, at least there is more to it then knowing where the sharp end is.

/Kalle

[Megas Methuselah]

I do not know if you could say it is easy to learn how to use a 4 metre long weapon in a tight military formation, at least there is more to it then knowing where the sharp end is.

It's an easy weapon to use. However, as you say, the Swedes used extremely aggressive tactics that required much quick maneuvering, which was probably where their training focused on. Charging in a tight formation is no easy feat.

[Sheogorath]

Doing ANYTHING in tight formation is no easy feat. Especially when some Rusky is inconsiderate enough to shoot at you while you're doing it

[Sir Beane]

Doing ANYTHING in tight formation is no easy feat. Especially when some damn Rusky is inconsiderate enough to shoot at you while you're doing it

It's so mean of them to fire at my soldiers while they're practicing manouvres. Those Russians have no honor.

[CBR]

AFAIK contemporaries thought it took longer to train pikemen than musketeers back in the 16th and 17th century.

Regiments* had different number of companies depending on what nation and what time we are talking about. Companies were also generally an administrative unit and not a battlefield unit, especially in the early/mid 18th century. For combat the battalion would be split up in a certain number of platoons and sometimes men from different companies could be put together.

*ok...the company bit was actually for another thread but who cares.


CBR

[Freedom Onanist]

Particularly in Brittan many cavalry units were reclassed as dragoons and dragoons were used more and more in only the mounted role.

The reason for this had nothing to do with their flexibility or lack of it. With more units classed as dragoons it meant that there was a greater need for cavalry.

However, the reason that the units were made dragoons is a key factor if you examine it. It was dragoons were paid less than cavalry.

Nail hit on the head there. As always with the British army, money is involved somewhere. The reason most cavalry units re-classified as dragoons has nothing to do with a change in tactics but everything to do with the fact that dragoons were on a lower payscale and were thus cheaper. They also rode smaller horses which also happened to be cheaper. From a bean counter's perspective you get more cavalry for less £££s. The term Dragoon is somewhat irrelevant, or at least, ambiguous in the context of the British army.

In general dragoons never lived up to their billing. Why wouldn't they concentrateon their main resource the horse? Also, their unit sizes, having to leave some troopers behind to hold the horses, etc, all reduced their effectiveness as infantry units. Used as straight cavalry (up-horsed maybe, the Heavies), or in reconnaissance, skirmishing, harrassing roles they did well. They also tended to be used in "policing" duties.

Pikes, as has been pointed out were used relatively frequently throughout the 18th cent. Most often due to a lack of funds more than anything else. And as has been pointed outprobably required more training and professionalism to use than the accountants were ready to accept. Of course in the Navy pikes were used throughout this period and beyond. Since the British made extensive use of naval landing parties i would expect to see them used quite a lot 9thoug I have no idea at all if we are going to be able to use them and the marines in the game 9landing parties that is).

apart from sieges, Grenades do seem to have dissappeared relatively quickly from use in battle. They were more than likely just as much a liability to the thrower as to the opposition.

[Sol Invictus]

Like most compromises, Dragoons ended up being neither good Infantry or Cavalry so tended to morph into another Cavalry tupe over time. Their theoretical versatility just didn't quite pan out except under very rare and unique circumstances. I am sure that they will be more useful in the game than they were historically in their originally intended role.

[fenir]

The British Army Last used pikes in 1685AD. By 1690, there was not a pike to be seen.
see British army meseum.

Pikes in general where all gone in top armies by 1715. The last i think from memory were the Flemish.

At Naseby in 1645 the New Model Army Dragoons rode forward and lined Sulby Hedges, dismounted and poured fire into the Royalist cavalry flank. Later they remounted and joined the attack on the infantry in the centre.

But as quoted above, by 1704 this practice had declined and thoughout the 18th Century dragoons were used in the same way as regular cavalry. Despite all cavalry carrying short muskets/carbines I can't find accounts of them being used on the battlefield.

Not entirely.
This was the transition period where the Dragoons light role is being taken over by the Hussars.
But essentially, yes the Dragoons had made the transition to heavy Cavalry. Usually also armed with Carabines, and or pistols.

And everyone went though this. The Dragoons in 1500 to 1600 where essentailly light cavalry/ mounted troops. And in the militia they are used as such until the late 1800's.
BUt as the need for cavalry increased, the units had to change with theirs roles changing with the times.
So you have lancers, orginally light cavalry, then heavy for shock. (this was the attempt to beat the massed line. heance the Square.)
You have Dragoons, light cavalry / mounted troops, turning into Heavy Cavalry, with Cardines and pistols. Hence the long list on dragoon regiments in all major players.
Hussars, they took over the light role of the aforementioned Cavalry. They where primarly. Reconn, kight attack, supply attack, force screening et cetera...

And you also have to realise, that the british Dragoons, where very much different types of cavalry. Some where used in Mounted Infantry role. And some where the equilivant of the Cuirassee heavy cavalry on main land europe.
So very hard without going into great detail to give you a precise definition of them all.
Hope that helps.


See British Cavalry devoplment.

Posted by sheogorath
Dragoons (and 'mounted infantry' in general) function largely depended on who was using them. Even their role within the cavalry tended to vary.

ery nicely put Sheo.

Grenade throwing
Again I can't find any references to their use as a battlefield weapon in the ETW time frame. I supect we'll see a lot of 'hand grenade battalions' in the game though.

Has to be taken in context.

With any new weapon, eg: heavy artillery. WW 1 was the show case for it. And there where masses of them.
WW1 is called the Artillery war in military history.

But by the 2nd WW, it wasnt so much the artillery, as the Aircraft that was now the main peice, (along with Tanks). But WW2 is called the air war. UK and USA had over 60,000 Combat Aircraft by wars end. And total man power of Over 4 million.

Same with Grenadiers. At the Start they where the next best thing since sliced bread. Gibraltar used alot of hand grenades.
But by the 1760's to 1790's usage had become redundant.

This however is not say it ceased. As it certianly didn't. The british still made use of Grenadiers. In an elite capacity.
During the 1700's into the mid 1800's. The UK had 1 company in every battalion, as grenadiers. There role changed over time, but the grenade was still part of the make up.
Same with Prussia.

However, France, Sweden, Austria and HRE. All decreased immensely. And in the case of Austria, they stopped using grenades.


So you have to remember to see all this in context. When the new toy comes out. It's the big deal and everyone has to have lots.
When it's been learnt how to counter. it fades away to being just another tool in the process of human violation.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.



The infantry square was used in the 1700's. And if i can be bothered getting my books out i can tell you the battles.
The main reason for the Square, is that cavalry can charge in waves. And then they come back though your lines on the return.
And / Or, they will go around your lines and slashing and hacking. Cavalry were very dangerous in the 1700's.
Remeber the cavarly age is also coming to an end. Much like the grenadiers.
The true cavalry age was 1500 to 1700 roughly.

After 1700 the power of the infantry had grown immensely.


No some people used to say you can't get a horse to charge spears. And the infantry byonet.
Well we have extremely detailed accounts of such.
And this is the main power. horse and Rider, about 500kg at nearly 40 mph. Thats gotta hurt!.

And if you are and infantryman, and you are facing this power at speed. Who could say they would stand.

Now the counter to this was the massed infantry. With their sharp pointie sticks that went bang.
Now the infantry where spearmen, and the cavalry knights. like i said, it's gona hurt.

SO the next development became the Square. now the cavalry can't touch the infantry without hurting.
Whereas if you pin your enemy from the front and send your dragoons/hussars/ lancers round the back. Your Line becomes very red in a short time.

So drill the men to form a square, and sav them from the cavalry. ANd the small group in the middle of the square, can now shoot them as well.


Hope that helps, I waffaled bit.



Sicnerely

fenir

[Sir Beane]

I like the idea of piekmen and daragoons being in the game, anachronistic or not.

Whilst pikes may not have been used commonly historically I don't see why that should stop us using them.

Indeed if I someone wants to take the world on using bits of pointy wood, archers and swordsmen then I say good for them! It might be more difficult but there is no reason to prevent us from trying.

Pikemen and dragoons just introduce a bit of variety that helps spice up a game dominated by musket armed foot soldiers.

[Fisherking]

I like the idea of piekmen and daragoons being in the game, anachronistic or not.

Whilst pikes may not have been used commonly historically I don't see why that should stop us using them.

Indeed if I someone wants to take the world on using bits of pointy wood, archers and swordsmen then I say good for them! It might be more difficult but there is no reason to prevent us from trying.

Pikemen and dragoons just introduce a bit of variety that helps spice up a game dominated by musket armed foot soldiers.

Part of the problem with beating the native American Indian tribes was they had a much higher rate of fire than muskets or rifles and they wouldn’t stand in the open to be shot fair and square…

Couple with that that they would happily use captured cannon, fight from ambush, and draw you into their range with sneaky tactics and you wonder about how things worked out…

[CBR]

And that Indians started to use guns which should give one indication of what they thought of their own bows...


CBR

[Barkhorn1x]

Pikemen and dragoons just introduce a bit of variety that helps spice up a game dominated by musket armed foot soldiers.

I agree - up to a point. As I posted in another thread, I hope that the StratAI is smart enough to tech up and limit pikemen. How depressing it would be to deploy your tech'ed out "new model army" and come up againt what essentially is a pikeman army?

[Sir Beane]

I agree - up to a point. As I posted in another thread, I hope that the StratAI is smart enough to tech up and limit pikemen. How depressing it would be to deploy your tech'ed out "new model army" and come up againt what essentially is a pikeman army?

At least it allows your soldiers to get in some good battlefield target practice. I agree, it would be depressing to fight against an enemy using pikes and other outdated units, but I don't think it will happen.

Because of the new tech system the enemy should have a much easier time teching up its units to match the players.

[Sheogorath]

I agree - up to a point. As I posted in another thread, I hope that the StratAI is smart enough to tech up and limit pikemen. How depressing it would be to deploy your tech'ed out "new model army" and come up againt what essentially is a pikeman army?

I think it will be excellent for my planned reenactment of Zulu ;)