Military in the 16th and 17th Centuries

I've looked around all over the place *

, and I can't find the answer to this, but I figure someone here would know.

The question is: What kind of equipment would the average soldier have during this time? (Edit: that is, 16th/17th centuries) I know that gunpowder was first used before this (somewhere in the 1400's, if I remember correctly), and that it was the order of the day by the 18th century, but what about this time period?

I have heard that it was pikes, but I'm not sure.

edited 25th Aug '11 11:20:24 AM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

It was mostly pikes by the 16th Century, a good place to look up about the 17th Century tactics is either the 30 year war or the English Civil War.

Dutch Lesbian

Pikes are a good bet since it would give infantry a chance against mounted soldiers, and taking out the cavalry is never a bad thing to do.

i. hear. a. sound.

It also depends on where in the world you want to look.

The western european countries were trying to move toward lighter armour, whereas the east, exemplified by the Commonwealth was more heavy cavalry. The north was pikes, I'm not clear on Italian provinces. I believe the HRE and surrounding areas were heavily pike and shot.

Spain would have been pike and shot.

If I remember my history correctly, Thirty Years War saw the rise of France to replace everyone else as the military leader of Europe (thus why all our military terminology is French these days).

In the 1630's, it was mixed pike and musket, with a greater emphasis on pikes, backed up by artillery (especially during the 30 Years War). The problem with gunpowder weapons was that, while powerful, they had a tendancy to misfire. Cavalry usually had single-shot pistols and then backed it up with sabres, with an emphasis on speed over armor (since most pikes can defeat most armor). You might be able to get more on military stuff on Wikipedia by looking up the Thirty Years War, the Musketeers, or King Gustav Adolfus*

. Or just read 1632 by Eric Flint, he goes into into the military capabilities of the time quite a bit, if not as much as S. M. Stirling does in 1633.

By the Revolutionary War, that trend had reversed, with it being mostly muskets and rifles, as weapons could be reloaded faster and were less prone to misfires compared to a century earlier. I think by this point they had the fixed bayonet, but polearms or other melee weapons were pretty much out of use. Lighter rifles or pistols were still the weapons of choice for cavalry.

edited 25th Aug '11 12:03:39 PM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Eastern Europe though got to have heavy cavalry around 1500s and up to 1770s. We're talking full plate and lances, but they also had swords (koncerz), carbines and a bunch of other weapons.

So you can have fun with heavy cavalry in late period with guns if you wanted to, the Polish Hussars are quite famous and successful. That is, if you didn't want to go with mostly pike and shot.

edited 25th Aug '11 1:33:51 PM by breadloaf

Pre-Discovery of the New World, you'll see a lot of lightweight armor. After the Spanish discovered the New World (and were exposed to Native American tactics), this started to get abandoned. This is the greatest transition age in the history of warfare, remember. Armored cavalry with sabres and guns alongside pikemen and soldiers with muskets and cannon. If there was a single period that defined the phrase "Schizo Tech," this is it.

For the record, they were still suggesting that the bow would be a decent weapon up to the Napoleonic War (specifically, a British military officer noted that they had a better rate of fire than muskets, and were more accurate at range) so it might not be entirely unlikely to see longbow here, too, though I doubt it would be in any large quantity...

I am now known as Flyboy.

USAF: If you saw a longbowman and knew how long it took them to master it, you'd understand why the weapon got replaced by the musket.

Dutch Lesbian

One of my favourite words comes from this era- Dragoon. Dragoons were mounted infantry i.e. infantry that moved around on horses and then dismounted to fight. At some point the name became associated with just normal cavalry when people realised that if you called someone a Dragoon you could pay them less.

I know exactly why it was replaced: it was too resource intensive and expensive to equip soldiers with it, longbowmen needed more logistical support than musketmen (ammo carts, because arrows are honking big motherfuckers), and it was a fucking nightmare to replace them, because it took a lifetime to train one and a second to lose one.

Doesn't mean the guy in the British Army in the early 1800s wasn't right about those advantages. He just was too dull and/or short-sighted to see that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages...

I am now known as Flyboy.

But, by the American war of independence, there were few too archers left in the United Kingdom.

edited 25th Aug '11 2:11:21 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

Well, if he were a smart officer (or if I were in his place, with my clairvoyant time traveling powers... or just common sense...) he/I would equip a small force with longbows and use them like modern-day harassment/special forces.

I don't think he was a smart officer, however...

edited 25th Aug '11 2:26:41 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

You would have to have gone back to the 1770's and started training archers but IIRC, riflemen or Greencoats did the same thing as you suggest.

Dutch Lesbian

Well, sure, but if you add the benefits of the longbow with the minimilized impact of doing it in the small-scale, the longbow is the superior weapon.

Whether or not it would make a difference in the strategic scale of a war like Napoleon's conquests is quite debatable, though...

I am now known as Flyboy.

@OP: In the 1500s and 1600s, the main type of army in Europe was a combination of pikeman and arqubusiers.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

It was also mainly a boring shoving contest until one side either got paid or ran out of food.

Well, I wouldn't say the 30 years war was boring, but it was brutal on food.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Boring as fuck for battles. The only interesting one was Lutzen. All warfare was was an undignified scrum of men who shoved at each other for days on end until the officers were either bought off or died from dysentry.

I know a fun battle from early 1600's.

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

The longbow also has one major advantage over a musket or rifle if used in a harrassment role.

Its silent...

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

You will see a wide array of weapons ranging from medieval weapons to a variety of black powder weapons. This was the big transition period for equipment and methods of warfare for Europe.

Like others have noted Pikes and varoius forms of armor still showed up on the battle fields. By the end of the 16th century the vast majority of traditional medieval forms of war were gone and replaced with tactics that had a heavy focus on black powder weapons. The reload times kept the pike men around to protect the infantry from calvary. Calvary went to carrying a few pistols and a sabre instead of lances.

The 17th century saw the creation of ring bayonets which meant pikemen were no longer needed as the musket men could fix bayonets and defend themselves. They also developed the basic catridge packet. Cannons became lighter and more mobile. An emphasis on an army with two main branches one calvary and one infantry with muskets. There are of course variations and exceptions.

Oh and the invention of the iron ball style grenade used traditionally by the english grenadiers is created.

Armor still showed up on the battlefield but not as often. Cheaper to conscript dregs in cloth with the weapons being the most expensive piece of their kit.

Who watches the watchmen?

That said French cavalry were named for the fact that they did use armour; the famous Cuirassiers.

God thats hard to spell. Also, while armour won't stop a direct hit it will deflect grazing shots and may well ruin a beyonet-wielding infantrymans day.

edited 27th Aug '11 3:00:48 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Btw, I read a book today about 17th-20th commanders and alot of the 17th ones were either kings or nobility.

Dutch Lesbian

Yep. Officer postings through peerage. A reflection of the old methods of war. Where nobles were the top officers and gave the orders to everyone below them. This did not work out so well in the newer fields of battle.

I forget when they more or less stopped the practice. But if I recall it bit them in ass a few times during the Napleonic wars.

The Cuirassier which became calvary with just chest armor was one of those things that they would drop then pick back up again as you noted likely because the armor could help save you from anything other then a direct hit to the chest.

edited 27th Aug '11 4:26:31 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?