The Caracole
Eric Kohl
Mounted pistoleers are first documented in 1544 as mercenaries in the
employ of Henry VIII (his last French campaign). These early Reiter
generally carried one,maybe two pistols and usually a boar spear. The
latter made a passable lance but was light enough to throw. These early
reiter seemed to display considerable aggression when engaging foot
formations. They would try to focus on the pike block,creating gaps with
their pistol fire. If necessary they could wheel off and reload until
they felt the foot were sufficiently vulnerable. It appears,however,that
it was generally sufficient for them to advance,fire their pistol(s),and
hurl their spears at which point the pikes would be disordered and the
reiter would go in for the kill. It has been surmised that this early
efficacy had a great deal to do with the novelty of the type.
Familiarity breeds contempt and armies quickly learned to stand fast in
the face of the pistoleer.
Which is how we arrive at the caracole. The "early reiter" disappeared
within ten years. He gave up his spear,acquired a few extra pistols and
increased his armor. His forte was still wearing down the foot but it
now took a continuous circulating fire. The front rank would
advance,discharge one or two pistols,then ride to the rear of the
formation. As they worked their way forward "in queue" they would
reload. The deepest formation I know of was 18 ranks. It's important to
remember that this is not a loose collection of individuals playing
cowboys and indians,firing and running away. It was,at its best,a
relentless machine. If you were a pikeman,unable to shoot back,this
caracole crap got old quick.
Why then was it almost universally despised by the military thinkers
of the day?
Alas,it's time for bed. More will be related tomorrow,fear naught.
A quick note for Mr.G.Wilson: for sources,try Oman or Archer Jones. If
you REALLY want to get into it,dig into some of the contemporary
descriptions or memoirs of the French Wars of Religion.
Regards,
H
"The Hero of Misfortune"
Ed Allen
> Which is how we arrive at the caracole....
It was,at its best,a
>relentless machine. If you were a pikeman,unable to shoot back,this
>caracole crap got old quick.
> Why then was it almost universally despised by the military thinkers
>of the day?
I expect they found it was seldom lived up to its best. That circulating
drill is complicated and probably broke down alot under battlefield
conditions when either firearm infantry or charging cavalry showed up to
oppose it.
After breakdown, you have a disordered formation with some going forward,
some back, ripe for morale failure.
Ed Allen
--
Ed Allen
Programmer/System Administrator
Center For DNA Sequencing and Technology
Stanford University
al...@sequence.stanford.edu
http://tetrad.stanford.edu
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
> Why then was it almost universally despised by the military thinkers
>of the day?
Because it's a complex evolution, which would invariably fall apart in
actual practice, because the real effective range of a wheellock
pistol is closer to 10 feet than 100m, because they could be shot off
the field by musketeers, and because it would get flattened by a
charge from any more agressive cavalry, like for instance Dutch
cuirassiers.
> Alas,it's time for bed. More will be related tomorrow,fear naught.
>A quick note for Mr.G.Wilson: for sources,try Oman or Archer Jones. If
Nah, Oman's a twit.
John M. Atkinson
'erols' instead of spamblock
"Ultimately, most problems can be solved by applying a large
brick to the correct skull. Difficulties arise when you don't
have a brick or can't find the right skull. The devil is always
in the details."
--Marcus Cole
Eric Kohl
>
> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 01:00:23 -0500, Eric Kohl <ek...@bellatlantic.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Why then was it almost universally despised by the military thinkers
> >of the day?
shortcomings of the tactic. Actually the contemporary criticisms focus
more on the idea that the caracole was a "degenerate" use of pistoleers.
There was a prevailing desire for a more aggressive reiter type but
this was difficult to obtain from mercenaries and subsidy troops. It is
not surprising that the shock-oriented pistol cavalry reemerges first in
the Huguenot gentry and native Dutch rebel forces. Certainly,attempting
to caracole in the face of charging enemy cavalry led to disaster. More
often than not,however,the reiters quit the field owing more to
morale/survival instinct or due to some tactical disaster(charged in
flank,etc.). Those that countered the enemy in a formed body fared
reasonably.
>
(snip)
> Nah, Oman's a twit.
amount of primary source research myself,I find him to be acceptable on
matters military. He certainly is one of the only readily available
sources for most wargamers. Again,I heartily recommend pouring over the
Calendar of State Papers,Foreign Series for the various Tudor monarchs
or memoirs of Castelnau,de La Noue, marechal Biron,etc.
Warmest Regards,
H
Ahab42
>>of the day?
Well, it wasn't despised . It was in use up through the 30 years war and the
french were still trying it as late as the 1690's.
Remember they are not evil---they are just stupid!!
Alf
highly informative
more!
Tim
Alf
Calendar of State Papers,Foreign Series for the various Tudor monarchs
or memoirs of Castelnau,de La Noue, marechal Biron,etc.
>Warmest Regards,
>H
Eric or H or ?
can you give any hints how these might be accessed - internet? publisher
references etc.
As I may have said before - this is the most interesting and informative
thread ever ever !! Many thanks
pcon...@xtalwind.net
constitutes one of the mysteries of the Renaissance or "Pike and Shot" era,
right in there with just how did the the pike and shot manage to keep each
other from being run over.
A couple of suggestions:
First off, early in the period (say in the 16th century) infantry still had
a tendency to be pike columns with a smattering of skirimishing shot. Against
that sort of opponent the practice of firing pistols and getting the hell out
of there to reload would naturally appeal. The latest successful use of that
tactic, admittedly somewhat less formal, would be found in the conflicts
between the Voertrekkers and the Matabele in the 19th century. As time went
on, not only did more agressive pistol cavalry occur (and, at such places as
Kircholm, residual agressive heavy lancers) but the infantry began to contain
a heavier ratio of shot. Thus the caracole cavalry was likely to outpointed
shot for shot worse than lancers faced with pike columns.
Second, with reference to French cavalry using the caracole in the 1690's, I
think Louis XIV's cavalry tactics have improved greatly since 1972 or
thereabouts. German cavalry seems to have been more consistently pistol
oriented than the French in the War of the League of Augsburg. Chandler's
views on the subject ameliorated somewhat between MARLBOROUGH AS A MILITARY
COMMANDER, which had the caracole for the WSS, and THE ART OF WAR IN THE AGE
OF MARLBOROUGH, which cursed the French mounted army only with having picked
up a degree of reliance on pistols before the melee from the Germans between
the 1690's and 1702.Nosworthy(ANATOMY OF VICTORY) concurs with various
European authors (e.g. Arteus STRIDSTAKTIC) to the effect that French cavalry
did not have a universal tactical doctrine (as did, for example, the
Anglo-Dutch and the Swedes.) He continues the story of the Gendarmarie at
Blindhiem using pistols, but his interpretation isn't convincing. He bases it
on Parker's account which doesn't make mention of firing.
I wouldn't discount the occurence of something like a caracole in the WSS
with the proliferation of newly raised two squadron French cavalry regiments.
And there is no reason to doubt the use of mounted fire when the French
cavalry line crumpled at Blindhiem at the end of the day. But in the latter
case you had troops who had been fought out, some of whom (from Tallard's
army) had been coping with a Glanders epedemic among the horses.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
sf...@aol.com
pcon...@xtalwind.net wrote:
> This has been a most interesting thread. The caracole as a tactic certainly
> constitutes one of the mysteries of the Renaissance or "Pike and Shot" era,
> right in there with just how did the the pike and shot manage to keep each
> other from being run over.
>
this discussion of the Reiter and the Snail (Caracole)
What follows has been distilled from those discussions.
The Reiter comes about because you have a well trained horse, owned by a
professional soldier, and a weapon that was invented for use on horseback, the
wheel lock pistol. There is an immobile, dense target, the pike block where it
is hard to miss with even an inaccurate weapon. Presto, you have
the reiter. Reiters were originally cheap unarmored lancers, but,
(and this comes from a proud Hungarian source) once they were armed with
pistols, Croatians and Hungarians in Imperial service came up with the
Caracole (snail) maneuver. Actually, this would make some sense as
horse archer mentality would make the most of this new technology. The
Germans adopted the system, recruits coming from the horse rich
areas of Brunswick, Saxony and the Palatinate.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Spain,
Portugal, France and Denmark all raised reiter types. The
eastern nations did not need to, they already had horse archers.
Reiters were at their best during the French Wars of Religion.
Even George Gush in "Renaissance Armies," gives a favorable quote
about them being effective. The French hired reiters to augment
their Gendarmes. Both La Noue and Brantome, chroniclers of the
period, vouch for their effectiveness.
"They were armored to the teeth, and carried plenty of pistols" -Brantome.
"Since the money of the French throne was going to pay for the
reiters, every parent hoped to see his son chosen to be in the
ranks of the reiters." This from La Noue, referring to the
French practice of families sending their sons to German families
related to a Rittmeister, in the hope that they would be picked
to serve in his squadron.
There were about 7,000 of them in French service by 1558. They
were called "barbouille'" or "chaffoure," in France. Under the
reign of Henry II they fought on both sides from 1562-1586.
Finally at the battle of Auneau (1587) they were crushed in a
hard fought battle. In fact so many armored reiter corpses were
thrown into the moat surrounding the castle in the aftermath,
that for a long time afterward the farmers in the area would come
to excavate metal needed to repair their tools!
Like most military systems of warfare, ways were found to
overcome the reiter. The best was to charge them with close order
lancers as they were wheeling, as to catch them in the flank as at
Auneau.
The reiters fell in decline from that point, the reiters in Dutch
service were the last to be really effective. By the 1620, the
great Ritter families were almost nonexistent, and the corps a
mere shadow of itself. The 30 year war reiters, and the Imperial reiters
were terrible in the following Turkish war, often unwilling to close with the
enemy and caracole. Finally the arm was being replaced by sword wielding
cuirassiers, mounted on inferior horses, who could only charge at
the trot. In the "L' Art militaire a' cheval," (1618) we are
told: " and there was a shortage of lancers and pistoliers, (reiter) so
corasses (cuirassiers) had to be used . . .if one takes away the
lance from the lancer, or the pistol from the reiter, with his steady mount,
mounts him on an inferior horse that is no good at all in a sudden clash
with enemy lancers, then you have a corassier."
The tactic had to have some validity, as Pat mentioned before, it was
carried in several drill books until the mid 1700s. The Spanish
Riding School and the Austrian Riding School still teach it in a
form of Dressage.
Since the reiters and cuirassiers always moved at the trot, why do we
see them in rules moving almost as fast as light horse?
All for now
Steve Phenow.
Editor, Strategos