TRENDING NEWS

POPULAR NEWS

What Weapons And Armor Where Used By The Various Troops In The Spanish And French Armies During The

Information on the weapons and armors in Shakespeare's plays?

Where can I find information about the weapons and armors Shakespeare wrote about in his plays?

I tried Wikipedia, but for once they didn't have anything useful. I was wondering if any of you could help...

What weapons did the Spanish Empire use/produce during the 18th century?

Thanks for the A2A!While the Spanish army had lost its preeminent role in Europe by 1700, it played a major role in the War of Spanish Succession, which saw the dawn of the 18th century (1701–1714). In that war, the Spanish army used the following weapons.[1]Muskets The British army fielded the more refined Doglock Musket, but the Spanish army used the more generic musket pictured below.PikesUsed in conjunction with muskets to protect from cavalry chargesHalberdsUsed mainly by artillery troops to protect during reloadingBayonetsUsed for infantry vs infantry melee combatSwordUsed by infantry if formation was broken by cavalry charges, as well as a primary cavalry weapon.Dragoon sword c 1700, British MuseumFlintlock PistolsMain weapon used by cavalry to disrupt pike formations without getting to close.Flintlock pistol, c 1700, Illinois State MuseumCannonMain artillery piece used in sieges, defense of fortresses, or battlefield support.Reenactors use a 1700 British cannon in FranceBy the time of Napoleon, just after the 18th century, the Spanish army had declined still further. While Napoleon’s troops could reliably fire 4 volleys per minute,[2] the Spanish troops struggled to fire 2, as the Spanish army used obsolete muskets and had poor training.[3] In the Napoleonic wars, halberds were no longer used, and pikes were only seen rarely. Spanish forces likely used the same muskets, artillery, and pistols they had used in 1700, illustrating the sharp decline of Spanish power after 1650, and making their forces markedly inferior to the French.Cheers!Footnotes[1] Weapons used in the Spanish Succession War[2] Napoleonic Wars : Musket Fire : Bayonet[3] Napoleonic Wars : Weapons : facing colours : Napoleonic Armies : Napoleon Guide

What weapons were primarily used during The Thirty Years' War?

The 30 Years war had two phases : pre- and post-Gustav Adolphus.King Gustav of Sweden — Game Changer MaximusKing Gustav re-thought warfare and designed new tools& methods for the work of war.Here are the first phase soldiers and their tools (look to be French)the most powerful units at the start were the Spanish Tercios: pike & shot & swordTercios & their imitators fought in huge squares, (a tercio on the march)the nuts and bolts of it:The guns were the arquebus (so heavy it needed a support stand)and the Mousquet (smaller firelock — one that needed no stand)Here, the Battle of White Mountain, 1620 — catholic victory; both sides were similarly equipped.The Imperial artillery was heavy & hard to move. it took four horses to wrestles them around.The cavalry had given up the lance and was no longer the shock force on the battle field. They used a big horse pistol (wheel lock), rode close to the pike formation,, fired, wheeled away and retired to the rear to reload. The splendid Lipizzaner breed and school of riding shows the equestrianism required to fight cavalry this way (videos at bottom of page)Wheel lock pistolponderous and ineffective except in pursuit.Gustavus would give them back their swords and teach them to charge again.He brought back cavalry versus cavalry and cavalry versus infantry assaults — cavalry charges.Shock had returned to the field of war.Gustav thinned those infantry squares into a thick lines and gave them more gunsHere it the battle of Lützen, Gustav (red) vs Wallensteinby lightening the artillery , he made his army more flexible. It tool only one or two horses to move most of his gunsCut outs … cool! (who knew…) NB the limber had yet to be invented, so each battery was served by a wagon full of powder & shot.That about does it.Cromwell would use the Swedissh army example around which to form his ‘New Model Army’The genius of Sweden’s ‘Lion of the North’How cavalry behaved before Gustavus Adolphus.see also rejoneadora Ana Batista (Lord, how that woman can ride!)an art of war translated into the corrida

What enabled the Spanish forces to conquer the Aztec People?

Several things....

1) Disease. Although unintentionally at first, the Spanish brought diseases like smallpox and whooping cough along with them. It's believed that an African slave that also came with the Spain was sick at the time and intentionally spread the disease smallpox. This disease wiped out nearly 90% of all natives.

2) Guns. The Spanish had rifles while the natives had only spear.

3) Horses and armor. When the natives first saw Cortez in his armor, riding his horse, they thought he was a god because they had never seen either horses or armor.

4) Legends. It's complicated, but to explain it as simply as possible....about a hundred years or so before Cortez came, a priest was exiled. The priest vowed to return and conquer the land, leaving up a river in a boat. Cortez and his men would come down the exact same river in 1521. Seeing Cortez scared the Aztec.

5) Hatred of the Aztec. The Aztec had conquered many smaller regions around them and forced those that lived there to pay them tribute. Many of those smaller regions would side with Cortez, wanting to get revenge on the Aztecs.

Hope I helped!

What did the Spanish Army look like in the 1500's and 1600's?

Going by several books I've just read (two by Geoffrey Parker), the Spanish army in the period you mentioned was based on heavy infantry -- the tercio (regiment, if you will) composed of halberdiers, arquebusiers and musketeers. Tercios, which were divided into several companies each of 250 men (those were the theoretical numbers) fought as large solid blocks, much like a Greek phalanx and Spanish soldiers were renowned for their ferocity. The pikemen did the assaulting, the arquebusiers and musketeers provided covering fire. There were no uniforms and no standard weapons, in fact the members were encouraged to dress the way they wanted to, though certain famous tercios might affect certain badges (such as feathers on their wide-brimmed hats for instance). Those who could afford it more metal armor, the rest made do with leather armor or thick coats. Spain recruited volunteers for the tercios and in some cases conscripted. There were never enough Spaniards to supply Spain's imperial plans so there were plenty of mercenaries - Italians, Dutch, Germans and even British. There was never enough money to pay them either, so during the Eighty Years war against the Dutch, tercios mutinied dozens of times for their pay. Despite the silver from South America Spain was drained by the fight against the Dutch, plague also ravaged the manpower pool, and finally other countries such as Sweden and France developed more flexible tactical systems (based on smaller companies, mobile artillery and cavaLry) that shredded the dreaded tercios. The decisive battle was Rocroi in France in 1643  when a Spanish army was all but destroyed by the French.

What advantages did the Roman army have over its opponents?

1. logistics. roman roads, supply chain, map making and intelligence network helped the army be at the right place at the right time; and prepared. that is the most important thing in the war
2. war engineers and artillery: though they took most siege weapon designs from greeks and carthagians, they used them extensively in teir campaigns; they were not only effective in siege warfare; but also against mased infantry. their engineers and architects (and ofcourse slaves doing the actual works) enabled them to build strong defenses and fortifications to consolidate their positions so they could leave and small garrision and march on...
3. formation (as someone already mentioned): it was compact enough to fight as an unit; but more flexible than the greek phalanx which was to too dependent on the whole formation and hence suffered a disadvantage in broken terrain. plus once the phalanx was broken the greek army was a little vulnerable because of their heavy shields and long spears. the romans kept formation (and fought with spears); but also were effective at melee fighting because of thier short swords (the famous gladius) and lighter armor.
4. manuevor training: connected to last point; high discipline and constant drills and training in the heydays of the professional legion meant the army kept formation and fought as a cohesive unit; did not exposure their under pressure etc. most other armies were constituted from people with a day job. even the so-called barbarian tribes. they all worked, they all fought.
5. they used cavalry better than most ancient armies, though mainly as auxiliary and protection for their flanks (later huns and other tribes originating in the steppes would use cavalry as the main force and also cavalry archers but it was rare in classic antiquity
6. they had a control of the seas (except for greek pirates) and hence their legions could travel throughout the mediterranean
7. they had the financial power to maintain a large professional army. the roman army was never undefeatable. infact, they often lost battles. it's just that another legion came in after that. that's why they were likened to the hydra
8. their officers had a good education in military startegy

TRENDING NEWS