Talk:Tercio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details. |
Something else. Was the ratio of pikemen to arquebusiers really 1:1? I was under the impression that the c. 2:3 ratio introduced by the Swedish army during the reign of Gustavus Adolphus was one of the highest (pro-firearm) force ratios of the era? --Trithemius 16:50, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that muskets weren't a long range weapon at all. They had far better striking power than an arquebus, but were far heavier and often considered a relative failure in comparison to the wheel-lock pistol that both destroyed cavalry and weighed far less, which allowed for their use by mounted soldiers - which were a very valuable asset.
-
- What do you mean by musket? The arquebus is generally taken to be an older firearm, typically using matchlock, and in some cases, firelock, mechanisms to discharge the powder. The matchlock used by most of the combatants in the Thirty Years War required rests to aim and discharge; to my knowledge the term musket is generally applied to later matchlocks, and to the flintlocks that slowly replaced them, but it appears that contemporaries of Gustavus would have used the terms interchangably, the principal determinants of difference being age and weight. --Trithemius 10:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I recommend look the link http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TercioUK.html, there you can see the composition of the Tercios along their history and too the question about the arquebus and the muskets, this is very good for the fire weapons of that time http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/
-
"However, the tercio continued to be used during the English Civil War." - Was this a true Spanish-style tercio, or just the use of the word tercio as a synonym for a brigade of linear battalions? J Heath 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sir, I removed my reference to the English Civil War. What I meant was that there was still a lot of similarity in the English ¨push the pike¨ type of fighting and the older style classic ¨tercio¨ style of fighting. After all it did evolve and didn´t suddenly disappear with Adolphos. But point taken in the confusion it may cause - (By the way I thank those warheads who created and improved this important article. cheers. (Im a bit thrown by this Spanish keyboard in Barcelona, adios)
The article say "absorbing three cavalry charges by the French, before the fourth finally broke their formation with the assistance of artillery."
Three combined charges of cavalry+infantry plus the support of the artillery, unsuccesfully. Any charge destroyed the spanish formation.
-Fco
The book by P, Guthrie, 'The Later Thirty Years War' says there was three cavalry charges, the forth broke it with artillery. The statement "But the Spanish formed the core" is incorrect, Geoffrey Parker in his book 'The Army Of Flanders and the Spanish Road' has a table that shows the composition of the army of Flanders. It shows the spanish to be clearly in the minority. Im not sure about Italy though, i would suspect the tercios in Italy to be dominated by Italians and Spaniards. I dont have any statistics though for Italy. But interesting to note that Parma's later conquest in flanders was achieved with no Spanish troops at all. In March 1623 there were more british people in the army of Flanders than Spaniards
Sorry man for this time. According with spanish works based on documents of the time http://www.geocities.com/aow1617/Rocroi1uk.pdf
the tercios wasn't destroyed by any attack of the french, but they surrendered.
About the composition of the of the army, althought the spanish was a minority they were in fact the core around the other units was organizated, with the spanish tercios (totally composed of spanish, by law) assuming the main task of the armies. This is explained by the own Geoffrey Parker.
-Fco
[edit] So many Citations ?
What is needed is not citations all over this article but several scholarly sources for those who want to follow this subject up.
- The complaint is that the statements made here are unsubstantiated, not that each fact needs a separate citation. It could be the same scholarly source for all of them, if that was adequate. Average Earthman 15:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pleased as hell that no one has irresponsibily deleted the statements, as has happend on many other pages. In this case, maybe a single source is needed. That said, the information here is, in general, extraordinarily well know amongst the historical community. 69.216.128.84 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article does not seem so well writen though, seems like a romantic version of the tactic.
[edit] What a square
If anyone cares, the tercio can be called a development of the original Babylonian phalanx (commonly credited to Macedon). Trekphiler 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
