I've been told that it depicts an arquebusier of the Holy Roman Empire, though isn't he too heavily armoured in his half munitions plate and chainmail?
So Veeky Forumstory, what is the history and historical accuracy of the character depicted in this image?
Other urls found in this thread:
mega.nz
investigationsofadog.co.uk
twitter.com
As for as I know (and I don't know much) he kind of looks like one of those riders that went shooting people while on horseback, or otherwise just used horses as a quick way to move around. Look at the spur on the boot, for example.
A dragoon? True, it does look like he is holding an early carbine.
Not sure if you could classify him as a dragoon. Honstly, the only reason I even know of renaissance horse-gunners is because of Total War: Medieval 2. Might be best to wait for another person to help you out.
Thank you for your attempt, user.
Searched a bit further. Best I can come up with are cuirassiers and harquebussiers. There's a mega.nz with .pdfs about 17th century warfare. You might be able to get more information from that: mega.nz
Even though it gives more information about grander strategy, I assume.
Also, found some stuff about a certain "Stefano Borin" whose gear kind of looks like the guy in the OP's. Might want to giv that a further search.
Ah, perfect! I'll download it once I get on my desktop, thank you.
Anytime.
"Stefano Borin" is apparently an artist, much of his work is reminiscent of the OP's image.
>Wheel-lock
>Spurs
>Still armored
He is a cuirassier or heavy dragoon from around the 30 years war period
Here is a depiction of a cuirassier from the English Civil War
Perfect, this is exactly the information I was looking for. Thanks, based user.
why are they so heavily armed and the horses aren't?
Wouldn't it be perfectly possible for someone to shoot or maim the horse and make him fall over (which could be enough to hurt him) ?
What kind of sick fuck is going to hurt an innocent horse?
I believe dragoons came latter and we're not as armoured. The picture in OP looks like a Cuirassier.
I agree, user.
The sick fuck that's tired of the sick fucks on horseback shooting at him.
Mounted harquebussier.
The sling used to hold the arquebus and the lack of armor for the lower body indicates he isn't a cuirassier. Or he is a later English Civil War Era dragoon.
Half the point of them is high mobility
Why would you add armour to a fast moving unit that'll slow it down.
how long will that fast moving unit keep moving if anyone can shoot at it though?
There's an effective range of muskets, plus time to aim
Dragoons have the advantage that they can manuever into and out of effective range much quicker than infantry.
In other words they can get shots off, run away and take much less casualties than their target.
Armor on horses in the pike and shot era would be pretty useless. Bullets would be able to punch through the majority of armor that could be fit onto a horse, and the armor that could stop the bullet would really weigh the horse down. Melee doesn't really matter as if your dragoons are in melee with pikemen then you fucked up.
Horses are a lot bigger than humans and harder to kill. You need to hit a horse in the right place to actually bring it down.
The chances of killing/debilitating a horse with a single shot is pretty slim.
Pretty much a combo of this.
Yeah, but damage to the legs puts them out of commission, even if they aren't dead.
Anyone know of a good documentary on gunpowder weapons in warfaire.
Specifically interested in late renaisance/30 years war and 7 years war eras. Somewhat interested in stuff in middle east and British Colonies as well.
Check out Osprey books. Matchlock Musketeer: 1588–1688 is actually very good.
That's why they needed to be fast, so that they could close the distance before the enemy got many shots off.
In this period a dragoon was mounted infantry. They would either accompany and support "real" cavalry on raids, or dismount ahead or to the side of the main army to harass the enemy.
He could be described as either a reiter, curassier, petronel or mounted harquebusier. The terms are inexact and their definitions changed subtly over time and place.
Thank you for your concise answering and clearing up some of the malaise.
What're your thoughts on the veracity of the historical use of and effectiveness of the caracole tactic?
I made a post about it a few hours ago here Two different things can be meant by the term caracole. The first is a sort of countermarch intended for cavalry. The second is the cavalry galloping towards the enemy, firing off their pistols and then falling back instead of closing.
This is one of the historians I mentioned who struggled to find evidence that the "countermarch" caracole every happened
investigationsofadog.co.uk
I think it is much more likely that when this term was used in the period it meant simply to fire the guns and wheel off without closing to use contact weapons. Period commentators such as François de la Noue were critical of this technique since wheeling away instead of charging left the cavalry vulnerable to a countercharge into their rear.
So, it either didn't happen, or it was just a bad idea (dependant upon the type they were utilising)?
So if armor was so useless why would the riders wear them?
What irks me is that the rider is all armoires up while the horse (a huge target) is bare naked.
>though isn't he too heavily armoured in his half munitions plate and chainmail?
Yes of course, Armour inhibits movement which is why you get a negative buff on using ranged weapons.
No, life isn't a video game, its absolutely fine.
He's an early Harqubusier. They wore stripped down plate armour which over time got less and less eventually just becoming the chest plate and helmet to nothing in the end.
It's actually really fucking hard to kill a horse.
It costs a lot of money and more often than not the rider rather than the horse is targeted.
have you ever seen a horse? If they trip they are done for.
They are really strong and fast but they're legs are fragile.
If you're able to shoot a horse's legs or thighs he would fall over and die