What made Swiss mercenaries so effective...

Apparently they managed to cover themselves in the smog of their own guns, then were ambushed by the swiss and fled in confusion.

Ask her!

>it's over burgundians, we have the high ground!

I don't know but would appreciate some more pics like that

...

Swabian war was one big rape festival.

bümp

It's not the Swiss infantry on its own that let them be effective even in the face of bows and crossbows, nor was it just the presence of armour.
What most people don't realise is that the Swiss fought in a combined arms manner - not only did they have that powerful core of heavy infantry, they also combined it with a substantial amount of skirmishers of various kinds (gunners, crossbowmen, even slingers apparently), and even some cavalry too.

When they faced various forms of very reputable crossbowmen and even English longbowmen during the Burgundian wars for example, a big part of why they succeeded is that they had that skirmisher contingent - combined with the rather good armour and sheer speed of their infantry, they were able to overrun such forces.

You know you're shit when even Grisons/Graubünden is kicking your ass.

Swiss had no cav whatsoever, mounted messengers at best.

Any good books about Swiss mercenaries?

"One million mercenaries" by John McCormack

If you happen to speak French or Masterrace, Paul de Vallière "Honneur et Fidelite" / "Ehre und Treue" is the standard work.

>the Swiss fought in a combined arms manner
Thats just wrong, Swiss were almost exclusively infantry based.

They worked together with the Lotharingians during the burgundian wars

Rene’s lorrainian troops

>The Confederate vanguard of some 6,000 skirmishers and all the 1,200 cavalry present erupted out of Birchenwald Woods to the west of Morat, exactly where Charles had predicted they would appear.
>Charles managed to muster enough English archers to form a last line of defence before the camp, but these were routed before a bow could be bent, their commander shot by a Swiss skirmisher.
Every battle that is described in sufficient detail mentions Swiss cavalry and skirmishers.
The order of battle was usually made up of a vanguard (skirmishers, cavalry and some infantry protection), a main centre (mostly infantry) and a rear guard similar to the vanguard, but with artillery if available.

So the Lorraine allies had cavalry and the Swiss had none at all. thanks for proofing your own point.

>Every battle that is described in sufficient detail mentions Swiss cavalry and skirmishers.
Like everybody else the Swiss had a small amount of skirmishers but virtually no cavalry. That doesn't make them "combined arms" in any way.
By the way, pretty much every Swiss battle is described in great detail, just not on Wikipedia.

P.S. during the Burgundian wars, the Swiss teamed up with the Lorraine and even Habsburgs to beat Charles the bold, the Swiss supplied the Infantry and the others came up with the cav because the Swiss literally had none.

During the Italian wars, the Landsknechts turned out superior though.

Not really, they didn't lose a push of the pike or something, The Swiss managed well on their own until they got blown away by French guns, and from then on worked as the infantry contingent for the French. Landsknecht were like Swiss for poor people.

They lost the Battle of Marignano, where the French were supported by Landsknechts - which is probably the worst lost in the history of any nation, given that they were literally neutered and had to give up all geo-political ambition.
Also, they lost several battles where they fought on the French side against Habsburg-Spain where they faced Spanish troops supported by Landsknecht mercenaries.

The Swiss lost at Pavia and its commonly bandied about by historians that their fame as mercenaries ended in the 1500s by the Landsknechts.

>where the French were supported by Landsknechts
French were also supported by Venetians, which one the decisive action) and outnumbered the Swiss almost 2:1 and fielded almost 400 guns.
The initial infantry action was lost by the Landsknechts and they got their shit pushed in, but the guns and Venetian Cav was too much for the Swiss.
Now idea how you figure this makes Landsknechts somewhat superior.

The French lost at Pavia, and the Swiss started to become mercenaries only in the 16th century, before that they largely worked on their own. Matter of fact, Swiss mercenary system only really started up after 1515 when they signed the peace treaty with France.
>and its commonly bandied about by historians
thats likely why you don't have a single source, right?

>Now idea how you figure this makes Landsknechts somewhat superior.
Due to the fact that the Landsknechts were surprisingly often on the winning side during the 16th century, whereas during the 15th century the sides had generally been reversed - when indeed the Landsknechts were the Swiss for poor people.

During the 16th century the Swiss worked almost exclusively for the French, which lost the Italian wars. feel free to look for historic examples where the Landsknecht would win a push of the pike against the Swiss.

Here is a nice example of what happens in a push of the pike, Swiss against Landsknecht.

>During the 16th century the Swiss worked almost exclusively for the French, which lost the Italian wars.
And certainly that didn't have anything to do with the Swiss.

>[...] the Swiss made a series of desperate attempts to breach the Imperial line. Some parties managed to reach the top of the rampart, only to be met by the landsknechts, who had come up from behind the arquebusiers. One of the Swiss captains was apparently killed by Frundsberg in single combat; and the Swiss, unable to form up atop the earthworks, were pushed back down into the sunken road.[27]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bicocca

>The battle is noted chiefly for marking the end of the Swiss dominance among the infantry of the Italian Wars, and of the Swiss method of assaults by massed columns of pikemen without support from other troops.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bicocca
Moving down into the road, the Swiss suffered massive casualties from the fire of d'Avalos's arquebusiers.
Again, the Swiss underestimated firearms and got fucked by guns and earthworks. Thats what ended their pike rush tactics and made them integrate more into a combined arms strategy as part of the French contingent.

Here is another example of what a push of the Pike, infantry against infantry, Swiss against Landsknecht looks like, 20 years after Bicocca

Landsknecht were modeled after the Swiss and in the 16th century became more common on the battlefields, however they never reached the quality of the originals, thats why the Swiss were payed better and served at almost every single royal court in Europe.

>and this was the last time "Germany" waged war with the Swiss
I wonder why

>While Swiss mercenaries would continue to take part in the Italian Wars, they no longer possessed the willingness to make headlong attacks that they had at Novara in 1513 or Marignano in 1515; their performance at the Battle of Pavia in 1525 would surprise observers by its lack of initiative.[40]

During the Italian Wars, the dominance of the Swiss mercenaries was broken. Landsknechts turned out superior in the end. France bet on the wrong horse.

Alright, I can very well understand the relevance/importance of a drum in a unit. but why a fucking flute?

Probably because the Swiss were so soundly beaten at Marignano that they vowed eternal neutrality and never bothered anyone any more.

Because it produces a high pitched whistling sound that can be distinctively heard in battle and thus used for commands, similar to brass instruments being used for cavalry.

>During the Italian Wars, the dominance of the Swiss mercenaries was broken.
Wrong, the dominance of infantry only armies was broken by the advent of firearms.

>Landsknechts turned out superior in the end. France bet on the wrong horse.
Landsknecht were not superior, they lost most 1 vs 1 infantry duels. France indeed lost the war, mostly due to superior Spanish tactics, troops and equipment (Terzio), the contribution of the Landsknecht was negligible, they served mostly as low price/quality battle meat.

The landsknecht faded away from the European theaters of war while the Swiss continued to serve as Europe's most prominent mercenaries for another 350 years.

They didn't vow eternal neutrality after the battle, but after the French King bought them with 700'000 Luis d'or and promised to hire them as mercenaries if they give up their own agenda.

>Wrong, the dominance of infantry only armies was broken by the advent of firearms.
So you mean that it wasn't the Swiss that were broken but merely their entire way of waging war on which they built their previous successes? Good to know.

>Landsknecht were not superior, they lost most 1 vs 1 infantry duels.
And Germany was rather successful in both world wars if we add up individual kill counts which is a popular past-time among Wehraboos. What is this? Helveticabooism? I'm certain the French - who lost the battles - were ultimately not so pleased about the result.

>The landsknecht faded away from the European theaters of war while the Swiss continued to serve as Europe's most prominent mercenaries for another 350 years.
German mercenaries calling themselves Landsknechts fought most prominently during the Thirty-Years-War. They used different tactics, but obviously the Swiss had given up their unique type of warfare too by that point.

>So you mean that it wasn't the Swiss that were broken but merely their entire way of waging war on which they built their previous successes? Good to know.
Yes indeed, times change, same way the Swiss emerged as the dominant military force of Europe by btfo ing heavy Cavalry from the throne, they got pushed down by Artillery and combined arms. Doesn't make them any worse infantry soldiers.
>And Germany was rather successful in both world wars if we add up individual kill counts which is a popular past-time among Wehraboos. What is this? Helveticabooism? I'm certain the French - who lost the battles - were ultimately not so pleased about the result.
I'm simply stating the fact that the Landsknecht lost all direct infantry to infantry encounters against the Swiss we know of. From getting totally raped in the Swabian war to getting their shit pushed in various times in Italy. After that Landsknecht fade from the European theater and only show up in Germany itself.

>German mercenaries calling themselves Landsknechts fought most prominently during the Thirty-Years-War. They used different tactics, but obviously the Swiss had given up their unique type of warfare too by that point.
Yes, and thats about the only place they show up againa. Swiss infantry rush tactics ended due to advanced firearms, yet they Swiss kept serving as infantry troops for various European Nations, made up the main part of the French army for centuries and kept on doing that till the end of the 19th century.

>Doesn't make them any worse infantry soldiers.
The point is: it doesn't make them any better infantry soldiers than anyone else. Before the Italian wars, if you wanted infantry, you had to go with the Swiss. After the Italian Wars, people realised that they weren't unbeatable and that Landsknechts did a pretty okay job rather than being a cheap copy.

>getting their shit pushed in various times in Italy
While also winning the war - opposed to the Swiss on the French side.

>After that Landsknecht fade from the European theater and only show up in Germany itself.
Not really. You could find plenty of German mercenaries during the big conflicts of the 17th century - most importantly the Thirty-Years-War, where they fought both on the Protestant and Catholic side.

>made up the main part of the French army for centuries and kept on doing that till the end of the 19th century
I find that rather unlikely since the French had more enough Frenchmen to do the job. But that aside - it should be considered that Germany had more than enough use for German speaking mercenaries - not to mention that during the 18th century, armies began to professionalise so the the profession of mercenary itself made way for the soldier.

>The point is: it doesn't make them any better infantry soldiers than anyone else. Before the Italian wars, if you wanted infantry, you had to go with the Swiss. After the Italian Wars, people realised that they weren't unbeatable and that Landsknechts did a pretty okay job rather than being a cheap copy.
No, it just meant that infantry only tactics like the Swiss used are not feasible anymore by the virtue of guns. The Swiss still kept a reputation as superior infantry and tenacious fighters, the consistently performed better that other infantry of the time save for Spanish Tercios.

>Not really. You could find plenty of German mercenaries during the big conflicts of the 17th century - most importantly the Thirty-Years-War, where they fought both on the Protestant and Catholic side.
Oh, really, you can find German mercenaries in a German civil war? what a surprise. Do you also find them as guard and household troops and infantry line regiments for most European kings? Or did they prefer to hire Scotts, Swiss and Irish instead?

>I find that rather unlikely since the French had more enough Frenchmen to do the job.
Then you don't know a whole lot about French military history. The Swiss supplied the main infantry force of the French army ( the French had plenty of good Cavalry of their own) from 1516 until the reformations of Louis XIV where the main shifted towards French troops even then, the Swiss supplied the most senior line regiments. There was a good part of political reasons involved, mainly that Swiss troops could be hired by the regiment, all inclusive, showed good discipline and battlefield performance and were fiercely loyal to their employer. Very important for the French crown during the religious wars of France in the 16th century. This went so far that protestant Swiss soldiers would kill Protestants in France for the catholic King of France, then help resettle protestant survivors inside Switzerland. Richelieu was a big fan

At the battle of Malplaquet in 1709 during the war of the Spanish succession, the biggest battle of the time about 35k people were killed on both sides. Of those 35k dead, about 8k was Swiss troops, which is interesting because as usual the Swiss were not involved in that war and stayed neutral. It just happens that the main of both the French and Dutch infantry largely consisted of Swiss mercs which in turn killed each others.

I don't know anything about the Swiss mercs or anything about Switzerland before WWII. only lots of banks and scientists there, neutral after Napoleonic Wars. quick tl;dr?

>the consistently performed better that other infantry of the time
[citation needed]

The Italian Wars marked their end as a dominant force and they didn't particularly stand out to a comparable degree during the 17th and 18th century. Most certainly not during the 19th century.

>Do you also find them as guard and household troops and infantry line regiments for most European kings?
The various German princes had plenty of use for German men. German mercenaries were commonly employed by Scandinavian countries during their various conflicts.

>Then you don't know a whole lot about French military history. The Swiss supplied the main infantry force of the French army ( the French had plenty of good Cavalry of their own) from 1516 until the reformations of Louis XIV where the main shifted towards French troops

>where the main shifted towards French troops

Is that so?

I could have sworn your original statement was
>made up the main part of the French army for centuries and kept on doing that till the end of the 19th century

>some mountain boys and city slickers band together and duke it out with Habsburg and win around the start of the 14th century
>duke it out some more, mostly with each others, get really good at massed infantry tactics, to the point that they are able heavy cav on their own, until then cav was the main force of every army and infantry used to suck against them
>during the late 15th century they become nearly invincible and btfo Burgundy into oblivion (literally) and teared the Holy Roman Emperor a new one
>then tried to snatch turf in Italy, at first very successfully but then got their shit pushed in by firearms of all sorts during the early 16th century
>Swiss,quarreling witch each others, French king needs troops and the Swiss out of Italy, so buys them, all of them
>Swiss give up all politics whatsoever and keep on soldering for the French and everybody else who payed cash for the next 300 years
>they develop a unique industry where a whole micro nations exists by supplying soldiers and receiving moniez for it
>Napoleon fucks it up and the Swiss went to battle no more, started thieving instead

>The various German princes had plenty of use for German men.
No shit?

Exactly. Why go elsewhere when you are needed at home, where people speak your language?

>The Italian Wars marked their end as a dominant force and they didn't particularly stand out to a comparable degree during the 17th and 18th century. Most certainly not during the 19th century.
What you don't seem to understand is, yes, the Italian wars marked the end for the Swiss style pike rush warfare, times definitely changed. But the Swiss became Europe's main supplier of mercenaries for the next few centuries.
The Swiss ceased to have a foreign military agenda after the treaty of Freiburg with France, Switzerland became neutral, instead the hired out their own troops to foreign nations, most notably France. Other Nations that hired Swiss regiments and often Guards were the Pope, the Netherlands, Venice, Spain, Genoa, Lorraine, Savoy-Piemont, Sicily, Sardinia, Sweden, Lucca, Saxonia, Austria, England, Prussia, Naples, Portugal, Brazil, Egypt and Denmark, and pretty much every East India company that was hired them at one time or another. That alone speaks to their quality

The reason for that was you could make a deal with the Swiss confederation, and hire an entire regiment, fully kitted, drilled, high unit cohesion, good discipline, expirienced officers and NCO's. You could buy half a dozen line regiments if you payed the price. They were loyal to the guy who payed and only to him, an important factor for politics at the time.

>Denmark
Sorry that, Denmark indeed never had Swiss troops, they just call their royal Guards "Schweizeren" because pretty much everybody else did the same.

>But the Swiss became Europe's main supplier of mercenaries for the next few centuries.
That might as well be the case, but that is not the point. The point is that they lost the reputation they had during the 15th and 16th century, which they gained by revolutionising warfare at the time through organised infantry tactics. Nobody doubts that Switzerland exported a lot of mercenaries or that they had a good reputation. The difference is that in later centuries they didn't stand out any more, being able to do things that others could not.

you dumb

bümp

They were trained since they were little kids, they trained to be in the same units with their neighbors since childhood so there was a bond between the men and they all knew eachother, they were also extremely mobile and could even use their pikes effectively on the mountainous terrain of the alps. They pretty much seemed like special forces of that era, however with guns and gunpowder they stopped being as effective and eventually they stopped being used as much

Also just to get an idea of how fast, mobile and disciplined they were, during a battle against the austrians they managed to surprise the enemy artillery emplacements so that they were unable to fire a single shout from their cannons, and one could argue that the swiss mercenaries were responsible for the eventual decline of Burgundy

>They lost their reputation
>Everybody still hires them as elite guards

????

I guess what he meant is that they lost their nimbus of invincibility that they had before. However they didn't lose their reputation as highly capable and loyal soldiers soldiers, thats why everybody kept hiring them.

Meh, part of their mobility was because they was a milita army without heavy weapons or supply train. In case of war the Swiss could mobilize several thenthousand men at a time and deliver them anywhere on their borders within a couple days, a feat unheard of at the time. Men would gather from all cantons and march to the gathering point, towns and cities along the march would supply them with food and quarters.
This didn't work outside Switzerland, hence Swiss armies only made short plundering excursions into their neighboring territories as they could not sustain themselves.

The Swiss surprised them by letting their main force climb over a mountain, plus they were not know to be the merciful types.
Swiss were always good for crazy odds battles

Attached: Giornico.png (296x929, 355K)

Exactly.

Previously, everyone was under the impression that the side that hired the Swiss would win. Afterwards, they were merely competent mercenaries among others and didn't stand out particularly.

>they were merely competent mercenaries among others and didn't stand out particularly.
being competent soldiers is pretty outstanding for the time

Jesus, a thread full of quality illustrations of historical armor and then there's this fucking cringe. Only in Japan could magical catgirl battle-strippers be a thing.

>didn't stand out particularly.
They were hired as royal guards in France, the Papal State the Netherlands and many more.

They were very prestigious

That doesn't change that they didn't stand out on the battlefields any more.

Have you been reading the thread, the Swiss quit soldiering on their own, but they still was universally regarded as the best infantry of all Europe.

The Landsknects served as one of the models for the development of the Spanish tercios.

>they still was universally regarded as the best infantry of all Europe
[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Amongst others, Niccolo Machiavelli, Pope Pius II and about every other fucker that hired a Swiss guard.

We have already established that they had an extraordinary reputation during the 15th century - and for good reason. The argument was about later centuries.

here's an article on the Swiss's virtue as soldiers from 1745 by Thomas Salmon:
books.google.ch/books?id=wLI-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=quality of swiss troops france netherlands&source=bl&ots=YyWWfPqkCO&sig=WjQdGz2twjL-3xsdHw7dGHIXpXQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZzfqDtuTZAhXI1ywKHU2kB9EQ6AEIbDAO#v=onepage&q=quality of swiss troops france netherlands&f=false

The fact that the Swiss were able to hire out close to a million soldiers over time, or that their line regiments always have been considered senior in both the French and the Dutch army and always made up the center of their battle formations is lasting testimony for their quality. France went as far as to make Swiss officers senior to their French peers.
Henri de Schomberg, one of Louis XVII Marshall's said, " A Body of Swiss in the French army are like the bones in a Human body"
During the 16th and 17th century the Swiss kept their reputation as the most proficient mercenaries of Europe pretty much every source of the time will rate the Swiss regiments top tier.

The development of the Spanish Tercio from the Landsknecht is a matter of basic historical fact. In 1495 when they landed in Calabria the Spanish had no concept of pike warfare. At the Battle of Seminara their infantry consisted of rodeleros and marines.

But the Spanish did not give up. They trained with Imperial Landsknecht units to learn the basics of pike formations and pike warfare.

Eight years later at the Battle of Cerignola the Great Captain dug trenches to blunt the Swiss push of pike while the arquebusiers and cannon raked them with shot. The Swiss then slammed headlong into the Landsknechts, bringing them to a standstill. As the Spanish continued to pour shot in from the sides, the Swiss broke and the French formation collapsed.

Attached: Cerignola.png (321x811, 214K)

Doesn't really make sense that Spanish Tercio's, who used pike and shot, somewhat being modeled after the more primitive Landsknechts, which themselves were a cheap copy of the Swiss. It's rather likely The Gran Capitan learned his hard lesson at Seminara directly from the Swiss and came up with his ingenious solution.

Although the Landsknechts came later, to call them a cheap copy is an understatement of their prowess in battle. It's true, they could not charge the way the Swiss could, and that more of their victories were static, however they had as much discipline as the Swiss and were able to slog it out against them during the Italian Wars on an equal footing.

As for your conjecture that the Great Captain developed his tactics directly from the Swiss, I might believe it if it weren't for the fact that the Spanish in Italy were in such close communication with the Austrians during the time period in question. The borrowing of units, the clear lines of communication, correspondence and touring prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Spanish Infantry of the Great Captain learned their craft from their Austrian cousins. Three years after the victory at Cerignola, the Hapsburg prince toured Spain with 3,000 Landsknechts so that the court back home could see the troop type for themselves.

>Although the Landsknechts came later, to call them a cheap copy is an understatement of their prowess in battle.
Have a look at this picture again , the Swiss and the Imperial Landsknechts had a full out war, and the Landsknecht managed to lose every single battle. Gives you a pretty clear picture of the state of affairs in 1499.

>cheap copy of the Swiss
That's not entirely wrong. The german mercenaries could not match the swiss discipline or cohesion in the charge, since they were formed ad-hoc and had far less common training. That's part of the reason they adopted firearms before the swiss. The spanish essentially did the same - using rather static pike formations for defense and depending on firewpower for offense - while the swiss were all about the melee charge.

>1499
Don't you find it a little strange that as soon as the battlefield shifts to Italy the Swiss lose their advantage entirely?

No, not at all. First the Swiss didn't totally suck in Italy, after all they snatched some turf that to this very day belongs to Switzerland (Ticino), conquered Milan a couple times, and put up fights like this or pic related. Also the Swiss started to expand into Italy in 1402 and ended their policy in 1516

Second, the Swiss usually did not bring heavy weapons or a train along with their troops, meaning they are only fit for short expeditions and no long campaigning or sieges.

And third and most importantly, it was largely a political problem, like the only Canton that really profited from the Italian conquests was Uri, which controlled the Gotthard pass. The other members of the confederation did get some plunder at best. So Uri had a hard time motivating the Confederation to send the troops to fight and die for them. That was part of the reason the Swiss quit, when the French offered to hire the entire Swiss army they bribed every single Canton, like they would make more money and everybody gets their share and nobody gets overly powerful because of newly conquered turf.

Attached: Novarra.png (347x748, 226K)

I never said they had poor performance. I said they had no advantage. The Swiss victory at Novarra is matched by the French victory at Marignano where the Landsknechts provided the principle stopping power against the Swiss.

I really don't get your point mate, and I think nobody else does either. Like for 3 days you try to nitpick details so your beloved Landsknecht look more important? You like the Landsknecht? Ok, doesn't change the fact that the Swiss were considered superior at the time and especially the centuries to come. And Marginano, everybody agrees that a head on charge into 400+ emplaced guns isn't tactically brilliant, but that doesn't exactly make the Landsknecht any better. Especially when all battle reports say that the Swiss were broken by said guns and hardcore Venetian cavalry.
Get over it.

>as soon as the battlefield shifts to Italy the Swiss lose their advantage entirely?
The Swiss managed well in Italy for an entire century, thats why they conquered part of it. What eventually broke their style of fighting was guns which just became a powerful battlefield weapon in the early 16th century.

My first post in this thread was with regard to the Tercio having been developed from the Landsknecht. I've been here 3 hours, not 3 days.

You can love the Swiss all you want, but the fact remains that beyond their mobility the Swiss had no advantage over the Landsknechts. There are just as many battles in Italy where they were defeated as where they were victorious. The myth of Swiss invincibility is largely the result of Machiavelli's Art of War.

Wait, are you seriously denying that the Swiss revolutionized and dominated warfare in the 15th century? Like Burgundy, Swabian war, Italian expansion, and all that other stuff never happened? It's simply fact that they had the best reputation all over.

>The myth of Swiss invincibility
The swiss indeed were invincible for quite some time. This ended during the Italian wars due to advancements of firearms, doesn't exactly change the fact that they had steamrolled Europe for a century before that.

No one is saying that. The Swiss were the crucial first step in the recreation of the mass pike armies that came to dominate and characterize European battlefields.

It would in my estimation be an overstatement to say that they had steamrolled Europe. Certainly they were victorious on the borders of Switzerland and they succeeded in securing those borders for all time which is far more than can be said for many states.

However, to chalk up their defeats solely to firearms is misleading at best. The defensive victory of the Spanish at Cerignola was just as much due to tactical changes from previous battles as it was due to superior firepower. Specifically, the choice of terrain in terms of a hill and ford, the trenches and the infantry that manned those trenches standing, stopping and breaking the push of pike.

In the case of Novarra, the Landsknechts stood in the open field where their pike squares were maneuvered against by the much more mobile Swiss who managed to win the victory by defeating the Landsknecht units in detail one by one.

At Marignano the Landsknechts held the Swiss in place while the cannons blasted their lines. Firearms and artillery are only part of the story.

Bump