Learn about the Tercio Formation in medieval warfare in this quick video! Discover the tactical military strategy used in battles long ago. #shorts #fyp #medieval #tercioformation
Ironically enough, it was through gunpowder tech development that Tercios came to be. The European battlefield of the time was, off course, dominated by the heavy cavalry and the swiss style pikemen. Then, at Pavia and Bicoca battles respectively, arquebusiers truly revealed the potential they held. Nagashino battle is significant of this change as well.
Born too late to join a Spanish Tercio Born too early for when pikes become popular again after the nuclear apocalypse (they always come back) Born just in time to employ this formation in Total War
this is an VERY early tercio, since there are way too many swordsmen. they were gradually phased out and eventually pikemen were phased out too but later when bayonets became common.
@@doctaflo to get under the pikes and try to break the enemy square through melee. the swiss used halberdiers instead of sword and buckle men. . at the end trying to break square through melee was a bloody and often fruitless affair. muskets and artillery proved superior breaking squares.
@@ernstschmidt4725 interesting, thanks! i always thought for the most part spears of any type beat swords of any type. like maybe if you’re super-skilled, bypassing the striking distance of an opponent with greater range is viable, but generally the combatant with the greater reach has an advantage. in my mind, i’d rather give all the swordsmen pikes and just have that many more pikemen to throw at an enemy formation… but then i don’t know where i got that idea! you sound like you have a better idea of what you’re talking about than i do!
For those interested, the final scene of the movie Alatriste starring Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) shows a group of a tercio formation during the battle of Rocroi in 1643
@@Dark-Mustang worse part they didn't "lost" to us , they have been abandoned by the Germans and had to fight the full french force alone. It's already fck up they decided to stay
It was around the thought of, *"Ooh, we do love a highly flexible formation of arquebussy around here"* that I decided I'd had enough internet for one day.
@@Notsoholygospel stuff works the way they do in total war because you have a birds eye view, and hundreds of tiny men move at the click of a button. Its not so simple in practicality. Imagine when you were a kid still in school, and remember how your teachers are trying to herd a massive number of little bipedal animals. Commanding an ancient army was a bit like that.
@@snugglecity3500 the musketmen would return to the square after shooting and then return to their positions. The main weakeness was an artillery attack as seen in Rocroi (1643)
+snugglecity3500 The point of it being a combined arms formation is that it allowed the gunners to easily take shelter behind the pikemen if necessary. The Tercio and all other large-block-type formations declined in favor of long, thin, line formations as guns and artillery became more common and powerful. The line maximized the number of musketmen who could shoot at once while minimizing the number of men who could be hit by a single cannonball ripping through the formation. Instead of, like, 10 guys getting hit like in a solid square, only 3 or 4 might get hit.
@@rodsin8780 if the square was surrounded by infantry with pikemen in the center where would they return to? If a cavalry unit charges them why are the infantry at the front? Shouldnt the pikemen be at the front for protection?
I missed it. Which ones this time? The "here's the clip you're looking for", the uttp ones or the "here's a clip of kings and generals doing [redacted]"?
NO. The Tercio is not a formation, but an administrative and operational unit, made up of companies of pikemen and marksmen. It is the direct successor of the colonelies of the Italian wars, and the Spanish equivalent of the Landsknecht or Swiss regiments, with the difference that unlike these it was a national troop and not mercenaries. The confusion of calling a formation "Tercio" comes from German and Anglo-Saxon historiography, which focuses on troops from other countries (for example, Austria) that adopted some formations used by the Tercios, but not their recruitment and organization model.
yeah the Tercio is more similar to the Roman Legions, while a formation would be something like the Roman Triplex Acies (used by the legions, but not the same).
@@emilioliano9411 Exactly. The formation that appears in the video is a bastioned squadron (or square). Another error is the mention of swordsmen as an integral part of the formations. The rodeleros were never a formal part of the Tercio: the soldiers were equipped with shields and swords if the situation required it, but they were not a type of troop on paper. Officially they were corseletes (armored pikemen), who exchanged their weapons for shields or halberds if they had to abandon formation to accompany the harquebusier sleeves or assault a breach.
@@senseishu937 Well that's not true 😅. All the soldiers of the Tercio carried swords as sidearms, but the offensive weapons were the pike, the arquebus and later the musket. Halberds, greatswords and Rodelas (round or oval shields that are sometimes wrongly translated as bucklers) were specialist weapons that were only used in specific situations by pikemen. Of these three, the most common were halberds and other polearms. The combination of sword and shield where it was most common was in sieges, especially in breach attacks, underground warfare (tunnels), and reconnaissance missions near enemy walls; but the swordsman never existed as a type of troop.
There's some firsthand accounts of pike-squares getting hit by round shot and they're truly horrifying, as it would tear through the whole length of the square and fuse every soldier it hit into a big blob of flesh and crushed steel
That... looks wrong. Why are the firelocks placed completely outside the formation, completely vulnerable to cavalry? And the pikes which are supposed to protect the gunners from cavalry are just bunched up in the middle?
They’re outside so that they don’t misfire and hit any of the pikemen or swordsmen. They’re small so highly mobile. And go into the formation in case the enemy army decides to charge. The animation is a little off though. There’s normally 6-12 groups of arquebusiers outside the formation not just 4.
Also if the pikemen were outside they’d easily get flanked.. dude are you looking at the size of those spears. How do you turn? The Macedonian phalanx could easily be flanked from the sides which is why Alexander had swordsmen next to them and cavalry protecting both flanks. With Alexander his companion cavalry always taking the right flank
@chickenmaster66 That's the entite point of the pike square! You can not flank a pike square since the formation is a mixture of pikes, firelocks, and swordsmen with a 360° field of view, not 3 individual squares. The only real way to break a pike&shot formation is to outgun it with cannons, have your firmation advance and whitle them down with firelocks or grind it out in a melee eith pikes and swordsmen fighting inbetween the rows of pikes.
It was so the swordsmen and gunners could move around the pikemen and use them as a wall If the formation as a whole wanted to move the pikemen couldn’t be facing in all directions like a pike square so that’s where the swordsmen come in to protect the flanks along with gunners as they’re more flexible The whole point was to get a formation that could respond to most battlefield situations
Multiple of these squares were deployed at once. The shot were formed into way more than 4 squares and would rotate from the front to inside the formation (hence, sleeves). Similar to roman maniples, these units could maneuver somewhat independently, causing and exploiting breaches in enemy lines and it was easy for pikes to close their own line in front of any cavalry charge.
4 месяца назад
For all those watching this video, several things should be made clear about the Tercios: _ The Tercio shown is only from the first Royal Ordinance of 1536 (there were several updates to the Ordinances every 10 or 30 years) and the rodeleros were already practically in disuse by then, replaced a few years later by more pikemen and arquebusiers (the rodelas were only still used in siege assaults); removing the rodeleros from the equation, of the 3,000 men that made up a Tercio, 60% were pikemen, while the arquebusiers were 40%. By the year 1568, 5% of musketeers were added (a number that grew from only 200 men, to being practically half of the total number of firearms), reducing the total number of soldiers from 3,000 to 2,500; While by 1600, there were more firearms than pikemen in the Tercios and they went from 2,500 to 1,500 men, to then be reduced in the Ordinances of 1632 to 1,000 men (by then, 60% of the soldiers were musketeers and 40% were pikemen). The Tercios continued to reduce in number until 1680 when they were the size of a Battalion of approximately 480 men and adding bayonets to the arsenal to compensate for the decrease in pikemen. _ The Tercios were a true military revolution in themselves, being the first modern national army to be made up of professional volunteer soldiers (without levies or mercenaries) and for its military innovations; before this military model the pikes were used in a medieval way (like the Swiss) and the arquebusiers were not integrated into the formations (but were separate entities like the archers). Its origin is found in the modernization reforms of the army of Castile and Aragon carried out by the Catholic Monarchs after the War of Granada at the end of the 15th century, using the Swiss model as inspiration; but the tactics and strategic use of this unit in combat were perfected and officially established by Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (The Great Captain) in the Italian Wars with his "Coronelias" (the first version of the Tercios that functioned until the Ordinances of 1536 and consisted of 6,000 men). Therefore he should be considered historically as the true Father of the Modern armies, since the reforms carried out by Maurice of Nassau with his Dutch battalions and by Gustav Adolf II with the Swedish Brigade, were inspired by the Tercios (which were their starting point). _ The Tercios were not a tactical combat formation, but a logistical, organizational and strategic entity (as would be a Swedish Brigade or a Roman legion), the true tactical combat unit were the 10 or 15 autonomous companies of 300 or 250 men each that formed it and that functioned like the Dutch Battalions or a Roman Cohort, which were grouped in different ways depending on the situation (sometimes they were grouped in a huge combat regiment as we saw in the video, other times they were subdivided into several combat battalions or functioned in loose companies), with the only exception that they always kept the sleeves of musketeers or arquebusiers separate from the main body of pikemen (to have more flexibility and maneuverability, which was the true characteristic of the Tercios) and the "formation" that everyone takes like that of the Tercios in this video, is the one they used only defensively. _ Each Tercio was commanded by a Field Master, who only had control of the troops at a strategic level (In the case of forming part of a complete army, they were under the orders of the Captain General and his staff, who commanded all the Tercios, the cavalry and the artillery, but always giving them freedom of initiative as the case may be), while it was the Sergeant Major (his second in command) who gave tactical orders to each company and formed them according to need. The companies were tactically independent as I said in the previous point, they were commanded by a captain and were subdivided into other smaller units commanded by sergeants, second lieutenants and squad corporals (who commanded the squads of 25 men, which was the smallest unit within the companies). Of the 10 companies of 250 men, 8 were made up of 80 corslets pikemen, 120 light pikemen and 50 arquebusiers, the remaining two were made up of 250 arquebusiers; from the year 1568, 20 light pikemen were removed from each company and replaced by 20 musketeers (the division of roles in the company continued to change always in favor of introducing more firearms). _ The formations used by the Tercios were not monolithic as seen here (which is just the static position formation, with the arquebusier sleeves in each corner), the sleeves of arquebusiers were in constant movement around the squadron and were deployed in front of the pikemen firing at the enemy (If you search for the Battle of Newpoort in 1600 on Google images, you will find a Dutch engraving showing the Tercios squadrons marching across the battlefield, with the arquebusiers' sleeves in front of the pike square to shoot better), in case the cavalry attacked they would retreat within the pikemen square, which adopted a less rectangular shape to withstand the attack; on the other hand, the rodeleros fell into disuse in the middle of the 16th century, so just ignore their existence in the formation shown in the video (generally they only left the pike formation when charging against enemy pikemen and they stay within the formation, not around it as shown in the video). By the year 1590, the arquebusiers were located where the rodeleros are placed in this video and the musketeers were located in the sleeves (increasing the effectiveness and power of the shot). _ The basis of the Spanish armies was made up of the Old Tercios of Spanish origin (the most veteran and the elite), but with each European expansion they created more Tercios with other nationalities that made up the Empire, as is the case of the Italian Tercios (the second best), the Walloon and German Tercios (they were considered of lower quality); but in addition to these nationalities, several soldiers from Ireland, England, Scotland, Portugal, Croatia, Hungary, Austrians and even natives or mestizos from America and the Philippines also formed companies within the Tercios.
3 месяца назад
Evolution of the formations most used by the companies of the Tercios when they grouped together into a large squadron or combat regiment (the most common in each period, not the only one they used): Legend: ◇ - Arquebusiers ♤ - Pikemen ¤ - Musketeers Note: swordsmen with shields are only used in sieges, they are normally corselet pikemen who change their weapon configuration. Ordinance of 1536 - the view in the video: ♤: 2,000 ◇: 1,000 ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇◇◇ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ◇◇◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ Ordinance of 1568: ♤: 1,430 ◇: 1,420 ¤: 150 ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇¤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤◇◇◇ ¤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤ ¤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤ ◇◇◇¤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤◇◇◇ ◇◇◇¤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ ◇◇◇ Ordinance of 1598: ♤: 1,040 ◇: 1,260 ¤: 200 ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤ ◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇ ◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇ ◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇ ◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇ ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ ¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ Time between 1620 - 1632: ♤: 600 ◇: 700 ¤: 200 ¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤ ◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇ ◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇ ◇♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤◇ ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ ¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤ ¤¤ ¤¤ Ordinance of 1632: ♤: 350 ◇: 400-450 ¤: 200-250 ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ ¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤¤ ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ March and attack version of the formation: ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ¤¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤¤ ¤¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤¤ ¤¤¤ ¤¤¤ From 1650 to 1679 (from these dates onwards, the sleeves cease to separate from the main body of pikemen in a more static manner, except when they must be withdrawn within the pikemen in cavalry attacks): ♤: 320 ¤: 480 ¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤ Last Ordinances of the Tercios in 1680: ♤: 144 ¤: 288 ¤¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ...
Extremely interesting, thank you for taking the time to post it! I hope you posted it on the comments on a non-short youtube video, as I expect it would find better reception under a long form rather than short form video.
23 дня назад
@@wilhelmvonscholz2836 Well, although it is not exactly the same information, I have posted similar comments trying to correct or provide a better understanding in some Kings and Generals videos (Italian Wars and The Battle of Rocroi), but most of them I have posted on a channel that focuses more on the Early Modern Age such as Sandhroman (the video of the Tercios, Gustav Adolf II, Maurice of Nassau and so on). However, unlike what you think, never had so many people read the corrections that I have posted as it happens in this short video, in long videos people are lazy to read long comments, however in this case it is the other way around, people are left wanting to know more and are more open to receive extra information from the comments (unfortunately when I reviewed it, there were only very few correct contributions, most people did not understand anything and the rest of them posted outdated information about the Tercios). The problem with the Tercios is that most of the updated information is in Spanish, which is my native language, like with Eduardo de Mesa Gallego (he has worked in English-speaking universities, so there should be essays in English by him) or Julio Albi de la Cuesta, as well as in Italian by Davide Maffi; on the other hand, the information that is most widely believed to be basic on the English-speaking Internet is taken from Geoffrey Parker (from whom historians take everything as absolute truth, without questioning, and who leaves several incorrect prejudices about the Tercios) and Quatrefages (which has better information, but is also wrong on several things and is out of date). For me, the biggest mistakes spread about the Tercios in European military historiography are: _ Taking away the authorship of the Father of Modern Warfare from Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (the Great Captain) to give it to later reformers who only adapted his invention, such as Maurice de Nassau (with his Dutch battalions) and even worse Gustav Adolf II (with his Swedish Brigades). _ Describing them as an almost medieval unit that never adapted to new trends and formed in inflexible formations (when a Tercio from 1536 has nothing to do with those from 1598, 1632 or 1680, where they even used bayonets), instead of showing Los Tercios as the military revolution that changed the history of war (as it really was), using for the first time a large number of firearms in a combined manner and being made up of professional soldiers from different social classes, who voluntarily joined the army (at a time when the majority were levies, with mercenaries and a few professional men-at-arms), with long military careers and meritorious promotions in the officer corps. _ That the Tercios were the combat unit, when in reality they were the 10 or 12 companies that made it up (the companies were like the cohorts or manipulos, those that were really used tactically on the battlefield). _ The Tercios were a military formation like the phalanxes, when in reality they were only a logistical and administrative grouping like a legion that brought together the companies that did fight separately, joined in different battalions (small squadrons) or joined in a regiment (large squadrons as in the video), depending on the situation. _ And the worst of all is to think that the Tercios became obsolete after the Battle of Rocroi in 1643, when in 1642 they defeated a French army in Honnecourt, while at the end of 1643 they annihilated another combined French and Saxon army in Tuttlingen; the true greatest defeat occurred almost a decade later in the Battle of the Dunes in 1658 and even so they continued to function until the Nine Years' War at the end of that century (they were never totally obsolete, but they had been surpassed by the quality of commanders and recruits from other countries, due to the crisis that the Empire experienced between the end of the government of Philip IV and the government of Charles II).
The actual formation was hollow quite often to provide safety to musketeers when cavalry was nearly upon them When fully in roundshot from a well skimmed angle could stream through around 8-40 men
@@xtYLT2IY8 when the formation moves to force the enemy from the field ( gunmen and some melee users wait behind, rest bunch up and charge ) A single shot could stream through up to 80 men if well placed, only limit is depth of formation
We Spaniards put the pike back into military doctrines. It is curious that almost two thousand years ago Alexander's armies also used them with devastating effectiveness.
As described, that is the initial formation, with the arquebus "mangas" detached from the nucleus, and firing with a wide angle of vision. As enemy aproached, mangas retreated into the mass of pikemen. If engaged, pikemen fixed the enemy, while swordmen flanked, and arquebuses looked for shots of opportunity...
Surely having the pikemen in front of the sword infantry would be the best way to counter against cavalry? Or would the swordsmen retreat into the central square of pikes if a cavalry charge happens?
That's what interests me as well. I understand that the rear pikemen are to protect the rear and the tercio used to be able to fight 360°, but I feel like the square is wider than the length of the spear. Meaning that the pikemen in the middle were not engaged all the time. There are a lot of visualisations of standing tercios but hard to find tercio in fight.
The animation exaggerates the presence of swordsman I think. There might have been some, but the infantry would have been almost entirely pikemen and arquebusiers.
The formation is flexible. The 3 elements move around/inside of each other depending on the situation. So if cavalry approach the pikes will move to the outside while the other move inside of the pike square. The arquebusiers did not rigidly stick to the corners of the formation and their companies would move around as needed. Also remember the army isn't 1 big Tercio there would be several so they could mutually support each other.
Why have pikemen behind the swordsmen? Swordsmen should be there to back up the pikemen, taking care of anyone who slips in. Gunners can take shots outside the square and move inside if attacked. And you need artillery and cavalry as well, and to avoid tight formations in the gunpowder age.
Seems a bit misrepresented A tecio had a hollow square sometimes using 4 lines linking up Musketeers were in the external squares for firing on mass and in waves Arquebussiers would skirmish around the square The swordsmen were not in a line around the pikes but muxed between swords, pijes and halberds making a thin line no more than 3 ranks deep infront of the pikes so they had toom to fall back, their job was to deflect enemy pikes snd just generally shove them si theur points are too far forward and steep to comr down and hit yoir men while pikes protected from cavalry
@@amh9494 arquebuses and cavaliers were lighter than muskets and used in a role similar to Napoleonic wars light infantry, they could carry daggers, pistols if rich enough and all while having lighter kit, a less cumbersome weapon that barely required a fork due to its weight not affecting sway and trees being suitable to prop it up
Ah yes, let's put our guys with short range weapons infront of our guys with massive pointy death sticks so the pointy death sticks can't do what they were designed to do...
Actually the massive pointy death sticks were, indeed, massive and went beyond the swordmen formation so it actually covered them from direct assault from cavalry while the swordmen covered the pikemen from infantry trying to sneak up to them as the worst enemy of a pike was a double-handed sword
Actually, the pikes were like 5m long, covering the swordmen. The swordmen could also hide inside the pikes as the pikemen change their position with swordsmen and riflemen units. I recommend you see Alatriste Battle of Rocroi
The best army of modern history ,unstoppable for 150 years. And Rocroy was a result of betrayal. The 🐐 army were the almogavares of course, never defeated.
How did it react to a cavalry charge? Now the pikemen are in the middle, i.e. totally useless towards cavalry, and the other ones are extremely vulnerable. These formations have had to have a huge amount of training to work well.
I’d presume the swordsmen would kneel down &/or disperse while the pikemen come up from behind them to lower the pikes across the ranks. The pikes wouldn’t need to stick out far, just far enough to discourage incoming horses. But then again, this is the first time I’m hearing of it, so your guess is as good as mine. 🤷♂️
When Calvary charge is incoming. The pike men form a porcupine formation, they'll make space gaps for musketeers to come in after kiting. The swords men would position close to pikemen, crouch below the pikes and kill any Calvary riders that fell off the horse during the collision.
It was so the swordsmen and gunners could move around the pikemen and use them as a wall If the formation as a whole wanted to move the pikemen couldn’t be facing in all directions like a pike square so that’s where the swordsmen come in to protect the flanks along with gunners as they’re more flexible The whole point was to get a formation that could respond to most battlefield situations
Later, yes, but to begin, the swords men were in the front and flanks, to protect the sides and to break the deadlock during a push of pike; later they moved to the middle, and then were replaced by more pikemen altogether; Sandrhoman History has a more detailed video on the evolution on the formation
This seems Like a terrible idea The arquebussiers are exposed to cavalry, the swordsmens lines too thick for the Spears to Defend Them, and the whole Thing is a giant target For artillery
Do tercio groups usually were deployed in a line? Could enemy cav also go for the gap between each square? Also, wasn't tercio formation's overall firepower weaker than the usual skirmisher line tactics since the front line is also occupied by melee infantries?
The musket in this era was not as efficient as in Napoleonic war.. Its heavier, and usually requires forward support (Kind of like Bipod) when shooting. And also, took longer to reload. Bayonet wasn't developed yet, that's why Musketeers formation would be accompanied by melee infantries. This is why the era is called Pike and Shot Formation. Lastly, while it's not shown in the video, there's several of this Tercios formation in the field, protecting each other flank. And on the furthermost flank, there would also be cavalry division guarding it. On top of that, in the rear, they are usually supported by cannons..
The number of pike and musket do varies as the time progress and more countries adopted it. Most notably were the Dutch, where they created a more flexible type of the formation. Make the pike square smaller, but supported by larger number of Musketeers.. It makes them to be more mobile and flexible in the field..
Flintlock muskets and firearms becoming cheaper, but artillery becoming more accurate had an overall higher impact. You don't want great collumns of pikes marching, while a few enemy cannons can bombard them to nothing.
@@Ellipse_is i don't think OP understands that this video is displaying the formations first phase. From what I've read the formation slowly changes during battles and it doesn't look like this the whole time. Maybe they think this formation is bad cause the spearmen are in the middle, providing no defense against calvary.
@@fillio4012Yeah I think uninformed people like myself were confused by that, I was curious to why there were so many ranks of swordsmen in front of the spears/pikes I'll try to google how the formation changes!
Also Medieval 2 Total War: Tercio pikemen for the Spanish and Portuguese. I also complement them with arquebusiers (better if musketeers) and Sword and buckler men.
The other European powers with England and Framce enlarged the victiries over Spain in fact for exemple the Spanish Armada defeat consecuently the defeat of English Armada in 1.589 agaisnt north of Spain specially in La Coruña with enormous looses inclusively more than Spanish Armada ; France and Rocroi is true the Tercios loose but no loose the rest of battles in fact for exemple in Valenciennes or Tutligen the true is in Rocroi the Spanish Tercios is the decline of invincibility but not the end .
Tercio: Has a letter C Pronunciation: “Terthio” Spanish is weird. (Source: I had a Spanish teacher in high school who was a native Spaniard, and they pronounced “piscina” the same way.)
"C" is a different letter than "S", so for me, as a Spaniard, the fact that you don't make a difference is very weird. English isn't precisely logical in the correlation between orthography and phonetics.
@joso5681 Even in most parts of Andalucia (southern Spain) people pronounce s, c and z the same way, but standard Castilian from Spain makes the difference loud and clear.
Wouldn't it have been better if the Pikes were the outer most defense? Like put the muskets in the middle along with the 4 swordmen now in the 4 square formations but inside the pikes to easily reinforce the pikes for close melee and provide extra protection for the musketeers?
This formation makes a lot of sense. Cuz the enemy would face the swordsmen while the pikemen gave support to the swordsmen while the enemy had a difficult time reaching the pike me. additionally the gunners were able to support ether side of the formation
I see the benefit of all these types of units together, and I understand it can flex, but this shape shown in most of the video feels so backwards. am I wrong in thinking the defensive line of pikemen shouldnt be surrounded by a defensive line?
Do a special on the grand leader of the tercios: sancho de londono, the great military general, who also wrote very important literary works, such as “returning to roman military discipline”
No exactly the Román legion is similar but no exactly the Tercio is adapted to " new ages" the "creation" of Spanish Tercios is work of Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba " El Gran Capitán".
Very cool video. But please keep in mind that a massive square like that was hardly ever used. We learned from the swiss mistakes. Each company formed their own square, with just 200 or 300 men, that's why they were so flexible. A tercio is not a combat, but an administrative division. Different companies of a tercio could be sent to different places.
Human battle formations are predicated on availability of personnel (trained and untrained), resources and type of weaponry. All of that changes through the course of human history. For the record - since the days of Napoleon to recent past, Artillery has been known as the ‘King of Battle’ and Infantry known as the ‘Queen of Battle’ because the killing power and range of artillery is greater. But that concept is running out of date with continual changes in battlefield management and deployments of Special Operations forces. Gone are the days of large armies of infantry, tanks, and artillery facing off. (Yes, I know. Someone should inform the Russians and the Chinese. Or maybe they are ‘informing’ or reminding us!) Sequence of historic warfare weaponry and rendered technical and functional obsolescence: Sticks & stones > clubs > spears & pikes > slings > bow & arrow > metal edge blades/knives & swords > compound bow & arrow > horse mounted swordsmen, pikemen, archers (calvary) > trebuchet > explosives > fixed breech fuse cannon & ball (artillery) > flint musket/pistol > explosive ball artillery > rifling barrel cap & ball rifle and pistol > cartridge ball and projectile/explosive rounds (pistol/rifle/artillery) > Gatling gun > breech load artillery > fighter/bomber aircraft, motorized artillery & tanks, mines & varied explosives > nuclear & biological weaponry of mass destruction > rail gun (magnetic propulsion) > earth orbiting weapon platforms > unmanned aerial weaponry (drones) > bot, robot, AI machinery of varied sophistication for land/air/space/sea ordinance delivery. At this point, human imagination is unlimited.
I cant hel but feel like the formation is inside out. I feel like archers on the inside, followed by swordsmen, followed by spearmen, would be defensible and flexible. Spearmen can hold a line, if one falls a swordsman can take over. It can unravel to stop from being surrounded and form a line, it could hold structure, and it could release the swordsmen to loop around and flank. Or maybe I play too much RTS games lol
Why are the arquebusiers outside the safe formation of the pikemen? Why are swordmen in Front of the pikemen? Both will get big problems when cavallary arrives.
India's most powerful formation: "The Legendary ChakraVyuh Formation" Along with many other formations.... (Used in the legendary battle of MahaBharata)
I don’t see how this is a good formation tactically, the pikemen, who are typically used to counter charges are in the exact opposite of where they should be, with the swordsmen surrounding the pikemen they have very little room to maneuver and won’t be able to effectively respond to enemy cavalry. On top of that the ranged units of the army are not only spaced out as much as possible, which decreases the amount of fire they are able to pour on oncoming enemies, but they also have no immediate protection from allied infantry. Now I’m no military commander, but this formation seems to have extremely blatant flaws. Could someone in the comments who might be more knowledgeable better explain this formations strengths to me?
Uh, what? This formation makes no sense. At least when visualised like that. Pikemen that are supposed to repell the enemy charges will never engage, the swordsmen will not allow that. The most vulnerable units - arquebusiers - are not covered by anyone, just free XP for the enemy.
This evolved into square formation which replaced pikemen and arquebusiers with infantrymen holding bayonet added rifles. The devastating power of square formation was shown by Napoleon at battle of pyramid fighting thousands of armed mamluk cavalrymen.
I need to see this thing in action cuz i just dont get it. Why not have the swordsmen on the inside, pikes on the outside. Its a pincushion, any breakthrough will be swarmed on by fast moving mobile swordsmen. I feel like in this formation i could obliterate your 2 outer layers, even push them into your own pikes, before i even got to the pikemen, where i could take my time picking apart since theyre virtually immobile.
This formations doesn't make sense, you have pikemen in the middle for repelling charges, shouldn't they form an outside wall, or maybe change spot's with the short-range swordsmen? Not to mention they also put range troops to the corners which makes even less sense overall...
Why weren't the pikes on the outside and the swords on the inside? Couldn't the pikes form the outside perimeter while the swords being smaller and having more flexibility pulg and support and gaps and breakthroughs? Someone who knows more about Renaissance warfare please educate me
That's a stupid arrangement. The swordsmen should be inside a hollow square of spear/pikemen so as to defend them from close combat. If you place them on the outside they are vulnerable to opposing pikemen.
but how exactly do the pikemen defend against charges if they’re in the middle? Do the swordsmen just move out elsewhere or what? I struggle understanding how these formations work, as i usually just imagine them holding tight and still all the time haha.
It seems a bit backwards, wouldn't the swordsman get demolished by cave charges? And by the time they reach the pike they've already suffered massive casualties? And did they decide screw archers they don't need protection?
Is this as stupid as it looks? Spears in the centre where they can’t reach the enemy, swordsmen in the way, and vulnerable ranged units outside of the protective square, ready to get chopped up by cavalry? Can someone make it make sense?
I don't quite get it, what good is a bunch of pikement if they're behind five lines of guys with swords? Sounds like a recipe for friendly fi- thrusts.
