Skip to comments.Spanish Tercios: One Of The Greatest Infantry Forces In European History
Posted on 11/14/2019 6:18:11 PM PST by SunkenCiv
Spanish Tercios were considered by many to be the most dominant infantry fighting force throughout Early Modern Europe. Developed as a unit in the first part of the 16th century, they dominated European battlefields for nearly 150 years. Learn what made them so effective and what separated them from other powers that tried to emulate their success on the field of battle. Music: The Spanish Guitar in the Renaissance and Baroque.
Spanish Tercios: One Of The Greatest Infantry Forces In European History | History Uncovered | Published on July 24, 2018
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The success of the Tercio system was an interesting one. Clearly it worked very well for Spain, it had such success that others around Europe, particularly in Italy and Germany were emulating the Spanish pike and shot formations. Yet, it was the Spanish Tercios which are remembered and were by far the most successful.
What made the Spanish Tercios so legendary and brutally proficient? Was their discipline as huge as we think?
by Jesus Rueda Rodriguez
credit to Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau
Looks like its worth watching, thanks !!
Mere pikers when compared to the Highland Clan system of Scotland and their war pipes.
I enjoyed it, I think you will too.
Any PC gamers out there? Pike and Shot covers this eara if the Spanish Tercio.
I’ll take Gustavus Adolphus for $500, Alex.
Until the Dutch changed the arms mix on them by adding more firearms so they had a rolling volley that eventually helped them win independence from Spain after 80 years of fighting.
Nope. Tercios would kick their ass.
At the time the Tercios were being developed, the Scots didn’t do all that well against the English at Flodden (1513) and Solway Moss (1542)
You win at Breitenfeld but you lose at Nördlingen.
I just finished reading the novel Agincourt. It featured the English and Welsh long bowmen who also won at Crecy and Poitier previously. Apparently the reason no other military adopted the long bow was that in England training started at an early age and it took about 10 years to develop the strength and skill to use the long bow. Also, it seems to have become a popular fad which increased skilled members. I also recently read a novel about the struggle to control the Mediterranean Sea in the 1500s. Suliman the Magnificent decided to try to take over the Sea in the early part of century conquering the isle of Rhodes. The Knights Hospitalier fled to Malta and set up shop and had a great battle in the 1560s with Turks. Muslim raids up and down the coasts of Greece, Italy, France, Spain and north Africa decimated populations and had bad results that probably affect those areas even today. I always wondered why Spain did not do better with all that gold and silver coming from the Americas. It was mostly spent on wars and ships. When Pizarro got Atehualpa’s treasure worth more than a million dollars then, the king of Spain had to spend it all to replace his navy which had been destroyed by a freak tornado. And that was just one disaster. Carlos V and Philip II were the unlucky kings, and then the Spanish navy was destroyed by a storm when trying to invade England under Elizabeth. Meanwhile, the poor pope was trying hard to get the various European “Christian” countries to fight the Muslims who were still pixxed over the Crusades.
I have often wondered why the Europeans didn’t invade and conquer the Barbary Coast, which they could have easily done during the centuries they were taking over the New World and fighting with one another in Europe. It wasn’t until the second decade of the nineteenth century that the Barbary pirates were finally subdued.
Goetz von Berlichingen woulda owned this thread
But why omit the Bruce and the battle of Stirling Bridge?
I’m proud of my Scottish heritage, but the Spanish tercios, German landsknechts, Swiss pikemen, or any other heavy infantry or combined arms force of the period would have swept them off the battlefield. The Scots were perfectly fine irregular light infantry. They were effective on their own terrain and for raiding and skirmishing. The Scots also had a warrior culture that produced splendid regular soldiers once they came in numbers into the British army. But light infantry is light infantry. It played an important role in difficult terrain that impeded heavier formations and could be important as auxiliary troops for heavier regular armies. In main force engagements, however, the Scots were one trick ponies. Like so many other “barbarian” armies over the centuries, they relied on a wild charge to break an opponent’s formation, and if that failed, they were overmatched.
Stirling Bridge occurred in 1297, about 300 years earlier. By the sixteenth century, the Scottish spear, which had dominated the battlefields of northern Britain was becoming obsolete as firearms technology advanced.
I watched that last night.
The wild charge by the claymore-waving Scottish Jacobites at Culloden in 1746 actually took some of the government troops down, but the muskets with bayonets and artillery of the government force eventually won the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.