Talk:Swiss mercenaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Swiss mercenaries is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Larry Dunn: I would suggest that the article not be merged into the Middle Ages Swiss Warfare article, as Swiss mercenaries served in armies until the 20th century. Furthermore, even in the Middle Ages, Swiss mercenaries fought with somewhat different tactics than in cantonal armies. Thank you.

This article is horribly non-neutral POV. -anon

I'd grant you it is not brilliant yet, but do you have any gripes in particular? dab (ᛏ) 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
As the author of the conversion of this page from a stub, I too would like to know if you have specifics concerning bias. I have based all of my revisions on the histories cited in the references. User:Larry Dunn
from where I sit, things like "were massacred protecting the king from the mob" and "the Landsknechts were never quite as proficient or brave as the Swiss" sound a little bit cheesy and idealizing, but these are minor quibbles. looking over it, I find it quite well written after all, thanks for investing your time in expanding it! dab (ᛏ) 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a point about the Landsknecht reference, although in English the massacred reference would not really be considered idealizing. Even the landsknecht reference is true, if you look at the record -- the Swiss basically never lost a push of pike to the Landsknechts in a straight fight, unless the L. were protected by fortifications or a ditch (and with the exception of Pavia, and even then it's thought that the L. force heavily outnumbered the Swiss).
I point you to de:Reisläufer, which more soberly allows for a shift in bravery or proficiency over time,
Anfangs galten Landsknechte als die schlechteren Schweizer und erhielten geringeren Sold und weniger Beute. Durch verschiedene politische Ereignisse und militärische Niederlagen der Reisläufer schwand jedoch ihr Ansehen und ihre Verfügbarkeit, wodurch die deutschen Landsknechte in den folgenden Kriegen Europas die dominierenden Söldnertruppen waren.
dab (ᛏ) 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
(Larry Dunn): Reputation and availability are not exactly the same thing as actual ability (and by the way, I would question the assertion that the L.'s reputation was very high -- see below). Even as late as the end of the French Wars of Religion Swiss pikemen invariably bested landsknecht pikemen at push-of-pike. The Landsknechts were the "dominating Mercenary troops" because anyone could hire them -- after Marignano the Swiss became neutral, other than regarding service with the King of France. As a result, the L. were seen everywhere, whereas the Swiss were simply a block of troops in the French army.
The sources make it very clear that, even in the mid to late 16th century, Landsknechts were little valued as battlefield troops, being scorned, for example, by the Spanish components of Imperial armies (I could provide a source for that if you'd like). The Huguenots hired them because they had no other pikemen available, and they served the Huguenots quite poorly. Significantly, nowhere in Landsknecht service do you see combat performance like that shown by the Swiss square at the battle of Dreux, which is well-summarized in Wood's book The Kings Army and also in this url:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Bunker/7475/dreux.htm
I understand that the praise for the Swiss might seem somewhat less than sober, but we need not always moderate our comments when praise is actually due. Thanks.


fair enough, I suppose the Swiss were quite a phenomenon, at least for a period of 50 years or so. Do you, by any chance, have more information on those "Spanish Sword and Buckler Men" you mention? I've heard about those, but I wouldn't know where to look for them. q∀p (ᛎ) 14:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oman's Art of War in the Sixteenth Century has a section on them -- they actually started as an Italian attempt to revive the legionary swordsman, but were adopted by the Spaniards who used them with great efficiency. (They were in the front ranks of the fighting in the Americas, for instance.) When the spanish adopted the Tercio, they used Sword and Buckler men the same as Swiss and Germans used halberdiers -- to break the deadlock of the push of pike. If they could get into the Swiss or Landsknecht pikes, they absolutely slaughtered them -- it wasn't pretty. What Oman does not mention, however, is that, if the Swiss or L. were not disordered, the Swiss or L. would roll right over them, as the Swiss did at Seminara (Oman is rather dogmatic). They were also terribly vulnerable to attack by enemy cavalry, as Oman admits, and so they were phased out in the middle of the 16th century, whereas the pike still had a role until around 1700. Ciao, Larry
ps: I played with the language I used regarding the Spanish swordsmen and the landsknects a bit to make it seem less biased.
so, if we wanted to do an article about them, what title should we pick? (what was the Spanish term for them?) btw, Larry, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~. (ᛎ) q∀p 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably "Sword and Buckler Men" -- I don't know the Spanish terminology for them. I could definitely put together an article, from the Italian origins to the end, when they were revived during the 30 Years War with iron shields to protect the pikemen from being shot (!), but I don't know how to start an article. Larry Dunn 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
well, I'm creating a stub for you, feel free to expand. (ᛎ) qɐp 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I figured out the proper term rodelero, too (from a swordforum.com thread, where else:) (ᛎ) qɐp 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What, if anything, can be done about removing the tag at the top of the page suggesting Swiss Warfare and Tactics in the Middle Ages be merged into this one? This page includes history as mercenaries, so the Swiss medieval tactics really don't belong on this page. Larry Dunn 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

just remove it? If someone objects, try debate, but it appears that the tag is obsolete at this point. (ᛎ) qɐp 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravenna

The statement "Landsknechts, using a formation similar to that of the Swiss, were defeated with terrible slaughter by the Spanish Sword and Buckler Men at the Battle of Ravenna" is , to put it mildly, misleading. At the Battle of Ravenna the Spaniards suffered a crushing defeat. I am changing so as to preserve the intended meaning. Stammer 10:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a perfectly apt description. The Landsknects were indeed defeated with terrible slaughter at Ravenna. It was the returning French gendarmerie that defeated the Spanish, who were in disorder after having overthrown the Landsknechts.Larry Dunn 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, they were "in disorder"? Tut-tut. They shouldn't.Stammer 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)