ECW Historical Guides: Infantry Tactics

[Black Watch 1745]

Terms
Battalia- Usually this would be a grouping of several regiments who would then be split into two or three brigades. Sometimes though it could be a much smaller force so, much like the brigade, it can be confusing when to apply it. Normally a senior Colonel would be detached from his regiment to command the Battalia.
Brigade- A somewhat imprecise term. Usually it meant the group of two to three regiments (sometimes more depending on the situation) together in the field. The Scots army did this at Marston Moor where it was two regiments to a brigade. However, sometimes a ‘brigade’ was used to refer to several understrength regiments that had been brigaded together and were fighting as a single unit, as was the case with ‘The Shrewsbury Foot’ at Naseby who were made up of several understrength regiments. Again, like the Battalia, a senior Colonel would be detached to command.
Division- It should not be confused with the modern day equivalent of a division. A regiment of c.500 men would normally be divided into three divisions (one pike, two shotte) meaning that a division is a smaller formation. Presumably each division would be commanded by one of the three senior officers of the regiment (Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and Sergeant-Major).
Company- a unit of c.100 men, several of which would make a regiment. Commanded by a Captain, except in the case of the first Company (commanded by either a Colonel or a Lieutenant-Captain), second company (Lieutenant Colonel) and third (Sergeant-Major).

Introduction
Infantry regiments in the English Civil War had between six and twelve companies (usually less than ten) although on a few rare occasions a regiment could have more at which point it would normally be referred to as a ‘double’ regiment, equivalent to having two battalions in a modern day army. Companies would be a mixture of pikemen and musketeers, in theory the ratio was to be two musketeers for every pikeman but, at the start of the war, it is believed that the Royalists lacked muskets so a 1:1 ratio is more likely. After the fall of Bristol, and its large gun manufactory, the situation improved. By mid-late war the pike was beginning to fall out of use. Returns from the Earl of Essex’s army in 1644 show that there were on average one pikeman for every eight musketeers.
In battle the Pikemen would be massed in the centre of the regiment with the musketeers formed on each flank of the pike block. As far as I am aware, all the colours of the regiment would be massed with the pikemen. I assume that one of the senior officers (Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and Major) would command each part of the regiment.
The three predominant formations used at the time was the Dutch Brigade, the Swedish Brigade and the Spanish Tercio. All three will be explained below:

Dutch Brigade
This is believed to be the most common style of formation used during the war due to its simplicity compared to the Swedish style. It involved forming the pikes in the centre and the musketeers on the flank. The musketeers would be about 8-10 ranks deep (with enough space between each soldier to allow him to pass to the rear if they were advancing) whilst the pike would be 5-10 ranks deep (they would stand shoulder to shoulder as a solid block). In battle the musketeers front rank would fire and reload, the front rank would then move to the rear to reload whilst the second rank would move up to take its place. In theory, by the time the last rank had fired the rank that had first fired would be ready to fire again. When advancing, after the first rank had fired it would remain stationary and reload, the second rank would pass through it, fire and reload, the third rank would pass through, fire and reload etc. A similar system would be used when withdrawing. By firing like this a steady rate of fire could be maintained.
The pike block would be deployed in battle with the first ranks pikes lowered ready to receive the enemy, the second rank would usually have theirs lowered as well over the shoulders of the first rank whilst the third and fourth ranks pikes would be lowered a little ready to lower them to engage if they needed to fill a gap in the line whilst the other ranks would keep theirs up.
On a higher level, the Dutch system would group regiments together into brigades. The brigade would be deployed in three ranks in a chequerboard formation (M stands for musketeer, P for pikemen, please ignore the white lines, I had to put them there since steam formatted it wrong):

______________________________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM
______________________________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM
_________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM______________________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM
_________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM______________________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM
______________________________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM
______________________________MMMM_PPPP_MMMM
The idea behind this was that the second line could support the first whilst the third would act as a reserve. The system was quite popular, particularly with the Parliamentarians, since it was easier for raw and poorly trained troops to use, which is what both sides had to deal with at the beginning of the war.

Swedish Brigade
The Swedish army under Gustavus Adolphus had introduced a system whereby the firepower of the musketeers would be increased but since pretty much all the regiments in the English Civil War were freshly raised initially they did not have time to adopt these tactics although, as the war progressed, they started to be used more
Unlike the Dutch Brigade, which required three lines, the Swedish model consisted of two battle lines rather than one. The number of musketeers would be increased and the ranks reduced to 6 compared to the 8-10 for the Dutch Brigade. Again, similar tactics of firing would be used until the enemy got close. At this point the three ranks at the rear would move forward and fill the gaps, making the musketeers form three ranks, with the first kneeling. All three ranks would then fire one volley, referred to as the “Swedish salve”.
The Swedish Brigade would usually be made up of 2 regiments (each one c.1000 men strong) which would further be divided into squadrons (2 per regiment) making 44 squadrons of 500 men. They would then be deployed in either a diamond pattern of four squadrons or, more commonly, an arrowhead formation of three squadrons like this:

____________________________________PPPP
____________________________________PPPP
_________________MMMM_PPPP______MMMM_____PPPP_MMMM
_________________MMMM_PPPP______MMMM_____PPPP_MMMM
__________________________________________________________
__________________________MMMM___MMMM____MMMM
__________________________MMMM___MMMM____MMMM
The system proved to be very effective and won the Swedish many a battle. Mention is made of armies in the Civil War trying to adopt Swedish tactics, most notably Prince Rupert’s troops (more on that in the upcoming cavalry guide), but the drawback of the system was that it needed well trained troops which neither side had in 1642. However they were used more as the war went on. The Scots, whose army was fairly professionalized by the Civil War and included many Scots officers who had served with the Swedes, were known to have used Swedish tactics.

Spanish Tercio
By the time of the English Civil War, the Spanish Tercio, which had become popular around the 1530’s, was on the decline. The Battle of Rocroi in 1643 saw the Spanish Tercio’s defeated by the French ending their dominance on the battlefield. It is doubtful that this old style of formation was used much in the Civil War, although many Irish troops had served in the Spanish army so it is possible that they would know how to form it.
Initially a tercio would be about 6,000 strong although by the 17th century this had been reduced to 3,000. The centre would be made up of a mass of pikemen, perhaps 1,000 or more if the 1:2 ratio is used. Musketeers, organised into ‘sleeves’, would be deployed at each face and corner of the pike block so that the tercio could fire at any threat from any angle. The main advantage of the tercio was the sheer concentration of pikemen, which proved very useful when engaging in melee and defending against enemy horse. However, it was very cumbersome and lacked the flexibility of the Dutch or Swedish Brigades.

Other formations
I have heard reference made in a few books to the ‘hedgehog’ formation. This was an anti-cavalry formation that the infantry could adopt if threatened. The main premise is that the pikemen would be deployed in the centre of the regiment with their pikes facing outwards, most likely in a circular fashion. The Musketeers would kneel beneath the pikemen, the idea being that the pikemen could keep the cavalry at a distance whilst the musketeers could fire at them, in a way it sounds much like a smaller version of a tercio and the precursor to the square formation that would become prominent in the Napoleonic Wars. It is believed that this is the formation Prince Rupert’s Regiment of Foote used at the Battle of Naseby when it was charged by Cromwell’s cavalry.
Prince Rupert also developed a tactics of detaching units of musketeers (referred to as ‘Commanded Shot’) and dispersing them amongst his cavalry to give them more firepower.
General points about deployment and fighting
Quite a few drill books were produced during the era to help instruct the army. Two illustrations from one such drill book (reprinted in John Barratt’s book ‘Cavalier Generals’) shows how a company would have deployed, I have reproduced it here as accurately as I can. The code is as follows:
C- Captain
L- Lieutenant
E- Ensign
S- Sergeant
D- Drummer
M/W- Musketeer
P- Pikemen
(the circles donates the 'w' fogures original position)

First illustration:
________________________________________Front.
_______________________________________E.___C.
______________________S. M M M M D P P P P P P P P D M M M M S
______________________W M M M M___P P P P P P P P___M M M M_W
______________________W M M M M___P P P P P P P P____M M M M_W
______________________W M M M M___P P P P P P P P____M M M M_W
______________________W M M M M___P P P P P P P P____M M M M_W
________________________M M M M___P P P P P P P P____M M M M
________________________M M M M___P P P P P P P P____M M M M
______________________S._●_●_●_●_D P P P P P P P P_D_●_●_●_●_S.
__________________________________________L.
_________________________________________Reere.
Second illustration:
________________________________________ Front.
______________________S M M M M___________________M M M M__S
______________________W_______________________________________W
______________________W_______________________________________W
______________________W________________E.___C.________________W
____________________S. W M M M M D P P P P P P P P D M M M M S
_________________________M M M M___P P P P P P P P__M M M M
_________________________M M M M___P P P P P P P P__M M M M
_________________________M M M M___P P P P P P P P__M M M M
_________________________M M M M___P P P P P P P P__M M M M
_________________________M M M M___P P P P P P P P__M M M M
_________________________●_●_●_●___P P P P P P P P___●_●_●_●
_________________________●_●_●_● D P P P P P P P P_D_●_●_●_●
__________________________________________L.
_________________________________________Reere.
The two diagrams show the rear two rank of musketeers advancing forward to ‘fire by file’, led by a sergeant. Volleys from the musketeers could often be quite ineffective, especially when conducted by inexperienced troops. It is said that at Naseby the New Model’s musketeers, many of whom were nervous conscripts, fired their volleys right over the heads of the Royalists, barely landing any shots.
Once both sides had got close enough the melee would start. The Pike, formed in an unbreakable pike block, would engage ‘at the push of pike’ whilst the musketeers would usually turn their muskets about and use them as clubs and charge into the fight. Armour was falling out of use in this period but it is believed that the front few ranks of pikemen would be equipped with armour whilst the ranks behind would not. By Naseby it is believed that the New Model’s pike had none at all save for possibly helmets.
At Naseby it has been suggested that the Royalist pikemen actually threw down their pikes once they had started to engage the enemy and charged at them with their swords. This is mentioned in two accounts written by members of the King’s entourage:
1- Sir Edward Hyde, one of the King’s advisers: “the King’s foot, according to their usual custom, falling in with their swords and butt-ends of their muskets.”
2- Sir Edward Walker, the King’s secretary: “…[the Royalist foot] falling in with Sword and butt-end of Musket did notable Execution; so much as I saw their Colours fall, and their foot in great disorder.”
It does seem unusual for pikemen to break formation like this, particularly if cavalry were on the field. However, once they had got beyond the pikes they would have an advantage at short range so perhaps this was a tactics they used.
The Naseby example is a good illustration of the difference between textbook tactics and reality. Tactics would have to be adapted depending on the situation and this was definitely the case with the English Civil War

Firelocks
A brief mention should be made about the firelock. The firelock (flintlock) was starting to become a prominent feature on the battlefield in the English Civil War. Adopted by troops who had fought in Ireland they proved very useful since it meant that the army did not have to use up a load of match cord and if they were conducting a night attack then their position would not be given away by the burning match cords. It soon became common for a regiment to have at least one company equipped with firelocks. Others were raised as independent companies and acted as the vanguard when storming enemy fortifications (Prince Rupert’s Lifeguard of Firelocks leading the storming of Lincoln in 1645 being one example).

Bibliography
- Edward Hyde, Earl of Calrendon’s ‘History of the Rebellion’
- John Barratt ‘Cavalier Generals’
- Steve Morgan, ‘Pike and Shotte’
- BCW project , ‘Pike & Shot Tactics’

[Hazzard]

In studies I've done of the Thirty Years War (In shot, a German civil war where most of the veterans at the start of the Civil War had learnt to fight) had Gustavus Adolphus call the Commanded Shot "plottons" which I think we derive modern platoons from.

I've also seen sources indicating that the pikes didn't always fight and stand shoulder to shoulder. They would be a short distance apart. From my own experience having a bit of space to move around when blocking with a staff (I've used at most 7 ft) makes blocking a lot easier. Not even enough to make a step side to side, but so you don't hit the person next to me.

I want to make this all clear this is on the continent, where factors such as what I think was more grenades and artillery affected things.

On specifically English things, apparently there was a method of pike defense where the point was placed in the ground and the butt held up with one or two hands. This is a much less tiring method of holding ground, since most of the weight is on the ground.

[Michel]

The Tercios tactics of the time were much more complex and modernized than you've described (no offense). They were really flexible and had left those mastodontical squares described here long time ago, and formed with a ratio of 1:3 pikes to muskets at the minimum, sure they used them at Rocroi but it was on the final phase of the battle when they were surrounded (and no they were not destroyed as they retreated the battle field).

I could go on and on here, but I don't want to make this post here something similar to anykind of spam :). I'd gladly talk about this with you anymoment if you want.