Caracole question

[Gladi]

Bright day
What I read caracole was not powerfull tactics, but I was thinking that in conjuction with charge of heavy cavalry it should be, no? Your reiters beak up the pikemen formation with gunfire who are then immidietly slammed by lancers. The idea was that both groups start moving forward at the same time but reiters finish their manouver just as lancers enter the fray...

Does anybody if this was how it could work?

EDIT: SHoot forgot to add -e

 

[Rambuchan]

Sounds about right to me. But I am no military expert.

However, I do know that the Mayan Caracol did not use such tactics (is this the Caracol you refer to?). Mainly because they did not have such military 'hardware' (see TLC's "Classic Maya" civ3 conquests scenario for more on Caracol in the civ flesh).

 

[Gladi]

Sounds about right to me. But I am no military expert.

However, I do know that the Mayan Caracol did not use such tactics (is this the Caracol you refer to?). Mainly because they did not have such military 'hardware' (see TLC's "Classic Maya" civ3 conquests scenario for more on Caracol in the civ flesh).

Caracole it is in english not just caracol

 

[Richard Cribb]

I am also not a military historian exactly, but I did specialize in the Thirty Years War, and it so happens that I used this as one of the topics for one of my PM-quizzes.

This is what I wrote then:

17. In military history, what was a caracole?

An attempt to integrate gunpowder weapons into cavalry tactics. Equipped with one or two wheellock pistols, cavalrymen would advance on their target at less than a gallop. As each rank came into range, the soldiers would turn away, discharge their pistols at the target, retire to reload, and then repeat the manoeuvre.
The caracole as a military device on its own generally eventually proved ineffective. It sacrificed the cavalry advantages of speed and mobility, while also leaving mounted soldiers at a disadvantage to massed infantry equipped with heavier and longer-ranged weapons. The caracole gave way to close artillery support for cavalry - breaking up the infantry formations, forcing the soldiers to scatter and allowing cavalry the advantage in numerous individual combats.

So you see that this typical device from the Spanish school while elegant, was a bit tortuos and it lost quite a lot of its charm when faced with the salvo of fast-shooting Swedish musketeers. I think it is commonly asserted that it was the Swedish cavalry under Gustav II Adolf that improved on the use of cavalry by instead of letting the cavalerists, in small rectangular formations, and backed up by musketeers, charge the enemy in gallop with sabres in hands.
It illustrates the problem with the Spanish school; solid, but not sufficiently mobile.

 

[Gladi]

I am also not a military historian exactly, but I did specialize in the Thirty Years War, and it so happens that I used this as one of the topics for one of my PM-quizzes.

Yes that is what wikipedia says. But that is "how it is done" not "how is it used". How was it used in conjecture with other troops. As I said swift strike from heavy cavalry would make sense to me, but from what little I seen the reiters would instead do caracole after caracole while allowing the squares to reform.

Also wasit not favourite german cavalry technique?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Yes that is what wikipedia says. But that is "how it is done" not "how is it used". How was it used in conjecture with other troops. As I said swift strike from heavy cavalry would make sense to me, but from what little I seen the reiters would instead do caracole after caracole while allowing the squares to reform.

I don't know anything about wikipedia, but I apologise for misunderstanding you.
Usually it would be used together with tercios, which was an infantery formation consisting of huge squares with lots of pikemen who would advance slowly towards the enemy after use of heavy artillery. Like I said, it was solid rather than mobile, and unstoppable for quite a long time.
Eventually it made more sense to emphasize mobility and firepower more, which is exactly why the caracol was abandonned.

Also wasit not favourite german cavalry technique?

Yes, and I do believe that also the Swedish army used it for quite a long time.

 

[Gladi]

I know tercios. So it was not used to prepare for cavalry charge... hmm strange. It was development of formation which obsoleted cavalry charges at first. It would seem to me that its synergy would be greater with heavy cavalry than infantry. Well they prolly knew better.

 

[Adler17]

Well, until Gustav II. Adolf entered the 30 years war this was the favourite tactics of European armies. The Caracolla was abandoned with Gustav II. Adolf. The tercios were more and more given up in favour of smaller lines of musquetiers, which had a tremendous fire power. So a Caracolla was not able to beat them as the guns of the cavalry were not so accurate or long ranged like the ones of the infantry. So he let the cavalry fire only once in attack and then use the lance or sword as the cavalry was superior in the close combat.

Adler