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.
For those wondering why it went extinct: *bayonets made your gunmen able to fight as a melee unit, meaning you didn't have to divide the two into separate groups and could maximize power at all ranges *armies that deployed large quantities of cannons would destroy dense formations from a safe distance *swordsmen are expensive to equip *the evolution of the arquebus and early muskets made them gradually more effective, meaning that ranged firepower could be more devastating if firepower is concentrated on the front line instead of surrounding this square.
should also be noted the bayonet didn’t instantly make pikemen disappear, but slowly phased out as muskets became more effective. sergeants would even carry a halberd or pike as a symbol of rank for a time after.
@@BicornioSPA cannons were very limited during The Renaissance, and you can pin down cannons using your own cannons. Also, there are many types of battlefields, and cannons aren't useful in certain terrains; muddy hilly forests are really common in Europe.
Disclaimer: Not trying to correct you, merely to add more information and detail. Plug bayonets were the first iteration and did not make "melee units" redundant. They were at most a hot-fix to alleviate the obvious weakness of musketeers when forced into melee, particularly facing cavalry. But as the name suggests, the bayonet had to be plugged into the barrel, which both took time and prevented the rifle from being shot once plugged. They had to be firmly lodged in there or it would just fall out during combat, so it was quite difficult to remove from the barrel. Ring bayonets allowed for more flexible use of musketeers (switching between melee and ranged combat seamlessly and not needing time to prepare), which made them far more capable at resisting cavalry charges. Imagine charging at someone on your horse with a saber, when that someone is holding a short spear that may or may not be ready to fire a deadly projectile straight at you. But it still did not make melee troops defunct. It just made the musketeer the most common unit on the battlefield. Other advancements also played a great part in the transition away from melee weapons Such as musket rifling, which increased accuracy and projectile velocity and made approaching a line formation as a melee infantry unit a very bad idea. But also new firing mechanisms that made shooting less finicky and less susceptible to weather. It was only when all of the firearms' weaknesses had been adequately mitigated that purely melee infantry effectively disappeared from the battlefield. And even then, only for the countries that knew how to make firearms, or were wealthy enough to buy them.
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.
@@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?
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.
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.
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]"?
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
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
@@1R4MgMYl7a 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
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.
It was actually highly INflexible, due to being such a large unit. Historians have struggled to understand if it was at all effective and how often it was implemented.
Apparently during Vernon's invasion to Panama the spanish being outnumbered faked the drums of an incoming Tercio, causing the british to run. That's how effective they were
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.
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
Also worth pointing out that the Tercio formation was only formed with swordmen during the first few decades. Later on they disappeared and the arquebusiers became more common. Also. The declined because of the development of line formations and the bayonet.
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.
I would position the pikemen in the outer square to defend against cavalry charges, with the swordsmen positioned in the second or third line, ready to move in and engage the enemy when needed. The archers would be placed in the centre to provide ranged support.
The tercio formation is deployed so that it could respond according to the situation with flexibility. The swords men are support units to act as rear/flank guards to ward off any that pass through the pikes. Pikemen can either form porcupine formation to ward off Calvary from getting flanked, or phalanx formation to engage the enemy in frontal assault. The musketeers, act as skirmishers to weaken the enemies. Should the Calvary charge come. The pike will form a defensive line (porcupine) around it. The swordsmen will position closer to pikemen. While Musketeers kite as much as possible before retreating back to centre. On frontal engagement, the pikemen will form the front line pike formation, the swordsmen would blend in while supporting the flanks to kill any that pass through the pikes. The musketeers fire through any gaps they could find.
the formation shown here is the marching formation, so its used then the formation is moving around the battlefield. when a cavalry charge is immenent, the swordsmen and gunmen are pulled into the center so the pikes can protect them. when engaging against infantry, the gunmen shift to the rear and the swordsmen will move to protect the flanks of the pikrmen as well as attempt to disrupt the enemy formation. however the formation depicted is shown most commonly as its their default formation
Musketeers and harquibusurs not archers. If they were bunched in the center, they wouldn't be able to shoot because their friends would block the line of fire. Like the other commenter said, this is a marching formation; it will respond to different situations depending on who is engaging them. Sowrds men can always run to the sides here and the gunners can easily run behind the large formation sincy they were already at the corners.
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 not a tactical combat formation, but a logistical, organizational and strategic entity (as would be a Swedish Brigade), the true tactical combat unit were the 10 or 15 autonomous companies of 250 men each that formed it and that functioned like the Dutch battalions, 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. 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. 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, the sleeves of arquebusiers were in constant movement around the squadron and were deployed in front of the pikemen firing at the enemy, 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). By the year 1570, the arquebusiers were located where the rodeleros are placed here and the musketeers were located in the sleeves (increasing the effectiveness and power of the shot).
22 дня назад+1
Evolution of the formations most used by the companies of the Tercios (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 ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤ ¤¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤¤ ¤¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤¤ ¤¤¤ ¤¤¤ Last Ordinances of the Tercios in 1680: ♤: 144 ¤: 288 ¤¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ....
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...
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
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".
Not just flintlock muskets. What REALLY made the terico obsolete was the development of lightweight field cannons. When the terico was developed cannon were massive, and were essentially stationary once battle was joined. But by the first third or so of the thirty years war (somewhat) lighter field cannons had been developed. And, as can be readily imagined, cannon fire is utterly devastating to formations that are as deep as a terico.
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.
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
Okay, now I want to see them in action, because it's tough for me to imagine how it worked. Especially, how did pikemen operate from *inside* the square?
What was the point of having the spearmen in the middle? The greates advantage for spearmen over swordsmen is there ability to hold off cavelry and to create a long range danger zone for any swordsmen trying to get close. Placing them in the middle like this makes there entire purpose useless. Maybe they never got it to work but placing 1 or 2 lines of spearmen behind 2 lines of swordsmen and use there spears to better defend the swordsmen infront sounds like a mutch better use of them. If your not gonna use your spearmen for there longer range then they are just not worth having over regular swordsmen.
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..
Then came Victor Adolphus, the lion from the North. He instead used battallions and each battallion had its own artillery of mortars and cannons. Tight formations are susciptible against artillery...
Tercios still managed to score a few victories against tactically superior Swedish formations by exploiting the weaknesses of Swedish modified Dutch formations. Those being little flexibility and inability to concentrate forces into one punch fist. As an example Battle of Nördlingen.
@@funnycorner2802 The tertia really had no future at that point as artillery was improving rapidly. Artillery changed the battlefield and was really the Queen of the chessboard until now, as it may be surpassed by drones in the 21:st century.
@@user-ku4yh4xc9s Probably it wouldn’t as modern artillery can fire at a huge distance of up to 60km ( rocket arty even further) and with high precision ammunition which can be corrected by GPS or laser it can be said that it’s jover for enemy. FPV drones are susceptible to electronic warfare ( same with artillery, but artillery is less vulnerable) and the operators are way to exposed as operational distance of FPV’s is rare superior to few KM, unless used through some kind repeater.
@@user-ku4yh4xc9s Also (not related to artillery thing, but to Adolphus) his infantry military reforms were great, but still Tercio also had support of artillery, which unlike the Swedish was not under infantry command, but independent (Which is from tactical point of view wrong). The most important change Swedish did was reintroduction of shock cavalry (following polish experience, who managed to crush Swedish forces on various occasions by utilizing shock cavalry), while the rest used skirmish cavalry. Which has proven to be more important than infantry changes.
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.
After playing thousands of hours of Total War, I can assure you this formation is a great way to lose all your range to cavalry :( Also can't miss when you're firing into a blob like that. Also wow imagine getting targeted by the grand barrage in that formation. No wonder Napoleon walked over Spain.
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.
Reliable field artillery has a bit to do with it as well. Great big slow moving target perfect for grazing fire or if they do manage to close canister or grape.
They used it because they had no better ideas. Then it got crushed one time. Then it appeared to fall into decline because it wasn’t deployed properly again.
I have never understood why the large box formations existed. What do the guys in the middle of the formation do while their outside formations are being attacked, stand there? Why don’t they make their lines a bit thinner so all their soldiers can engage in the battle ?
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 Formation: 😊
Constantly Evolving Gunpowder Technology: 🤩
More like the invention of the socket bayonet
666 like
The Chad Dutch and Swedish models vs the Virgin Tercio
Gun power:😊
Nuclear bomb: 😂
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.
For those wondering why it went extinct:
*bayonets made your gunmen able to fight as a melee unit, meaning you didn't have to divide the two into separate groups and could maximize power at all ranges
*armies that deployed large quantities of cannons would destroy dense formations from a safe distance
*swordsmen are expensive to equip
*the evolution of the arquebus and early muskets made them gradually more effective, meaning that ranged firepower could be more devastating if firepower is concentrated on the front line instead of surrounding this square.
should also be noted the bayonet didn’t instantly make pikemen disappear, but slowly phased out as muskets became more effective. sergeants would even carry a halberd or pike as a symbol of rank for a time after.
Was the cannons, nothing more.
@@BicornioSPA cannons were very limited during The Renaissance, and you can pin down cannons using your own cannons. Also, there are many types of battlefields, and cannons aren't useful in certain terrains; muddy hilly forests are really common in Europe.
Disclaimer: Not trying to correct you, merely to add more information and detail.
Plug bayonets were the first iteration and did not make "melee units" redundant. They were at most a hot-fix to alleviate the obvious weakness of musketeers when forced into melee, particularly facing cavalry. But as the name suggests, the bayonet had to be plugged into the barrel, which both took time and prevented the rifle from being shot once plugged. They had to be firmly lodged in there or it would just fall out during combat, so it was quite difficult to remove from the barrel.
Ring bayonets allowed for more flexible use of musketeers (switching between melee and ranged combat seamlessly and not needing time to prepare), which made them far more capable at resisting cavalry charges. Imagine charging at someone on your horse with a saber, when that someone is holding a short spear that may or may not be ready to fire a deadly projectile straight at you.
But it still did not make melee troops defunct. It just made the musketeer the most common unit on the battlefield.
Other advancements also played a great part in the transition away from melee weapons Such as musket rifling, which increased accuracy and projectile velocity and made approaching a line formation as a melee infantry unit a very bad idea. But also new firing mechanisms that made shooting less finicky and less susceptible to weather.
It was only when all of the firearms' weaknesses had been adequately mitigated that purely melee infantry effectively disappeared from the battlefield. And even then, only for the countries that knew how to make firearms, or were wealthy enough to buy them.
The Swedish army effectively used the bayonet as such with their caroleans drilled into a more melee focused attack
Arqubussy
😏
🥴
🤤
😫
I heard that too and was like 🫥
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
Best option
De hecho ,los tercios siguen siendo una unidad del ejército español, obviamente no es lo mismo ,pero su legado e historia siguen vivas en La Legión🧐
pikes... pikes never changes
Give 2nd option some time
En serio? Jajajaja 😂😂@@Chispy204
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.
K ya I was wondering about that 🤔 this formation looked very different from what I've read in books
I can't see how pikemen can effectively cover the arquebus from cavalry?
what are the swordsmen even for?
@@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
oh damn this is cool
Bit sad they showed us the last battle of them and not the bright victories and I say tyat as a french
Rocroi was the last hurrah of the Tercio, as it gave way to the more modern Regiments
@@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
uuh nice thats the movie for tonight
They wouldn't stand up to the archebussy 🔥🔥
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.
They were also phased out as artillery improved - as did the artillerists. A tercio was a WONDERFUL formation for skipping round shot through.
The main weakness it was too vulnerable to a much artillery barrage just like what happened in Mohacs
What about cavalry taking out the musketmen
@@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?
Probably infantry just retreat behind the pikes and they meet the charge.
For the Kings and Generals! For the algorithm!
For the Emperor!
for ze furher
"Arqubussy"💀
Arc Bussy whatsius?
Arcabuz
Damn, this really does help visualize these formations. Yall should cover the swedish units
Coraleon supremecy
nordlingen
Master of the tercio, Gonsalvo de Cordoba, "El Gran Cpaitan"
Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba*
Efectivamente pero es GONZALO
Hehe, arque-bussy
So this is the tercio infantry i keep choosing in eu4
What about Modernized Tercio?
@@cirokistermann7834 space marines
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.
@@nestorvetumbra Really? I've always heard that there were always swordsmen nearby to help with close-quarters melee when the need arises.
@@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.
@@nestorvetumbra ah, well I didn't know that. Thanks!
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.
These bots are everywhere
Just like Charles V's empire
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]"?
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
Musketeers and arquebussiers in the same army? 😑 They're the same unit with different weapons as they developed.
@@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
Wait a minute. The swordsmen were out so cav charge won't destroy them?
The pikemen where close behind so yeah, you would take a fiew swordsmen with a charge, but it was ultimately suicidal to run into them
Do yo know what a pike is? It's not a fuc***g spear.
It is not well thought, when carrying a gun, to keep it exposed and in front of you. This is the same principle that operates over here.
although good explanation, this illustration seems very stiff an inadequate..
imagine a cannon ball . LOL
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
i imagined it now what
@@1R4MgMYl7a 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
It is interesting how it is akin to the Maniple system of the Romans
"the answer, use a gun, and if that don't work... Use more gun"
- a red or blue man with a plan
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.
Some examples of change of formation to meet different threats would be interesting
Oh no not the arcubussies 💀
It was actually highly INflexible, due to being such a large unit. Historians have struggled to understand if it was at all effective and how often it was implemented.
I mean, it was effective, just look at the battles and the casualties
Look to Bicoa, Pavía, San Quintín and shut your mouth when u dont know a shit
It was more efective and flexible compared to the units and army of the era, just look bicoca or san quintin.
Apparently during Vernon's invasion to Panama the spanish being outnumbered faked the drums of an incoming Tercio, causing the british to run. That's how effective they were
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.
@@nilloc93 that's what people would like to see. There are not a lot of representation of how the Tercio was moving. Mostly stationary examples.
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
Also worth pointing out that the Tercio formation was only formed with swordmen during the first few decades. Later on they disappeared and the arquebusiers became more common.
Also. The declined because of the development of line formations and the bayonet.
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.
🗣GEKOLONISEERD 🇳🇱🇳🇱🇳🇱
🗣WEGWEZEN VUILE SPANJOOL
The spanish arqubussies were unstoppable
@@alexdobma4694 Willem van Oranje💪💪
...modern history? i wouldnt call anything pre-1900s "modern history".
@@cr1tikal_arc Lol such an ignorant comment, modern history officially started after the battle of cerignola
I would position the pikemen in the outer square to defend against cavalry charges, with the swordsmen positioned in the second or third line, ready to move in and engage the enemy when needed. The archers would be placed in the centre to provide ranged support.
It was usually on that way xd
This is wrong and this is stupid. It's backwards, inflexible, and susceptible to be easily defeated. Please don't spread stupidity
The tercio formation is deployed so that it could respond according to the situation with flexibility.
The swords men are support units to act as rear/flank guards to ward off any that pass through the pikes. Pikemen can either form porcupine formation to ward off Calvary from getting flanked, or phalanx formation to engage the enemy in frontal assault. The musketeers, act as skirmishers to weaken the enemies.
Should the Calvary charge come. The pike will form a defensive line (porcupine) around it. The swordsmen will position closer to pikemen. While Musketeers kite as much as possible before retreating back to centre.
On frontal engagement, the pikemen will form the front line pike formation, the swordsmen would blend in while supporting the flanks to kill any that pass through the pikes.
The musketeers fire through any gaps they could find.
the formation shown here is the marching formation, so its used then the formation is moving around the battlefield. when a cavalry charge is immenent, the swordsmen and gunmen are pulled into the center so the pikes can protect them. when engaging against infantry, the gunmen shift to the rear and the swordsmen will move to protect the flanks of the pikrmen as well as attempt to disrupt the enemy formation. however the formation depicted is shown most commonly as its their default formation
Musketeers and harquibusurs not archers. If they were bunched in the center, they wouldn't be able to shoot because their friends would block the line of fire. Like the other commenter said, this is a marching formation; it will respond to different situations depending on who is engaging them. Sowrds men can always run to the sides here and the gunners can easily run behind the large formation sincy they were already at the corners.
This looks like it needs thermal paste.
Mmm Arquebussy
Proud of Spanish Empire 👍
Empire that fought barbarians 😂lol
Arqu- what?
The Arqubussy
@@ceroilertv4101 No wonder the Spaniards loved it
@@cruzaider5339 We have to use the Arqubussys Hernándo
Arcabuces. Fire weapon.
Great short!
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 not a tactical combat formation, but a logistical, organizational and strategic entity (as would be a Swedish Brigade), the true tactical combat unit were the 10 or 15 autonomous companies of 250 men each that formed it and that functioned like the Dutch battalions, 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. 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. 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, the sleeves of arquebusiers were in constant movement around the squadron and were deployed in front of the pikemen firing at the enemy, 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). By the year 1570, the arquebusiers were located where the rodeleros are placed here and the musketeers were located in the sleeves (increasing the effectiveness and power of the shot).
Evolution of the formations most used by the companies of the Tercios (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
◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇
♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤
♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤♤
¤¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤¤
¤¤¤◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇¤¤¤
¤¤¤ ¤¤¤
Last Ordinances of the Tercios in 1680:
♤: 144 ¤: 288
¤¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤♤♤♤♤♤♤¤¤¤¤¤¤
....
The pikeman in the very middle 🥰
i’m very confused by this formation
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...
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.
it worked "slightly differently than this animation shows, but the discipline and effectiveness is written all over the 16th and 17th century
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. 🤷♂️
Are you stupid?
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
Welcome fellow bannerlord players
I was trying to see how this would work in BL… I dont see how the pikes would be effective if the swordsman were outside of them..
pleeeeaaaassseeee more early modern period tactics!
Arquebussy?
Tercios: we are unstoppable
Meanwhile artillery: hold my canister shot
Arqubussies:
Canister shot was not a thing in the 1570s. It appeared in the 1650, by which time the tercio was becoming obsolete
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".
Sorry wrong formation
Flintlock muskets: "Yes, stand in that nice formation for the packages we're sending your way."
Thats how crasus died
Exactly
you would do a really good video on the evolution of assault unit formations
Not just flintlock muskets. What REALLY made the terico obsolete was the development of lightweight field cannons.
When the terico was developed cannon were massive, and were essentially stationary once battle was joined. But by the first third or so of the thirty years war (somewhat) lighter field cannons had been developed.
And, as can be readily imagined, cannon fire is utterly devastating to formations that are as deep as a terico.
The pike square was lined with musketeers/arquebusiers; the sword and buckler men were discarded
We finally found the sleevies where the king keeps his armies!
A damn shame we could never see videos of these battles
Do you know what I remembered when you mentioned the tercio, Total war shorgun 2 the Portuguese tercios.
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.
How does that work though? Shouldn't the pikeman be in the front, to hold of cavalry?
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
Terthio
I'll bet it felt pretty safe being a pikeman in the middle of the formation...right until some accurate canon fire started coming your way.
⚔️
Okay, now I want to see them in action, because it's tough for me to imagine how it worked. Especially, how did pikemen operate from *inside* the square?
i remember reading the end credits during one of my first shroom trips, and damn i was crying
What was the point of having the spearmen in the middle? The greates advantage for spearmen over swordsmen is there ability to hold off cavelry and to create a long range danger zone for any swordsmen trying to get close. Placing them in the middle like this makes there entire purpose useless. Maybe they never got it to work but placing 1 or 2 lines of spearmen behind 2 lines of swordsmen and use there spears to better defend the swordsmen infront sounds like a mutch better use of them. If your not gonna use your spearmen for there longer range then they are just not worth having over regular swordsmen.
Dude this formation fucked Europe for like 100 years. Chad formation if you ask me.
Man cannons had to be brutal to those
Wow nice more please
Perhaps interesting to cover the 80 years war. In which the dutch was i believe the first to beat the tercio formation using new tactics
I like how you can see the Roman style in it
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..
Well I learned something new today
Then came Victor Adolphus, the lion from the North. He instead used battallions and each battallion had its own artillery of mortars and cannons. Tight formations are susciptible against artillery...
Tercios still managed to score a few victories against tactically superior Swedish formations by exploiting the weaknesses of Swedish modified Dutch formations. Those being little flexibility and inability to concentrate forces into one punch fist. As an example Battle of Nördlingen.
@@funnycorner2802 The tertia really had no future at that point as artillery was improving rapidly. Artillery changed the battlefield and was really the Queen of the chessboard until now, as it may be surpassed by drones in the 21:st century.
@@user-ku4yh4xc9s Probably it wouldn’t as modern artillery can fire at a huge distance of up to 60km ( rocket arty even further) and with high precision ammunition which can be corrected by GPS or laser it can be said that it’s jover for enemy. FPV drones are susceptible to electronic warfare ( same with artillery, but artillery is less vulnerable) and the operators are way to exposed as operational distance of FPV’s is rare superior to few KM, unless used through some kind repeater.
@@user-ku4yh4xc9s Also (not related to artillery thing, but to Adolphus) his infantry military reforms were great, but still Tercio also had support of artillery, which unlike the Swedish was not under infantry command, but independent (Which is from tactical point of view wrong). The most important change Swedish did was reintroduction of shock cavalry (following polish experience, who managed to crush Swedish forces on various occasions by utilizing shock cavalry), while the rest used skirmish cavalry. Which has proven to be more important than infantry changes.
eventually tercios got field pieces and even swiss batallions were suceptible to artillery
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.
Mounted cavalary has enterd the chat
It’s called a noob box in total war. Even the dwarves know of the box.
After playing thousands of hours of Total War, I can assure you this formation is a great way to lose all your range to cavalry :(
Also can't miss when you're firing into a blob like that.
Also wow imagine getting targeted by the grand barrage in that formation.
No wonder Napoleon walked over Spain.
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.
Wait till you realize how inconsistent english is 😂
English :tertiary, has a "t", makes an "sh" sound
that's only in Spain, in the rest of the Spanish speaking countries c, s and z are pronounced in the same way
@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.
The Arqubussys make for nice "sleeves"
Reliable field artillery has a bit to do with it as well. Great big slow moving target perfect for grazing fire or if they do manage to close canister or grape.
Not expected and liked
That looks like it requires extreme discipline in troops to sustain formation although you can see how it can be very effective 🤔💯
Archabusier is going in the -ussy dictionary because I can’t unhear it
Vivan los Tercios de Flandes!!!!
Tully would be proud
Bonus points for pronouncing "terthio", just like we do in standard Spanish, instead of "tersio" or something similar. 👍👍👍
And Gustavus Adolphus ran rings around Tilly’s Tercios …
Wish I could get my troops in Bannerlord 2 to do this shit
They used it because they had no better ideas. Then it got crushed one time. Then it appeared to fall into decline because it wasn’t deployed properly again.
i'm trying this on total war now
Imagine standing in the middle of that. Must have been hard to breathe and move.
"anyway I started blasting"
So where can I find some arquebusiers?
Is a realy early formation, not the late Tercios, with a fine pikemen line and much more Archebusiers.
Britenfelt says hello
A por ellos!!!!
I have never understood why the large box formations existed. What do the guys in the middle of the formation do while their outside formations are being attacked, stand there? Why don’t they make their lines a bit thinner so all their soldiers can engage in the battle ?
These tactics, like the open-ended square were superior to the Aztec mob like attacks.
[socket bayonet has entered the chat]
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 .