Talk:Swiss mercenaries

Untitled
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 (&#5839;) 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 (&#5839;) 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 (&#5839;) 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)

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)

Swiss mercenaries on both sides
It is not totally true that the Swiss strictly refused to fight each other on the battlefield. During the Italian wars and other campaigns, there were actually Swiss mercenaries on both sides who did fight each other, although the Tagsatzung prevented a major battle between two contingents of Swiss mercenaries in 1500 (Treason of Novara). A fight of that extent between so many Swiss on both sides would have been disastrous, with the Swiss confederation, even at that time, being a small country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.16.215 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds a good point - you'd better add it yourself, with references. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"The native term Reisläufer literally means "one who goes to war" and is derived from Middle High German Reise, meaning "military campaign".
An online middle high German dictionary defines "Reise" as having the same meaning as in contemporary high German, namely, "to take a trip or travel". If there's a middle high German reference that states otherwise it should be included, if the inference is that "reise" was used in the vernacular to imply traveling to war...then that would contradict the literal definition given for Reisläufer. As is, and using contemporary German, the literal definition looks more along the lines of "one who travels by foot". Can anyone offer clarification or a reference for the article passage in question? ~L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.79.246 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Machiavelli
"Machiavelli addresses their system of combat at length in The Prince"

No, he doesn't. Perhaps in another book, but not in the Prince. 87.151.226.25 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I read The Prince, but I think you're right. The editor might have been thinking of The Art of War instead.


 * In any case I've tagged it as requiring citation. It should be a simple matter for the person making this claim to pull out their copy of the The Prince and locate the relevant section. Lexington50 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Context and POV
The Swiss, with their head-down attack in huge columns with the long pike, refusal to take prisoners, and consistent record of victory, were greatly feared and admired—for instance, Machiavelli addresses their system of combat at length in The Prince

I tagged the above sentence as needing citation because its claims are particularly egregious but to some extent these issues permeate the entire article.

Did Swiss mercenaries really have a "consistent record of victory"? How has this been determined? Is the claim here that when a medieval army, which was normally composed of many different contingents of mercenaries, was victorious it was SOLELY because of the presence on the battlefield of these Swiss super soldiers? What if, as was often the case, Swiss contingents fought on BOTH sides? Doesn't the defeat of some of the Swiss balance out the victory by the others? I would suggest this claim is plainly incoherent.

Similarly, the claim that the Swiss were "greatly feared and admired" is just sensationalism. Please provide contemporary sources attesting to how much more the Swiss were feared and admired than, say, English archers, German halbardiers, or Genoese crossbowmen, all of whom were also standard components of medieval armies.

Finally there is a serious issue with context here. As has already been indicated medieval armies were very often composed of mercenary contingents from many different regions, of which the ubiquitous Swiss pikemen were only one. The article completely fails to place the Swiss mercenaries within this larger historical context regarding the role of mercenary forces in medieval warfare. Lexington50 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Capitulations and contracts
There has been a minor dispute concerning a statement in this article that "capitulations" (in the sense of agreements or contracts) relating to the employment of Swiss mercenaries sometimes included provision for their recall if the home federation came under attack. The source cited is a comment in an article appearing in the New Yorker of some years ago. While the New Yorker gives excellent coverage of modern political and cultural matters, I am not sure if it rates as a recognized source on European military history. More importantly I have not been able to find references to any such "bring the boys home" provision in any of the published history works on this subject to which I have access. Which is not of course to say that they did not exist. Can anyone help with this? It is rather frustrating to be told to provide a source reference disproving a practice which may not have existed. Buistr (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Chapter 12 of The Prince mentioning pike tactics "at length"
Does it? I have just listened to a reading and there was no mention, but possibly the reading was not complete..?2A02:C7C:2ED1:D300:75E9:4C91:374B:DDFD (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)