TARGETEER

Sword and Target Tactical System Used by Europeans in the Americas, 1500-1650

by Rick Orli   

First Published in The Moderne Aviso                                         (c)1995 richard j. orli

One of the military arts practiced during the early colonial period, such as at Jamestown (1607-) is the use of the target and sword as part of a combined arms force. The use of the target (or 'shield') and sword was by this time obsolete in Europe. While a common weapon of the Scottish Border Reeves in the then current and past generation, the target was not part of most army's first line armaments. However, this tactical system proved very effective against the Indians throughout the Americas. Targeteers have two jobs: shielding the slow-firing Musketeers from missile fire and attackers, and leading the charge in shock combat. This article explores some of what we know of the experience of the Targeteer in the New World.

The most detailed description of battle against native Americans is from Bernal Diaz's report of his experience as a Targeteer in The Conquest of New Spain*. Much has been made about the European advantages of gunpowder, horses, and metal armor and weapons. However, gunpowder ran out completely in several key battles, and after many months of fighting the Mexicans** were able to deal effectively with the horses. Spaniards were consistently able to beat the natives with or without gunpowder, with or without horses, often relying on the same quilted cotton armor worn by the Mexicans. The metal swords were also not exceptionally better than the obsidian-tipped and edged Mexican weapons - in fact, a Mexican once chopped off the head of a Spanish horse in battle with a single blow from a two-handed "broadsword"!

Although weapons and armor quality was a Spanish advantage, without question the biggest factor was that the Spaniards were mean SOBs with a level of experience in war and close combat that is difficult for us to comprehend - even the war-and-blood obsessed Mexicans were highly impressed. A third advantage was method - the Spaniards used close order formations while the Mexicans used open order.

The Spaniards mastered the short sword and shield of the Tercio, as an explicit revival of the classic Roman legion's tactics. Proven effective against professional pikemen, the Tercio helped establish the Spanish reputation as the finest fighters in 16th Century Europe. The Scots and English did not have the same tradition of close order tactics, but clearly knew how to fight in unison.

Open order techniques are discussed in detail by di Grasse in his 1570's fencing manual. In outline, he suggested:

• an open stance, the target is held away from the body, edge rather toward the opponent's face.
• deflecting rather than absorbing blows
• striking with sword while warding blows
• attacking using the edge of the shield as an offensive weapon
• attacking with the thrust only, as cuts are too easy to ward
• attacking, first probing the perimeter of the target, penetrating with a committed attack once past the target's edge.
  
  In close order formation, the rules for single combat such as explained in di Grasse may not all apply. It is most difficult to "fence" in the usual sense in close order. Further, the evidence was clear that the heaviest casualties along the line of battle were trivial compared to the losses suffered as the result of a rout. Therefore, it is likely that the emphasis of any training was first, never be a coward, second, attack as aggressively as possible regardless of the risk to your own life, third, keep your position in the ranks at all costs. The following are my speculative "rules" for ranked targeteers:
  
• The "open" way of holding the target is probably correct in formation shock combat.
• Formation must be adhered to at all times. As Daiz explains:"we did not dare break formations for any of our soldiers who was bold enough to break ranks to pursue their swordsmen or captains was immediately wounded and in great danger."
• Rely on the shield of the man to your right, try to overlap enemy formation with your right flank (implies recessed left flank)
• Have a buddy system or small teams that will fight together well as small units.
• In contact, move forward, forcing your opponent to walk backwards. Attack at all costs.
• Better to absorb hits and losses than retreating, since retreating may lead to a rout and catastrophic losses.
  
  What makes the Spanish victories even more impressive is that the Mexicans apparently did not route easily - perhaps this is partially explained by the great Mexican numerical superiority, perhaps the open-ordered approach is less brittle than the close-ordered approach. In most European battles, once shock combat started one side or the other usually lost nerve and/or cohesion fairly quickly. The Mexicans apparently charged and kept coming, or accepted a charge and heavy casualties without panic in most cases. At any rate, Mexican officers stood their ground - many Generals and Princes are listed killed after every battle. This led to shock combat battles of an hour or even longer, unusually long duration by European standards.
  
  The Mexicans had a cultural imperative that was a disadvantage in battle against outsiders. Two essential functions of battle were to provide sacrifices, and tests of honor for the best of the best. The ultimate achievement for a warrior, that won the blessings and riches of heaven and earth, was the capture of an undamaged prisoner in battle. Diaz reports that again and again, a Mexican would, at a moment of victory, drop his war club and attempt to grapple with and drag off a Spaniard. In the face of Spanish tactics and cohesion, this failed almost every time. In contrast, a Mexican would feel obliged to stop resistance, once beaten (selected by the gods for sacrifice?).
  
  The following excerpts describe some engagements with small coastal tribes and the Tlascalans. The big battles with the Aztecs, including the destruction of the Spanish army in the retreat from Mexico City, were yet to come.
  
  "They rushed on us like mad dogs and completely surrounded us, discharging such a rain of arrows, darts, and stones upon us that more than seventy of our men were wounded in the first attack. Then, in the hand-to-hand fighting, they did great damage with their spears... With our muskets and crossbows and good swordplay, we put up a stout fight, and once they came to feel the edge of our swords they fell back, but only to shoot at us in greater safety... I said to Diego de Ordain, "I think we ought to close up and charge them. It's the thrust and edge of our swords they really feel!"... I remember that whenever we fired our guns, the Indians gave great shouts and whistles, and threw up straw and earth so that we could not see what harm we had done them. They sounded their trumpets and drums, and shouted and whistled, and cried, 'Alala!, Alala!'
  
  When it was over, we bandaged our wounds with cloths, for that was all we had, and sealed our wounds and the wounds of our horses with the fat from an indian corpse we had cut up for this purpose.... we found more than eight hundred dead, most of whom had been killed by sword thrusts, the rest by cannon, muskets, or crossbows. ... wherever the horsemen had passed there were great numbers of dead and wounded. The battle had lasted over an hour." The Spaniards lost two killed.
  
  The Spaniards relied on the horse troopers for tactical offense:  "We decided that the horsemen, in groups of three for mutual assistance, should charge and return at a trot, and should hold their lances rather short; and that when they broke through the Tlascalans' ranks they should aim at the faces, and give repeated thrusts, so as to prevent them from seizing their lances. If, however, a lance should be seized, the horseman must use all his strength and put spurs to his horse. Then the leverage of the lance beneath his arm and the headlong rush of the horse would either tear the lance free or drag the indian along with him."
  
  5 September, 1519. ... "The crossbowmen were warned to use their supply of arrows very carefully, some loading while others were shooting. The musketeers were to act in the same way, and the men with sword and target to aim at the enemy's bowels, so as to prevent their coming so close as they had done before. We were four hundred, of whom many were sick and wounded, standing in the middle of a plain six miles square swarming with indian warriors. When they began to charge the stones sped like hail from their slings, and their barbed and fire-hardened darts fell like corn on the threshing floor - each one capable of piercing any armor.... Their charging swordsmen were repelled by stout thrusts from our swords.
  
  "Once I saw our company in such confusion that despite the shouts of Cortes and the other captains they could not hold together. The Indians were charging in such numbers that only by a miracle of sword play were we able to drive them back and reform our ranks.
  
  "We moved through the midst of them at the closest quarters, slashing and thrusting at them with our swords. And the dogs fought back furiously, dealing us wounds and death with their lances and their two-handed swords."
  
  END
  ______________________________________________
  * Bernal Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain, 1565, J.M. Cohen translator (1963). Penguin Books.

** For simplicity I use 'Mexican' to include both the Aztec empire, properly know as Mexicans, and the Tlascalans and costal tribes, who were enemies of the Mexicans.

# G. Di Grasse, His True Art of Defense, 1570