Spanish tercio vs Ottoman field army

[Xenophonte]

Although I do not know if there were Jenizaros in the garrison ottoman defending the city ... Perhaps an additional example could be the Spanish volunteers, commanded by the Duke of Béjar and in the service of the Austrian emperor Leopoldo (like many other volunteers of other nationalities) fought on the site and assault of Buda...

But in a real confrontation in addition to the terrain I think that it would be more important the specific geographic location (I suppose if it were in the 'Mediterranean' the most likely would be the Balkans, the Aegean or even Egypt) ... Of course, although both armies could get to face outside the 'Mediterranean region'...wouldn't be the most likely...
But the most important,in my opinion, would be the respective leaders / commanders of the respective armies (Ottoman & Spanish) and their respective possible defects (as generals) and their qualities as tacticians and / or strategists.
Not to mention the necessary skills as motivators and / or ability of improvisation of which the Field Masters (Field Masters or the equivalent to the modern Chiefs of Staff of the Army) as G. Fernández de Córdoba (The Great Captain) or Sir Julián Romero ... I think that the qualities and defects of the above mentioned military leaders of the Tercios could be considered as an example of both.

I thought about that but the mechanics of a siege differ a lot from those of a pitch battle like the one described in the question

Even if I agree that since it was a Siege, with the soldiers of the isolated Third and fighting without hope of help, a defensive battle against a besieging army ... What given that in addition to the obvious disadvantages of the lack of mobility so characteristic of the Tercios, it would be difficult for a comparison to a classic pitched battle like so many of the time ... However even if only they had fought on the walls and inside the city, it would be possible to make comparisons because, in my opinion, it is in said extreme situations when it is possible to appreciate the true qualities of any army and its soldiers ...

But in reality, yes, there were (albeit minor, at the unit level) clashes, with more or less comparable forces and with the Tercios fighting in their classic formation ... against the first Ottoman troops landed, at Castelnuovo (Herceg Novi): ...

Wikiquote: First maneuvers: ...

The ships sent to block the entrance to the Gulf of Cattaro arrived in Castelnuovo on June 12 and proceeded to disembark a thousand Ottoman soldiers with the intention of finding drinking water and capturing Spanish soldiers or countrymen to get information about the stronghold. The Spaniards learned of their arrival and Field Master Sarmiento ordered them to attack three of their companies under the command of Captain Machín de Munguía and the cavalry under the command of Lázaro de Corón ... and after a fierce battle the Ottoman troops saw forced to flee to their ships ... they returned that same afternoon and on that occasion Sarmiento himself, who was waiting for them together with captains Álvaro de Mendoza, Olivera and Juan Vizcaíno and 600 men, defeated them again causing them three hundred dead and capturing thirty men ...The rest fled to their ships ...

Or the several sorties carried by the Spanish:

... to obstruct the siege works. These raids inflicted many casualties, among them Agi, one of Barbarossa's favorite captains.[23] Another sortie by a Spanish force of 800 men surprised several units of Janissaries who were attempting to storm the walls of Castelnuovo, killing most of them and leaving the field strewn with corpses.

Wikiquote The Great assault:

... Encouraged by the successful defense, several Spanish soldiers decided to conduct a surprise raid on the Ottoman camp with the approval of Sarmiento. [25] Thus, one morning, 600 men took the unprepared besiegers by surprise. In some places the assault could not be stopped, and panic spread among the Ottomans. Many troops broke and ran, including some Janissaries who fled throughout their own camp breaking down the tents, including that of Barbarossa. [25] The Admiral's personal guard feared for the safety of its lord, and, ignoring his protests, took him to the galleys along with the standard of the Sultan...

 

[Jape]

As I said, both forces had been different but you are missing the point: the Ottoman system did not include division of the Janissary into the meaningful smaller tactical (as opposite to the administrative) units capable of maneuvering on a battlefield while even the tercios, not to mention the later formations, had been built with such an option in mind. St. Gotthard is just an illustration of the principles. The famous battles of the “true” Janissary, Nicopol, Varna, Ankara, Mohac, did not involve any maneuvering by the Janissary and in all of them they had been acting defensively with the offensive actions done by a cavalry (with or without success). If anything, formations of a later period demonstrated a greater willingness to attack in the field battles.

The example is not very good but, short of the Spanish battles in the Northern Africa, defense of the fort of Djerba and relief of Malta, there is very little basis for a meaningful comparison.

Nope. I did get your point, I literally said I got your point and earlier I said a straight tercio v ("true") janissary fight would probably end in a tercio victory.

You're right the Janissaries did regularly fight defensively, often setting up palisades and even trenches the night before a battle (hence each soldier carrying his own spade). Then the sipahi attacked, attempting to turn the flanks, when successful it usually led the Europeans to launch an assault on the prepared Ottoman lines to try to win the day, or they'd fall back into the centre in a static defence, allowing the Ottomans to move forward as they wished. Either way the Ottomans in their 'classic' period were very good at dictating the flow of a battle against Western foes, either pinning them down to suffer from superior firepower and possible encirclement or forcing them to charge well-defended positions.

Your point on the tactical superiority of tercio infantry totally stands but usually when the tercios were defeated it was because the enemy outflanked and got behind them - which is what the Ottomans were good at. Not at all saying its a white wash or is a guarantee at all but on an open field its a way for them to beat the Spanish infantry.

Having tried to read up more on it, St. Gotthard seems an odd example even in terms of principles - did the Ottomans act offensively on the day? The proper battle consisted of the allied armies arriving and rushing the numerically superior but still reorganising Ottomans as they finished a river crossing, who promptly panicked and a lot of men drowned trying to escape. The Janissaries lost a lot of men but that was while trying to hold an isolated beachhead before they themselves broke. It certainly showed the weakness of the Ottoman levies and was a smart move by the allied commander but it doesn't seem to show off Western tactical finesse.

 

[alexmilman]

Nope. I did get your point, I literally said I got your point and earlier I said a straight tercio v ("true") janissary fight would probably end in a tercio victory.

You're right the Janissaries did regularly fight defensively, often setting up palisades and even trenches the night before a battle (hence each soldier carrying his own spade). Then the sipahi attacked, attempting to turn the flanks, when successful it usually led the Europeans to launch an assault on the prepared Ottoman lines to try to win the day, or they'd fall back into the centre in a static defence, allowing the Ottomans to move forward as they wished. Either way the Ottomans in their 'classic' period were very good at dictating the flow of a battle against Western foes, either pinning them down to suffer from superior firepower and possible encirclement or forcing them to charge well-defended positions.

To a great degree this was possible due to an obvious fact that their European opponents did not have a quality infantry and, in general, did not have a discipline or a well-established command structure. Even at Mohacs the Hungarian army was pretty much an outdated feudal militia capable of very little but a frontal attack. They did some mercenary infantry but that infantry was outnumbered and outgunned by the opponent. It seems that the Ottomans played upon them the same trick which John Hunyadi had been using more than once on the Ottomans. Of course, when it was coming to the defense, the Janissary had been quite good all the way to the battle of Vienna when they kept defending their positions in almost hopeless situation. And the same can be said, for example, about the Azov Campaigns of Peter I when they had been holding a fortress against the great numeric odds.

Your point on the tactical superiority of tercio infantry totally stands but usually when the tercios were defeated it was because the enemy outflanked and got behind them - which is what the Ottomans were good at. Not at all saying its a white wash or is a guarantee at all but on an open field its a way for them to beat the Spanish infantry.

Yes, indeed, but IMO title of the thread is somewhat ufair: tercio (as a part of the Spanish military organization) vs. the (whole) Ottoman army. In OTL Spaniards had both heavy and light cavalry and tercios usually were not fighting the field battles just by themselves. So either we are talking strictly about the infantry (and artillery) on both sides or we are talking about the armies on both sides.

Having tried to read up more on it, St. Gotthard seems an odd example even in terms of principles - did the Ottomans act offensively on the day?

Yes, the did.

The proper battle consisted of the allied armies arriving and rushing the numerically superior but still reorganising Ottomans as they finished a river crossing, who promptly panicked and a lot of men drowned trying to escape. The Janissaries lost a lot of men but that was while trying to hold an isolated beachhead before they themselves broke. It certainly showed the weakness of the Ottoman levies and was a smart move by the allied commander but it doesn't seem to show off Western tactical finesse.

Well, the tactical finesse is a tricky issue.

There was not too much of a finesse in a brilliant battle of Zenta: Prince Eugene "simply" () chose a right time when the Ottomans started retreat across the river and attacked their fortified camp with everything he had.

French participant (on the Russian side) of the 2nd Russian-Ottoman War of Catherine II wrote that the reason why the Russians would practically always defeat the Ottomans with the numeric odds 1:2 while the Ottomans would defeat the Austrians with the same odds in the Austrian favor is that the Austrians, when seeing the Ottomans, would start maneuvering while the Russians would just form the squares and attack.

Even the most famous battle of the 1st Ottoman War, Kagul, did not involve anything complicated: the divisional squares with the cavalry on the flanks and in between marching ahead and attacking.

 

[Jape]

Yes, indeed, but IMO title of the thread is somewhat ufair: tercio (as a part of the Spanish military organization) vs. the (whole) Ottoman army. In OTL Spaniards had both heavy and light cavalry and tercios usually were not fighting the field battles just by themselves. So either we are talking strictly about the infantry (and artillery) on both sides or we are talking about the armies on both sides.

Sorry I could have explained my idea better. I was thinking a full Spanish army versus a full Ottoman army. In a 'sandbox' tercio v janissaries battle, tercios have the advantage as you've explained very well. In a full battle c. 1530 I think Ottoman cavalry and artillery could be the deciding factor versus their opposites which could lead to the superior tercios being isolated and taken out by combined arms.

 

[alexmilman]

Sorry I could have explained my idea better. I was thinking a full Spanish army versus a full Ottoman army. In a 'sandbox' tercio v janissaries battle, tercios have the advantage as you've explained very well. In a full battle c. 1530 I think Ottoman cavalry and artillery could be the deciding factor versus their opposites which could lead to the superior tercios being isolated and taken out by combined arms.

I’d say that in a confrontation of the full armies too much would depend upon specific set of the circumstances to make any definite pronouncement. BTW, tercios did include the artillery and Spaniards had a good cavalry with the heavy cavalry being heavier than one of the Ottomans (and, the Reiters and their national analogs were available by the time of the French Wars of the Religion or even earlier, which would give them an extra advantage) so it is not like the combined arms were available only to the Ottomans.

As far as I can tell (which is not necessarily the indisputable fact ) the Spanish armies has a better command and battlefield communication structure than the Ottomans and this was a plus. But, as I said, too much would depend on the specific circumstances like the numbers, quality of a leadership, quality of the troops (proportion of the high quality troops to the total, which was especially important in the case of the Ottomans), terrain (and familiarity with it) and so on.

 

[elkarlo]

They did fight each other at Malta. The relief force fought a pitched battle on Sept 11 and pushed the ottomans back and they left the island after that.
Problem is the ottomans were so exhausted, I'm sure modern reenactors could beat them. These were guys who were probably wounded, sick and worn out. Plus their armor and weapons were probably one step above falling apart.

 

[elkarlo]

I feel that after Mochas or however it's spelled, was the last good ottoman won on the west that wasn't a siege. After that the ottomans usually just put a massive force in the field and western armies yielded the field or retired to a fortress.
It's seems the criticism of the Ottomans is that they got flabby and had unwieldly armies that were great for sieges but when caught, we're bad at battles. This grew more and more true as the 17th century emerged.
For the o
Ottomans the earlier the better and for the Spanish 1560 or so gives them a solid tactical as well as flexibility in their command structure, advantage

 

[Xenophonte]

I was looking at and asking about and get some interesting links and additional info. about historical clashes between both armies that hope would be useful and some of which that weren't mentioned early in the thread: In the 1st siege of Vienna there were a small force of 700 Spanish arquebusiers infantrymen that were 'escorting' to Ferdinand I and are from the Emperor's Spanish guard. Also, although not confirmed, but from these skirmishes and clashes could be at least an narration (from the Ottoman perspective) by an chronicle that, supposedly, attributed to Ibrahim Pecevi.

Another place and time, where both armies had had the chance to fight with each other was in the ''small Hungarian war where the Bernardo de Aldana's Tercio, fought on the border against the Ottomans.

THE EXPEDITION OF BERNARDO FROM ALDANA TO HUNGARY: In 1548, the Field Marshal Bernardo de Aldana made a trip to Hungary, which is recorded in a manuscript that is preserved in a codex from the El Escorial Library, made a few years later. The text, only published so far, in part, in the nineteenth century, is a unique testimony of his time and the [geographical] area in which [the] events took place.

Also there is an Spanish military report of the eighteenth century about the Ottoman infantry.