Battle of Round Mountain

Military history: Technology / European / Spanish / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Spain Start‑class High‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Web references, that may change.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

"Several centuries"?

I don't see how the tercio can be said to have dominated field warfare for "several centuries," as the lead formerly said. The article has the tercio being introduced by Gonzalo de Cordoba, presumably in 1503 during his victories at Cerignola, the Garigliano, etc. While the tercio may have endured after Rocroi, I see no cause for saying that it dominated warfare after that. So the tercio could be said to be dominant for about 140 years, give or take a little. Nothing to sneeze at, but hardly justification for giving it a reign of "several centuries." Pirate Dan (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to "A history of the Peninsular War" by Robert Southey the term tercio was still in use at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.95.144 (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pirate Dan - a tercio by the time of the Peninsular War was armed entirely with firearms using linear tactics. The term is still used for units of the Spanish Marine Infantry and the Spanish Legion; I hope no one thinks these units still use pikes, swords and matchlocks? GMan552 (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First marines in history? No.

On 24 February 1537 the Tercio de Galeras (Tercio of Galleys) was created, considered the first Marine unit in history.

I really disagree with this statement. I guess things like the Byzantine Carabisianoi, Gasmouloi, and Tzakones don't count as marines? Please.

32.215.42.115 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Founded in 1660?

In what way were the Tercios "founded" in 1660 if their peak was in the century prior? The cited sources are about British military and the note is broken.--Menah the Great (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar citations

Founded 1 January 1534; 488 years ago.^[1]^[2]^{[note 1]}

What the British Army and British courtesans to do with the Spanish Tercios? Creuzbourg (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Clifford Walton (1894). History of the British Standing Army. A.D. 1660 to 1700. Harrison and Sons. pp. 1–2.
^ Noel T. St. John Williams (1994). Redcoats and courtesans: the birth of the British Army (1660–1690). Brassey's. p. 16.
^ Chandler, David (2003). The Oxford history of the British Army. Oxford University Press. p. xv. ISBN 978-0-19-280311-5. It is generally accepted that the regular standing army in Britain was officially created – in the sense of being fully accommodated within parliamentary control in 1689, although it is, strictly speaking, only correct to refer to the British army from the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707.

Organisation section not consistent

Currently in the organisation section, Tercios are listed as having 8 companies of pikemen, and 2 companies of arquebusier. However the breakdown of a company shows them to be mixed units of pikemen and arquebusiers, with no attempt to reconcile the two stances. Which is correct? Or, rather, if a company being a pikeman company is determined by the ratio of pikemen to arquebusier, why isn't this addressed?

Additionally, the paragraph before the breakdown could use some clearer language. Perhaps: "The organisational structure of the tercio remained mostly consistent across its deployment. A significant exception is early actions in the Netherlands, where tercios were reorganized into three coronelias ("colonelcies"), led by coronels ("colonels") each composed of a headquarters unit and four companies each"

we can get rid of the claim about modern battalions unless it can be sourced, might want to source the whole thing?

Finally, the detailed breakdown doesn't correlate to the picture displayed in a couple spots, missing a position (Curanderos) and adding one not in the diagram (Coronel). It may be better to find a picture that better conforms to the current breakdown or realign the breakdown to suit the picture. 104.246.196.199 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

[1] Clifford Walton (1894). History of the British Standing Army. A.D. 1660 to 1700. Harrison and Sons. pp. 1–2.

[2] Noel T. St. John Williams (1994). Redcoats and courtesans: the birth of the British Army (1660–1690). Brassey's. p. 16.

[Chandler2003-3] Chandler, David (2003). The Oxford history of the British Army. Oxford University Press. p. xv. ISBN 978-0-19-280311-5. It is generally accepted that the regular standing army in Britain was officially created – in the sense of being fully accommodated within parliamentary control in 1689, although it is, strictly speaking, only correct to refer to the British army from the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707.

[1]

[2]

[note 1]