A Lansquenet, a Fr. G. Lansquenet, pedes, miles, gregarius, utr. a Teut. Lance, lancea, et Knecht, servus: olim enim pedites equitum lanceariorum quasi servi erunt; et quilibet eques quatuor vel quinque pedites, tanquam famulos circumduxit. Exercitus autem numero equitum, non peditum censebantur.
Vide Comineum et alios illorum seculorum Scriptores.
It appears, that Machiavelli, in his Arte della Guerra, sufficiently points out what, and how considered, the infantry were in his time, when he says (libro primo) “Venuta la pace, che i gentil huomini alla loro particolare arte.”
It is plain, the fanti were huomini bassi, e soldati gregarii, i. e. hired servants, and therefore called fanti, and the corps fanteria. The term infantry was given to them when they were considered merely as lads attending on the army: and the term has continued, though their condition is altered.
From these sensible observations, it is evident that although the primary sources of infantry are in the Greek and Latin languages, its modern derivation is from the Italian word fante, which signifies a follower. In the first stages of modern warfare, battles were chiefly fought by cavalry or horsemen; but in Italy, and afterwards in Spain, the bodies of horse were always attended by a certain number of squires or armed men on foot, who marched in the rear and assisted their leaders.
Boccacio mentions the latter under the term fanteria, and other Italian writers, one of whom we have already quoted, call it infanteria, both being derived from fante. Nothing can be more out of date, out of place, and superficial than to imagine that because the Spaniards have recorded a gallant action, which was performed by an infanta of that nation, the rest of Europe should bury the real etymology of infantry beneath the flimsy texture of court adulation. It is, besides, extremely erroneous to state, that until that period men did not fight on foot. It is well known that the Greeks and Romans frequently placed the greatest confidence in men of that description. The former had their Hoplitai, their Psiloi, and their Peltastai; and the latter their Celeres, Velites, Hastati, Principes, and Triarii, or Pisarii. The French word Fantassin which signifies a foot soldier, is manifestly derived from fante.
Until the reign of Charles the VIIth. the French infantry were extremely defective; so much so, that Brantome says in one part of his works, the infantry could not be considered as essentially useful to the security of the state. For it consisted in those days, of marauts, belistres mal armés, mal complexionnés; fenéans, pillards et mangeurs du peuple: which may be thus rendered in plain English: lads, rascals, and vagabonds, scoundrels ill equipped and ill looking, filchers, plunderers, and devourers of the people.
Europe however is unquestionably indebted to the Swiss for a total change in the military system particularly so with regard to foot soldiers.
Dr. Robertson in the first volume of his history of Charles V. p. 105, observes that the system of employing the Swiss in the Italian wars, was the occasion of introducing a total innovation in the military custom. The arms and discipline of the Swiss were different from those of other European nations. During their long and violent struggles in defence of their liberties against the house of Austria, whose armies, like those of other considerable princes, consisted chiefly of heavy-armed cavalry, the Swiss found that their poverty, and the small number of gentlemen residing in their country, at that time barren and ill cultivated, put it out of their power to bring into the field any body of horse capable of facing the enemy. Necessity compelled them to place all their confidence in infantry, and in order to render it capable of withstanding the shock of cavalry, they gave the soldiers breast-plates and helmets, as defensive armor, together with long spears, halberts, and heavy swords, as weapons of offence. They formed them into large battalions, ranged in deep and close array, so that they could present on every side a formidable front to the enemy. (See Machiavel’s Art of War, b. ii. chap. ii. p. 451.) The men at arms could make no impression on the solid strength of such a body. It repulsed the Austrians in all their attempts to conquer Swisserland. It broke the Burgundian gendarmerie, which was scarcely inferior to that of France, either in number or reputation; and when first called to act in Italy, it bore down by its irresistable force, every enemy that attempted to oppose it. These repeated proofs of the decisive effect of infantry, exhibited on such conspicuous occasions, restored that service to reputation, and gradually re-established the opinion which had been long exploded, of its superior importance in the operations of war. But the glory the Swiss had acquired, having inspired them with such high ideas of their own prowess and consequence, as frequently rendered them mutinous and insolent, the princes who employed them became weary of depending on the caprice of foreign mercenaries, and began to turn their attention towards the improvement of their national infantry.
The German powers having the command of men, whom nature has endowed with that steady courage and persevering strength which form them to be soldiers, soon modelled their troops in such a manner, that they vied with the Swiss both in discipline and valor.