Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Daniel36 on July 02, 2024, 10:25:33 AM
-
Well, hello everyone. I have some questions for the history buffs out there who can help me with creating a setting that makes sense.
I am planning on creating a few armies in 10mm that should match the feel of how battles were fought around the 12th/13th century. It will be a fantasy setting mostly in that it will feature Orcs and such, but otherwise I want it to feel like a proper historical setting. No silly flying mechanical contraptions and whatnot. Orcs are simply a different culture as much as vikings are different to the Celts or something...
The reason for this is Mount and Blade : Warband. This is a fantasy wargame, no fantasy monsters though, and it is (very) loosely set around 12th / 13th century. Which is my first issue. Since it is so loosely set there, it might not depict warfare very realistically. Hence why I am asking here.
In it, armies are usually no bigger than 200 men, led by a knight who is part of one of the small kingdoms. They usually owned a small castle and maybe a town. Sometimes several of these knights would come together with the king to plan a siege, so that's when battles would be bigger.
Armies would not really be formed in regiments like in Warhammer Fantasy or Oathmark. At best, they would form a long line, especially archers, but these lines would be broken up really quickly. Men usually just ran to wherever they would fancy their chances best.
So that got me thinking, what is the basis for having those regiments in games like Warhammer or Oathmark? When did armies start using regiments like one would see in games such as Warhammer? Would the 12th century already have that, or is Mount and Blade more correct in its depiction? I mean, Warhammer is set in a bit later time period, what with all the cannons and Rennaisance outfits, but a setting like Oathmark definitely feels earlier, with mostly low tech units.
I am asking because I am in doubt whether to base them on square or round bases. If their combat is loose, like in Mount and Blade, then round bases and using a system like Lord of the Rings makes more sense. If they would indeed have started using regiments like you would see in Oathmark, then I am going for square bases and using that rules set.
I really couldn't find the information I was looking for. I did find a lot of information on how society functioned, and that definitely feels like how they are showing it in Mount and Blade. But my search terms didn't really give me information on how wars were played out.
Thank you in advance for all your help! :)
-
Truth is, I suspect no one definitively knows.
There is evidence, that must be inferred, that armies did operate in units.
For example, at the Battle of the Standard (1138) it is recorded how the English formed their archers into a group and how this devastated the Scottish army. In fact, I think this one of the earliest references to the later English tactic of archer formations.
But how did that body of archers operate in accordance with other units in the English army? We don't really know.
Were the archers a second rank, shooting over the heads of spearmen? Were they discrete units - e.g. a blob of spearmen, then a blob of archers, then a blob of spearmen again, etc?
Again, we really don't know.
At Agincourt it is clear the English archers not only used their bows but, when out of arrows and the enemy got close, they put those bows down and pulled out mallets, hatchets and knives and got stuck in. So is that a unit of archers, swordsmen, or what?
But you have another issue. If you treat units as mixed then your rules are going to have to be able to deal with units with mixed arms.
If it's a skirmish game then that problem is mostly bypassed.
The main reason so many games (skirmish or mass battle) have distinct units, all armed the same way, is that it is just easier to deal with.
I would say that you are best off doing what feels 'right' to you and then use a set of rules that reflects that.
-
I would suggest you chose system that works for both.
I would mount a few figures on a smaller single base. Either round or square that can then be used as individual bases or put into a movement tray as made by Warbases or Products for Wargamers to make a regiment.
You can also use the individual bases as effective single figures for RPG type games such as Sellswords and Spell singers
-
Thank you Diceroller for your thoughts.
And Just a few orcs, that is definitely worth considering. Round or square also definitely dictates whether I put them in rank and file look or scattered.
And my apologies for being unclear, but it was always the idea to place several models on one base. In the case of Warhammer and Oathmark, I do like the look of those ranks, but 25 models a regiment always felt silly. So the idea would be to use those rulesets, with the same amount of bases, except fill up the bases with more models than would be the case in 28mm.
In any case, I did find some more information in the meantime on the topic of warfare.
From Swansea University:
Major pitched battles – like that fought near Hastings on 14 October 1066 – dominate perceptions of the period. Yet, in fact, major battles were the exception rather than the norm in this period. Warfare was an expensive endeavour, and many lords did not wish to gamble everything on one encounter, whose outcome was very often difficult if not impossible fully to control. This is not, however, to suggest that substantial military activity did not take place in the Central Middle Ages; it certainly did. That activity, though, more often than not took place on the level of raids and skirmishes. Commanders would generally target an enemy’s lands, terrorising or capturing the people who lived on it and destroying crops, livestock and buildings.
So it definitely feels like "skirmish" rulesets (for lack of a better suited term) will be preferable, and at most the rank and file units for larger battles will still look slightly disorganized, not neatly stacked in rows like in rank and file systems.
Any more thoughts on warfare in this era will still be greatly appreciated, as will be suggestions for rulesets.
To clarify, I am looking for 28mm rulesets where I will simply fill up the bases with more and smaller models to convery bigger battles, since I do like the systems as a whole, just find the scale a mismatch.
Currently liking the look of Lion Rampant.
-
To multi-base or not, that is the question.
For this period I definitely wouldn't.
As your research uncovered, mass battles in the period were relatively uncommon.
Skirmishes, big and small, were more common.
So definitely have them individually based and just use sabot bases when needed.
As for round or square...that's up to you. It won't make any difference.
I have shed loads of medievals (early and late) and they are all individually based. On 25mm round bases.
-
To multi-base or not, that is the question.
For this period I definitely wouldn't.
Well, I am taking a happy middle ground, with bases having a small number of models. Currently thinking 3 or 4 for infantry, and 2 for cavalry. Not yet entirely decided, since I probably also want to have cavarly on bigger bases, same as they would in 28mm. But that will also depend on the ruleset.
Currently, Lion Rampant seems to be perfect for what I have in mind. This ruleset also seems to have that middle ground between being loose but also sort of regimented. It seems this system lets me use those (new word learned) sabot bases easily, so it sounds like a good fit.
Off to do some more research.
-
You might want to look at a thread called ‘Force composition in the Wars of the Roses’, it discusses Medieval retinues and their dispositions.
-
It’s hard to say exactly where the line is between ‘skirmish’ and ‘battle’, in terms of number of soldiers. It probably differed by time and place, but there’s a point where you have enough guys that a massed formation can offer meaningful mutual protection, at the expense of maneuverability.
The rules of warhammer and Oathmark encourage units that are too deep relative to their width. This will only be accentuated with multi-based 10mm figures.
Lion Rampant would do the trick for big skirmish. Assuming 3-5 10mm figures per base, you’re looking at around 200 figures per army, which are at 1:1 scale, still feels like it would be a ‘big skirmish’ rather than a small massed battle to me. LR has optional rules for facing and flanks that might be worth using. Presumably it’s harder for a mob of 60 to know what’s going on all around them and turn to face a threat than it would be for a group of 12 soldiers.
You might also look at Never Mind the Billhooks. It’s designed for the Wars of the Roses but can work well for earlier periods. A fantasy supplement has just been released, but I haven’t looked at it yet.
-
Baron's War is another option for skirmish battles during this time period. The base rule book only has units for England, but they have additional supplements for Crusades and Saxon/Viking periods.
-
>Armies would not really be formed in regiments like in Warhammer Fantasy or Oathmark. At best, they would form a long line, especially archers, but these lines would be broken up really quickly. Men usually just ran to wherever they would fancy their chances best.
That’s rather simplistic. Formations/units would be based upon a particular noble’s retinue following their leaders and their standards. While mixed formations of different armor/weapon types were undoubtably there, many divisions between skirmish troops and battle line units by role was already well understood, if from just basic experience, it is easy to see it is better to put slingers/archers/crossbows into small bands with some flexibilty and speed separate from the heavies who formed the shield wall. Huscarls would already be banded as were the fyrd, which was based and mobilized on the hundred, village and shires.
-
To multi-base or not, that is the question.
For this period I definitely wouldn't.
As your research uncovered, mass battles in the period were relatively uncommon.
Skirmishes, big and small, were more common.
You can have them multibased and still have a loose look to them. Say, 6 figures on a 50x100mm base. Two of these together for a 12-man unit, suitable for Lion Rampant.
I always, always think multi-basing looks better than single-based figures in some sort of sabot tray. You can have them spread around the base unevenly to represent open order or just an informal grouping of sorts... clump them closer together for heavy infantry... The problem I see with the single-bases and sabot tray approach is they are all in neat ranks and files, but with quite a wide (and too regular) space between them.
This doesn't really help the original question though. I'll echo the point maid earlier that warhammer and other such games often favour nearly square units, which doesn't really look 'right'. Too deep. You should find a way to have them looking much wider than they are deep! Perhaps your individual square bases should be rectangular, say 40x20mm. So a unit of say, 3 x 5 bases (whether thats 15 28mm models or 75 10m models) will have an overall footprint of 200x60mm rather than 100x60mm. Will look much better I think for the 10mm approach, and you can still treat each base as an individual model for Warhammer and such games. Will just want to keep it consistent for both armies.
-
Take a look at Ravenfeast rules.
They provide ideas of individual figures and multibased figures and the rules are simple to understand.
Probably there are other rules more suitable but these are free so give them a read.
Also download and read the Wofun rules.
Again simple but with multibased figures acting as regiments but in a sort of line. You have both Medieval, Fantasy and Dark Ages rules. Again, free.
http://www.ravenfeast.com/
https://wofungames.com/
Regarding the armies i dont think i can add more than said before. Each noble would gather is retainers and march to a meeting place where the combined forces of several nobles plus say, the royal force/retinues would form the army. The nobles and the king (if present) would discuss how to deploy their forces and how to use them to maximise their impact in the battle (deployment of the troops).
Depending on the degree of combat experience and the enemy force, the deployment could vary a lot.
-
>Armies would not really be formed in regiments like in Warhammer Fantasy or Oathmark. At best, they would form a long line, especially archers, but these lines would be broken up really quickly. Men usually just ran to wherever they would fancy their chances best.
That’s rather simplistic. Formations/units would be based upon a particular noble’s retinue following their leaders and their standards. While mixed formations of different armor/weapon types were undoubtably there, many divisions between skirmish troops and battle line units by role was already well understood, if from just basic experience, it is easy to see it is better to put slingers/archers/crossbows into small bands with some flexibilty and speed separate from the heavies who formed the shield wall. Huscarls would already be banded as were the fyrd, which was based and mobilized on the hundred, village and shires.
Exactly. In the army of medieval Hungary the knights always fought together to form small but hard hitting units, the nomadic light cavalry was put into the vanguard, and the bulk, the middleweight cavalry were grouped together in units of a couple hundreds as each county sent a contingent of 3-400 cavalrymen under the command of the ispán (county leader). County cavalry was further divided into companies of 100 and squads of 10 (this was a nomadic tradition though). And the usage of units was quite obvious as for example a Russian chronicle explicitly talks about a 73 unit strong Hungarian army when describing a mid-12th century campaign into what is todays Ukraine. So I do not have any problem to represent them with WHF -style blocks.
...with two important remarks
-the table shall be big enough to form a true battleline- the "units" this way act as links in the chain of the battleline rather than a Napoleonic stlye attack column. Medieval armies tried to outflank each other, superior numbers more likely meant longer flanks rather than massed center. But the table shall be big enough to represent this.
-a Hail Caesar-like command system shall be used. This helps realistically represent the movement and behaviour of the armies based on their organizatoion structure- you cant just form the Death Star of Doom when your army is composed of the household of 4 different barons.
-
Thanks everyone.
Definitely taking a look at Ravenfeast and Wofun. The two dying guys on the Ravenfeast main page, I have those models! :)
I am still very interested in Lion Rampant as well. It sounds like my kind of game. But now I am highly doubting if 10mm is the way to go. Seems that the army size of a standard Lion Rampant game is actually a model count I can get behind, and with multibasing that number will go twice as high. Not sure if I want that. Unless I can work around the amount of bases I need. Seems Charlie has some experience with multibased units in Lion Rampant.
But for now, Ravenfeast and Wofun are a must read.
-
One of my 'projects on hold' (half the figures bought, none painted) is the Anglo-Norman/ Cambro-Norman Invasion of Ireland in the late 12thC. I bought Lion Rampant specifically to do this as most of the engagements are small, so a large skirmish set seems appropriate and the rules are fairly simple. Fitzstephen's entire invading force in 1169 consisted of 40 knights, 60 men at arms and 360 archers. Fitzgerald's expeditionary force was even smaller, jst 10 knights and around 70 archers.
I agree with the earlier comments, whilst retinues might not have been regimentally structured it's overwhelmingly likely that they would have been deployed to their greatest advantage and more often that not that would mean the functional grouping or massing of certain troop types to achieve shock or effective fire control of weapons like bows. This is particularly true of armies like the Normans who had a wealth of military experience and resultant success. Some of the troop types in LR, like Yeomen and Bidowers are sufficently broad in terms of their function that they can readily represent everyman troops able to do a bit of this or a bit of that though as well as specialist foot or missile units.
-
Talking 13th century, there were not many large units yet. An example is the “Livre des Ostz“ (1294) which lists who must come when the duke of Brittany needs them.
Text here in Old French: https://www.tudchentil.org/spip.php?article48
What's interesting is the number of knights, sent by each lord, who would come alone or in very small groups (and even, some people must send a squire, or an armed man(?) or half a knight, or a quarter of a knight, or a third of a knight)... lol
Obviously these knights would come with a few followers. If your rules allow it, rather than regiments I would have the knights arriving near the battlefield in small groups accompanied by their retainers, and then the knights would form in larger units and their foot soldiers would form infantry units.
A few soldiers would arrive in regular companies (if not regiments) the text says that the bishop of St-Malo must send 30 archers with bows and arrows; the bishop and chapter of Rennes must send “all their men from the town“. Some others must give money (that could perhaps pay more units?)
-
Again, thanks for the clarifications.
You guys should check out Mount and Blade : Warband. It goes on sale all the time for very cheap and it is basically what we're describing here. There are mods for certain historical time periods, if you like some added realism, and even a stand-alone version called Viking Conquest that deals with the viking era. It's basically Lion Rampant.
-
Getting a pretty solid idea of what I am looking for, miniaturewise and the amount.
Now for buildings. Anyone have a good suggestion for 10mm buildings from around 12th / 13th century? I saw some really good and cheap buildings, but they were of a later period, better suited for Warhammer. Still amazing, but not what I am looking for.
Thanks again for all the help!
-
Multi-based 10mm figures would work well for the Rampant series of games.
You can either count figures or bases - as you note if you count figures, you need to paint more figures but they are small and paint up quicker, and then look good as small units of 30-40 figures rather than 10-12.
Terrain - ones always worth a look
Total Battle Miniatures
Leven Miniatures
Pendraken
Magister Militum carried the JR Terrain - but not sure if they still do.
Not sure if you have decided on figures - but I have a bunch of 10mm Barons War figures that I’m up for selling as not sure they are fitting with the direction my 10mm armies are going (much more Warhammer centric)
-
Not sure if you have decided on figures - but I have a bunch of 10mm Barons War figures that I’m up for selling as not sure they are fitting with the direction my 10mm armies are going (much more Warhammer centric)
First of all, thank you for the directions to several scenery manufacturers. Send me a PM if you want to discuss me taking your models off your hands. Do you have a link where I can see what those models look like?
ps. Leven Miniatures seems to have ceased operations. :(
-
I really hope Leven Miniatures is just having temporary website issues and isn’t gone permanently, they’re one of my favorite 6mm building suppliers!
-
Some wargame websites are temporarily out of order these days.
-
I think the Leven issue is just with their site
First of all, thank you for the directions to several scenery manufacturers. Send me a PM if you want to discuss me taking your models off your hands. Do you have a link where I can see what those models look like?
Let me sort something out tomorrow - I’ve been out much of today
-
I'm definitely not a historian, but I've been reeneacting 1138-1215 since 2013 now and learned a lot through listening to the "research department" of our organisation. A lot of period combat was very local, back then the Norman society has not yet dominated the entire Britain (or not even all the most populated parts), you had factions, personal feuds, etc., etc. So "large skirmish" is a pretty good scale for it. If your neighbour had a mill and you were feuding with him, you may try to take it over and one way to do it is to just fight.
I think wargamers overuse the "peasant" or "unarmoured levy" class of combatants a lot. If you could give them some pokey sticks and shields, plop them en masse at an easily defensible position, they could probably stay there and even defend themselves decent enough, epsecially against other levies. If you order them to attack, be prepared for a disatser. In a sense, as a local lord you had only two real types of combatants - your feudal retainers (household and tenant knights) and your levy. Quite possibly, your neighbour who you're feuding with has the exact same set. The way people broke this parity of forces is through hiring mercenaries, oftentimes from the continent. In that case, you send your levies to defend an important position, you let your knights bash it out with the neighbour's knights and then, if your enemy has not a band of his own, you take over all the strategic positions with your mercenary bands, which will make short work of the levies your neighbour left to defend them. Or if killing is your main goal, not taking of land, you send them to outflank and charge in the opposition's knights to help your blokes. So, if you're rich and can afford it, mercenaries are the proverbial spanner you can throw at your enemies works. And if they were poor and couldn't afford mercenaries of their own, well, tough luck.
There were also quite a few sieges in that period, which I believe were a much more common form of warfare than large pitched battles. So you have a lot of options there, although I think siege wargames have to be very "involved" to really encapsulate a siege properly. I often thought about playing some specific episode of a siege, like storming of a gate, with a skirmish ruleset. I re-enacted the Siege of Prudhoe Castle (1173) a few times as the Scottish force and it was very insightful. The moat is now a road there, but carrying a ladder down and then up sharp slopes was intense :D
-
Thanks, Maxromek. Very insightful as well.
My mind is definitely made up. This is a time period I like. The game Mount and Blade really captures the feeling well and since one of my kids and myself really like that game, I want to build something similar for the tabletop.
Lion Rampant seems the perfect ruleset for me. Still a little undecided about 10mm but I think I will stick with it. Just have to figure out how to base them, is all.
-
A Lion Rampant unit is made up of 12 figures (6 for cavalry and skirmishers).
As you take damage you remove a figure.
So for 10mm you could put, say, 2 figures per base and just remove one base when you take a point of damage. This means you'd need 24 figures per unit. Or you could base them individually and stick with just 12 models per unit.
On average a standard 24 point force will comprise about 5 or 6 units. So if you go with 2 models per base you would be looking at a total of about 120 minis per army, less if you have more cavalry, more if you want different unit options.
But that kind of number. That doesn't sound too bad to me.
I reckon Lion Rampant in 10mm with multiple figures per base would look great. If I was starting from scratch I would be very tempted by that option.
-
I agree with dice roller, pop a couple of 10 mm figures on a base and count that as "one model". It also gives you an option of doing a wee diorama for your commanders 😁
-
Unless doing a 1:1 ratio skirmish level, consider using 6 mm buildings with your 10 mm figures. If you are fielding units, it will look better than using 10 mm buildings - at least most of the time. Afraid I can't point you where to go though perhaps Hovels if they have 6 mm for the period (I just don't know).
-
Print and cut card buildings are always an option:
https://mojobob.com/roleplay/props/buildings.html
-
you would be looking at a total of about 120 minis per army, less if you have more cavalry, more if you want different unit options.
But that kind of number. That doesn't sound too bad to me.
I reckon Lion Rampant in 10mm with multiple figures per base would look great. If I was starting from scratch I would be very tempted by that option.
That does indeed sound like a good amount. Around 120 men a side sounds like a pretty realistic number. I have some standard sized bases lying in front of me, round and square, but they feel a tad too big for the infantry, and puting 4 on each base will make the armies too big for my taste... Unless I halve the amount of infantry bases and remember that each one will count as two.
Something to think about.
As for buildings, I might end up just doing simple buildings myself. Sounds like it's not too difficult in this scale.
Thanks everyone for your help!
One more question... Would Lion Rampant work if I halved the amount of units? Would it work if infantry would be 6 bases and mounted would be 3?
-
One more question... Would Lion Rampant work if I halved the amount of units? Would it work if infantry would be 6 bases and mounted would be 3?
It really doesn't matter how many or how few figures/bases you have, as long as you can track casualties.
Dragon Rampant, the Fantasy version, allows for reduced figure units (so one or two monsters may make a unit while 24 kobolds might make another unit). This does not affect play in those rules and doesn't affect play in Lion Rampant.
Sounds like a good project. Have fun.
-
Thank you. So far it is working out perfectly. One pack of Copplestone Castings 10mm Horse Tribe Foot Archers for £6,60 makes 1 whole archer unit. The Cavalry makes one whole unit. That's already 2 units for £13,20. Not a bad deal.
A small part of ke wants to turn them into 10mm Warhammer 8th ed regiments though... it will also look pretty awesome as blocks of regiments, especially the Orcs I also got. But this will be more cost effective and playable.
-
So it seems the entire regimented approach with huge battles really started to take off around the 14th/15th century. Would that be a fair assessment? I've seen some art from those periods that definitely depict it, the Billhooks game really sells that feel. I guess Warhammer in itself is based more around that period, what with the Empire cannons, handguns, their entire look.
I think I will be happy starting out with these small skirmish bands, set in a 12th century era in my fantasy kingdims, and maybe when I like the scale enough (I will), I can always start some big regimented armies somewhere down the line to show later periods in it.
-
So it seems the entire regimented approach with huge battles really started to take off around the 14th/15th century. Would that be a fair assessment? I've seen some art from those periods that definitely depict it...
Erm, kind of.
Big battles (and depictions thereof) occurred before the 14th Century.
Let's not forget the Bayeux Tapestry depicting Hastings in 1066, for instance.
Plus many more.
The 'regimented approach' has probably been going on since human civilisation was capable of organising warfare against each other. Doubtless the Egyptians put their chariots, and their archers, etc, into viable 'regiments' that maximised their advantages and mitigated any disadvantages.
It would have been nothing new for the 14th Century.
One of the main reasons why mass battles seldom occur was due to societal structure. It was just hard to get too many people on the battlefield at the same time. And the logistics of supporting them just wasn't up to the job. That goes for all periods up to the modern day. If you look at dates of battles (let's not get into the debate on what constitutes a 'battle' as opposed to a 'skirmish' - according to the laws of Ine (7th century) an 'army' was anything over 30-odd men!) you see that there are actually relatively few. Again, it comes down to the logistics of getting a (big) army in the field and supporting them there.
So, no - the 'regimented' approach didn't start in the 14th Century. This approach had likely been taken ever since someone needed to put a large army together. And the art from lots of periods show this - Babylonian wall carvings, Roman columns, medieval tapestries, etc. But throughout 'civilised' human history you will find that local skirmishes are easier to organise, support and command than any large, set-piece, battle.
Kinda feel like you're starting to tie yourself in knots over it. Truth is, we don't know so many things and we probably never will. Just do what feels right to you.
-
It's probably fair to say that battles and armies got bigger and more 'regimented' perhaps in the early 16th century. You referenced Empire cannons, handguns etc in warhammer - that's very much a 16th century thing. The original warhammer Empire army sculpted by the Perrys and released in the early 90s was pretty much a historical early 1500s army, with a few later 17th century things and a hint of steampunk thrown in.
If you look at tapestries depicting battles from the Great Italian Wars (early 1500s), then yes they do give the impression of having big organised blocks of pikemen, heavy cavalry etc. Just a few decades before, in the late 15th century, things seem very much more 'medieval'. Take the Wars of the Roses, beloved of wargamers and students of English history... their battles do seem much simpler affairs, and can be boiled down to two modest armies lining up against eachother, shooting a few arrows, then closing in to fight it out in a big brawl!
Military technology developed somewhat slowly through the many centuries of the medieval era - but once we get into the 1500s and beyond, warfare changes pretty rapidly.
Also worth noting another reason for armies and wars getting bigger from 1500 onwards is political - large unified nations were becoming a thing. France, Spain, England, they were all fairly unified under powerful kings who could take large armies on campaign in foreign wars. The concept of a permanent military loyal to the monarch appeared in France in the 15th century - earlier this really hadn't existed. Areas which were still divided into a myriad of small warring states, such as Italy, usually got stomped all over by these big foreign powers!
-
Kinda feel like you're starting to tie yourself in knots over it.
One of the things I do best.
Autism. My greates strength, my biggest weakness.
I am tying myself in a LOT of knots. Thanks for helping me untangle.
Take the Wars of the Roses, beloved of wargamers and students of English history... their battles do seem much simpler affairs, and can be boiled down to two modest armies lining up against eachother, shooting a few arrows, then closing in to fight it out in a big brawl!
Probably more fun to play for a tactical... what's the opposite of a genius?... such as myself.
Thank you both for your insights.
I like history. I like medieval times. But I know VERY little of it. Most of my historical "knowledge" comes from faux medieval fantasy games, to be quite honest. I guess I only just found the time and interest to get deeper into the real history, and you guys have so far blessed me with a lot of knowledge and hints to pursue.
Thank you!
-
I only know a moderate amount of the history of this period and less about specific tactics. I suspect, like a lot of military history, the specifics of how things were done were not well recorded. Although only fiction (and a later period than what you want) the Christian Cameron books give a good feel for small to large battles. The author has done a lot of research and is a reenactor. The Chivalry series is mid 14th Century and Tom Swan books are mid 15th. This might help give you an idea of how a small retinue might have slotted in to a bigger army.
I agree with the others who have posted - it is likely same arms would have been grouped together. I would assume, however, that a private retinue would keep it's forces in the same battle/wing despite elements of the retinue being split off and combined into bigger combined units.
-
One of the things I do best.
Autism. My greates strength, my biggest weakness.
I am tying myself in a LOT of knots.
Ah, OK. Sorry if I made you self-conscious. I was being flippant.
Yes, I imagine it can be a test at times.
The thing to remember with all this Quest For The Truth is that, regrettably, sometimes the truth will just have to remain illusive. It's a symptom of our modern age, how we like things categorised and clear-cut. And gamers and computer users (which often overlap) frequently like that categorisation - serves 'em for dealing with 1s and 0s! For them, it simply is or isn't, and they'll have no truck with nuance. Alas, our forbears often didn't feel the same or, at least, never felt the need to record how they do categorise things. So it can seem a bit random and inconsistent which must be a nightmare if you find that randomness and inconsistency frustrating.
With regards how medieval generals put an army together, they were still very dependent on classical scholars. They would have looked to classical writings on the preparation of an army for battle. Some of these sources have survived, but many have not. So we are left scratching our heads. We do know, for example, that medieval cavalry did train together in a formation called a conroi. So clearly there was some thought to how forces would work together. How that translates to a game is anyone's guess. Game mechanics will often take the path of least resistance and do whatever makes the game work and provides a couple hours of enjoyment. How much it has in common with history comes second and, quite frankly, who can blame them given the lack of knowledge we have.
So feel free to take the same approach.
The most important thing is to do what you enjoy. They're your toy soldiers and it's your leisure time.
-
I highly recommend reading about the Battle of the Standard (1138), there are some information about the possible division of men into units and what is important is that the main division was along national (or "tribal" in a modern parlance) lines. The "Gaelic" Scots and the "normanised" Scots were separated, had seemingly different arms and different fighting style and tactics. So the divisions into units may have been decided not always (if ever in that period) based on arms and armour, but more so along societal borders.
-
Ah, OK. Sorry if I made you self-conscious. I was being flippant.
Oh no, please don't feel bad. I am no more self conscious than any other time, haha. This thread has been very informative. Thank you, all of you.
I highly recommend reading about the Battle of the Standard (1138),
Will do!