Need help - Warfare (and architecture) in the 12th / 13th century (10mm)

[Daniel36]

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!

[Dice Roller]

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.

[Just a few orcs]

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

[Daniel36]

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.

[Dice Roller]

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.

[Daniel36]

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.

[Moriarty]

You might want to look at a thread called ‘Force composition in the Wars of the Roses’, it discusses Medieval retinues and their dispositions.

[Byrthnoth]

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.

[Ran The Cid]

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.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

>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.

[Charlie_]

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.

[rumacara]

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.

[Freddy]

>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.

[Daniel36]

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.

[carlos marighela]

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.