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

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

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.

[Daniel36]

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.

[Daniel36]

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.

[Dice Roller]

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.

[Charlie_]

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!

[Daniel36]

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!

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

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.

[Dice Roller]

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.

[Maxromek]

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.

[Daniel36]

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!