Mounted Longbowmen; Light cavalry or early dragoons ?

[Stuart]

Hello all, your collective thougts would be appreciated.

This, not in any way associated with a forthcoming Perry release 

I'm going to have a lot of fun painting them, and I really can't wait for them to be released so to pass the time here's a few questions to get your brains going;

1. Were these essentially very early dragoons or did they perform a scouting role the same as border horse?

2. Rules wise - I know there are a few so let me know what you think works; can they dismount and fire in the same bound?

3. if they are attacked whilst dismounted and flee, do they do so mounted and use the appropriate distance or do they flee as foot? - i'm guessing if a horse was nearby you'd want to use it.

4. can they attack mounted, likewise can they defend as bows if attacked by cavalry?

5. How would you base them - i'm thinking bases of mounted men for movement and just using normal longbowmen with a base of horses and one holder behind.

Stuart

[max]

I know that during the Hundred Years War the archers would often raid while mounted, and could fire mounted too. In these cases they would have been light cavalry, but in a pitched battle or against stubborn resistance they might dismount (i'm guessing shooting a longbow is easier on foot).
I assume they scouted as well.

As for dismounting and firing in the same turn, i know the Burgundians would train their archers to dismount, fire, then mount up quickly, so i guess it's possible.

Hope this helps!

[Luddite]

[Arlequín]

I don't think there's an easy 'one answer that suits all' here to be honest. It was very common for professional soldiers to be mounted, which would include the retainers within English forces. How good the rider and how good the horse, would determine their ability to fight/shoot mounted.

I like to think of the better ones as being like U.S. 19th Century Cavalry, ideally dismounting to shoot, but capable of somewhat less accurate fire, combined with the ability to charge, when mounted. The not so good ones would struggle to travel from A to B and remain mounted throughout.

I'm not sure 'light cavalry' is a fitting category, although their role would have encompassed all of the typical duties you would expect from them. The impact of Spanish Jinetes and the Stradiots on the warfare of the 16th Century, clearly highlighted the shortcomings of existing European 'light cavalry', so ECW/TYW 'Dragoons' might be a better pigeon-hole. As we know, some dragoons were reasonably accomplished horsemen and at least the equal of some of the poorer cavalry around back then.

Having said that, some would be the equals of the poorer quality men at arms, albeit on the whole less well armoured. Every man at arms wasn't 'trained from birth' by any stretch of the imagination, while some mounted archers/crossbowmen had been fighting since their mid-teens.

The Border Horse were perhaps the exemplars of this type of fighting, mainly because that was their life, so you would expect them to be good at it. Everyone else somewhat the same, or mostly less so, in varying degrees, from place to place across Europe.

Some men were scouts, they are identified as 'scourers' and similar terms and paid somewhat more than the 'mounted archers' on the same rolls. How good they were at their job remains to be seen. Edward IV's scourers in the Tewkesbury campaign were apparently good enough to keep tabs on Margaret's Army. However Warwick's failed to locate the Northern Army's flanking move before St. Albans. On an earlier occasion (I forget which), two armies virtually marched past each other, with neither side's scourers being any the wiser.

I'm pretty certain in my mind that Clifford's force at Ferrybridge in 1461, was wholly mounted. It may have even been the same force which headed the Lancastrian force at St Albans previously. The scant accounts of the action, seem to me, to indicate a sort of running cavalry battle as he attempted to withdraw to join the main Lancastrian force. Defending the crossing would have been impossible without archers, who themselves must have been mounted, if only to keep pace with his other mounted troops (Westmorland Border Horse probably).

In an actual formal battle though, I suspect that most such forces would have been dismounted and in the main battle line, where they would be most effective. We do have mention of a 'plomp of spears' at Towton and it seems possible that other battles had small groups of mounted men around, although whether these would include archers is debatable. 

[vonplutz]

I'm very dubious of longbows being fired from horseback and believe, from my own studies, that it only occurred in very dire situations as the one mentioned in the linked video as the effectiveness of the weapon's primary purpose would have been reduced greatly when used from horseback. As Arlequin has pointed out there really was not a uniform ability. Some men could ride well whilst other struggled.

As far as game terms what I would personally do is have them move as mounted, dismount to shoot (here the issue with whether they ride with string bows or not determines if they can shoot right off the bat), and flee on foot if charged within a short distance but mounted if at a longer distance thus showing the time required to mount. Your basing idea is good.

[painterman]

Stuart
For what its worth, I'm going with the current flow of opinion here (and ignoring Mr Loades inspiring video of longbow firing from the saddle, whilst also fording a stream!) and say that longbowmen were likely to mounted only for campaigning; effectively to get from A to B and keep up with the rest of the army who were also mounted; i.e. English chevauchees in French territories etc.
Not sure on the rules impacts by clearly dismounting and sorting out equipment, stringing bows etc must take some time and have an impact on capability to fire their bows.

Regards,
Simon.

PS - am really hoping that the 'light cavalry' box is available before the foot knights - we'll see. 

[6sided]

I would think they were just mounted infantry. The horses would have been poor quality and the men untrained to fight in any formation mounted.

[Arlequín]

... and the men untrained to fight in any formation mounted.

Granting your other points, what makes you think that they were trained to fight in any formation, foot or mounted, in any case?

Both the Swiss and Burgundians were remarked upon as noteworthy for 'drilling' their troops, but I think you will struggle to find any evidence for other armies, especially the English. While there was potentially time to do this before a foreign expedition, most nobles struggled to raise men in time for a battle in the WotR, let alone time to train them.

As far as game terms what I would personally do is have them move as mounted, dismount to shoot (here the issue with whether they ride with string bows or not determines if they can shoot right off the bat), and flee on foot if charged within a short distance but mounted if at a longer distance thus showing the time required to mount. Your basing idea is good.

Unless you are playing rules with a very low time per turn, the time taken to string a bow would be negligible. Likewise mounting/dismounting takes almost no time at all. As these guys owned the horses they rode, I doubt they would abandon them too easily either.

... and another thing, why would they be fleeing? Besides being English, they were the hardest guys on the battlefield after the men at arms and they didn't think they were all that either.

[vonplutz]

Granting your other points, what makes you think that they were trained to fight in any formation, foot or mounted, in any case?

Both the Swiss and Burgundians were remarked upon as noteworthy for 'drilling' their troops, but I think you will struggle to find any evidence for other armies, especially the English. While there was potentially time to do this before a foreign expedition, most nobles struggled to raise men in time for a battle in the WotR, let alone time to train them.

I'd argue that a mass lined up would be a formation and one used by the English archers, but one they might have difficulty using in battle. Further there horses may not have been accustomed to the sounds of a battle so in game terms formation is not necessarily only a formation but also a cohesion.

Unless you are playing rules with a very low time per turn, the time taken to string a bow would be negligible. Likewise mounting/dismounting takes almost no time at all. As these guys owned the horses they rode, I doubt they would abandon them too easily either.

... and another thing, why would they be fleeing? Besides being English, they were the hardest guys on the battlefield after the men at arms and they didn't think they were all that either.

The only reason I suggested having dismount/nocking time is to balance the game. Otherwise these mounted bowmen could become super soldiers if one does not play with a very, honourable, opponent.

I disagree with you on the abandoning horse idea. Lets say you're an Englishman firing your bow between two copses. From around one come charging a bunch of frogs on horseback with lances levelled at you and your mates. I highly doubt you'll be collecting old naggy Tony from a few meters away, jumping into the saddle and galloping off with those French buggers on your tail. Likely you'd just run into the copse and hope they decide the next group of archers over is easier picking. Also non-retreating forces are a real balance breaker. 

[commissarmoody]

Ahhhhh the age old gamers argument, Balance versus reality. 

[Arlequín]

No, all fair points well put...

If you accept that archers could shoot mounted, you also have to consider why it was that they were more traditionally known for shooting on foot and England wasn't up there with the great horse-archer nations like the Huns or Parthians.

What might be relatively effective when raiding a village, or hunting down fugitives in a rout, was clearly of little use in a stand-up fight. Von Plutz has the right of it I think... 'formation' conjures up the wrong image in my head, but I get what he means.

[max]

In reality it was probably one man showing off to his mates and some monk decided it would look nice in his manuscript to put this showoff firing his bow from horseback 

[vonplutz]

In reality it was probably one man showing off to his mates and some monk decided it would look nice in his manuscript to put this showoff firing his bow from horseback 

This really could be true. Part of the fun of history is knowing as best we can since we never know for sure.

Jim I agree formation may not be the best word to describe it but I don't have a better one currently.

[Stuart]

I knew this would be a good topic for debate 

I think it would be reasonable to have them able to move as light cavalry but only able to defend on horseback and not to be used as a mounted offensive force.

If they dismount they operate as standard longbowmen and if they're charged they react as infantry.

Thus if used competently in a wargame they can initially be used to quickly cover ground or get to and defend a strategic point in a scouting role and generally harass the enemy. If used with caution they could move and shoot then retire before things get too hot though i suppose that would only work if you were in terrain and against an enemy unit where the range exceeds the enemy's single move / charge distance.

I think what i'm trying to say is that it would make you either use them with caution as a niche very mobile but vulnerable unit of archers or to simply use them to initially seize ground and just act as archers from that point on.

Hope that made sense, I think i've been in the sun too long !

I'm not that aware of many engagements where they were used in the medieval era but two engagements that spring to mind are Castillon where (IIRC) they dismounted and were mown down and also Guinegate (1513) where they took position behind a hedge and fired into the French flank but did not join in the fray in what was essentially a cavalry engagement, despite this curious contemporary painting suggesting otherwise but i suspect it's merely artistic license;