Force composition in the Wars of the Roses

[Arlequín]

Just picked up on this thread and have to say that it is totally bloody brilliant...
*Snip*
...I have quite a few units, all marginally different, some weighted more to bows others more to bills, some with less MAA and some with more.

Thanks on behalf of anyone who's contributed to it. To be honest, I thought you would have been here earlier. I hope you have a note?



For me, 'skirmish' forces have a much easier time of representing 'real' formations. You can build the forces of one 'Lord', drawn from one 'Manor' and within reasonable parameters give a fair approximation of such a force. If you want to crib from the various Tudor musters that survive, you can virtually reproduce the real thing.

https://sites.google.com/site/winterbournesteepletonopc/tudor-muster-rolls

That's one example and despite being from 1542, would probably not differ overly from one from 1475... almost certainly the family names would be identical in the main too. Despite the 'decline of archery' that is supposed, there are still a lot of archers.

http://www.wing-ops.org.uk/muster1522.html

This one takes a bit more working out, but is also closer to our period. Add together value of land and goods and you'll see where they were supposed to fit into the schematic in my other post. Seemingly there was some shuffling of commitments, as some people are supplying multiples of a weapon type, instead of 'rising a class' in the hierarchy... so there was some flexibility in play too... presumably at the Commissioner's discretion.

Obviously women landholders, like the 'Prioress', would have to find hire someone to fulfil her commitment, in her case a Spear and an Archer. They might hire a professional, or in the case of the archer, perhaps find a volunteer amongst their 'unfree' tenants.

The main point though is that one village/hundred/county will not be the same as the next and there was no even distribution of types, other than as a general overall 'trend'. By varying your forces, you are, in my opinion at least, doing it right.

Arlequin:
Thanks for your opinion. 

My take on Skirmishers in Armati is that they are the peasants armed with simple weapons or crossbow skirmishers to harass the enemy and put a few hits on them.

You're welcome... though what my opinion is worth is suspect. 

I'm sure there were guys who could skirmish with the best of them, but they were also the same guys who stood shoulder to shoulder with their fellows. Restricting them to be nothing but skirmishers is perhaps doing them a disservice historically speaking. That being said, it's very hard to build in that kind of flexibility into a set of rules... so no easy answer to that really.

Ok, I'm going to throw another wrench into all of this:

What are the differences from the WOR period to Renaissance. In particular early period.
This query is due to the Burgundian army I am currently painting. We are trying to decide the best way to handle Longbow within this army.
During the WOR, Armati 2 allows for Longbow to stand in front of Bill then melt into them once melee is imminent.
They add their fighting power to the melee Bill as well.
However the Burgundians did not do this, or did they?
I know Charles tried to mix bow with hand weapons on occasion but was it successful? Would the above rule be to liberal for this period?
The other discussion we had was to just make Longbow a Skirmish type unit.

Burgundians aren't my speciality by any stretch, although I'm currently digging into the period after Charles's death (and I thought WotR was hard going!). The main point is that effectively the Ordonnance Companies were a standing army (not quite literally, but close enough), they drilled, they tried out innovative ideas... quite advanced stuff for the day. We have no proof that these ideas were actually used in battle, or whether they were shelved after they didn't work out in practice.

The bow/pike experiment appears to have involved the archers forming up within a combined unit, with several ranks of pikes to the front. They would kneel, allowing the archers to shoot over them. No counter-marching or exchanging of ranks required. How many companies tried this out, we don't know and even if universal within the Ordonnance Companies (very doubtful as the border garrisons were almost constantly involved in raiding and counter-raiding), it wouldn't apply to the contingents raised from the Flemish cities for the duration of the campaign, as well as the English and Italians hired, who almost certainly contained 'native' troop types and compositions - in other words they weren't organised like the 'Burgundian Companies'. 

Contemporary illustrations that have survived (believed to be c.1475), show a single row of archers in front of a single row of voulgiers (as opposed to the 'mounted' pic, which has the archers to the rear). As the archers in the 'Infantry' picture are wearing riding boots, I'm almost certain that these illustrations represent the mounted archer and 'coutilier' of the companies, especially as the third illustration shows a single row of men at arms without other troops.




What is odd is that the 'Infantry' picture shows a single rank of archers, instead of a double rank, like the 'mounted' picture does... besides the fact that both infantry and mounted troops (and men at arms) are depicted behind a row of stakes of course. How much 'artistic licence' has been used therefore is hard to determine, but they are the best 'evidence' we have. As the book they came from belonged to one of Charles's senior commanders and Charles himself would almost certainly have had a copy (he was an avid book collector), I suspect they would not be too far from the 'truth'.

There are a few 'Burgundian' fans on LAF, who may have overlooked this thread, themed as it is for the WotR. I suggest a separate topic including 'Burgundians' in the title, which is sure to draw a much more knowledgeable response than mine... which has been largely composed of information that I've discarded from what I've needed, rather than the actual focus of my research.

[Silent Invader]

 

No note I am afraid.... It was the heading and my resulting presumption that misguided me ..... Being short of time at the time I wrongly presumed it to be a rule set specific discussion. Playing catch up I have found otherwise..... That'll serve me!

 

[Captain Blood]

H M Stanley - how would you feel about modifying the title of this thread to something like 'Force composition in the Wars of the Roses'?
This very same discussion comes up every few months. This thread is the fullest and most detailed exploration of the topic so far.
So rather than all having to repeat the various arguments and theories and 'known unknowns' again in another couple of months time (when this learned discussion -  which is mainly thanks to Arlequin's expert command of the sources - has sunk without trace down to the lower reaches of the board), we could have it pegged forever to the top of the board, so we don't have to keep going over the same ground again and again. We can simply add to this definitive discussion

[Elk101]

Good idea Captain, I'll second that motion 

[H.M.Stanley]

Consider it done gentlemen

[Arlequín]

Late to the party as usual, but yes... good call. 

[Silent Invader]

Yay ..... I also vote for sticky status

[Hu Rhu]

Thirded (or fourthed ) Whatever - I concur

[Captain Blood]

Thanks HM and fellows.
It is a shame for such assembled erudition and pointless speculation to sink without trace from the sight of future LAF generations...

[Arlequín]

Earlier in the thread someone kindly mentioned my blog and a couple of articles I did a while back. I have since moved these to a new home on my 'Medieval Flanders' blog with their own links etc.

Just in case anyone was looking for them their new homes are;

War and Society
Local Conflicts
Household Men and Fee'd Men
Commissions of  Array

[janner]

During the WOR, Armati 2 allows for Longbow to stand in front of Bill then melt into them once melee is imminent.

It's perhaps worth mentioning here that Matthew Bennett is said to be an Armati fan, but I'm not sure if he influenced the development of this rule

[MerlintheMad]

Okay, due to this subject arising in the last couple of days, and my being made aware of this thread, I will add my pov on the subject.

http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/share/english_wotr.pdf

For comparison, a core English army in "the French wars" (HYW) would look like this:

http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/share/english_hyw.pdf

Although this army list derives from my rules, mostly it should be self-explanatory as to proportion, and possibly even intent in a general sense. The terms are each rule specific (that is to say, they refer to full descriptions and how they function in the game, e.g. "open and close order" is a reference to the rule governing the tactic by the same name, wherein the way the tactic works, and why, is described), but probably evoke a response that will communicate ideas that are understood more than misunderstood. Anyway, if anyone wants to ask for elucidation, feel free, I'll be watching....

[coopman827]

How common were artillery, hand gunners, crossbows and pike-armed infantry in the WOTR armies?  I am relatively new to this period and could use some guidance regarding these.  Thanks for any replies.
Clay

[MerlintheMad]

WotR is not my "focus" period either. But I read what others say, and I've read a few books on it. Artillery was used in English armies as early as Crecy. It became more common as the WotR wore on, but I don't know how many pieces might be on a battlefield. Hand gunners were mercenaries, and iirc, only fielded by one nobleman on the Lancastrian side. Crossbows were garrison only (no evidence of use in the field), but you'd probably find them among the camp servants and so forth, since crossbows were very common throughout the 15th century and beyond. Pike-armed infantry, mercenaries again. English armies did not pick up the pike until well into the 16th century. Now, we wait for the erudites on the subject to correct me with added details....

[Elk101]

As well as mention of Warwick's Burgundian hangunners at Second St. Albans (while still a Yorkist),  isn't there also mention of Edward having hangunners at Barnet?