Rules according to Ral - War of the Roses

[hearts261]

So our group just started a War of the Roses Project using perry plastics to start. We were planning on using the rules according to ral for simplicity with some modifications for the period. I've been reading a bit on the subject and am still planning my army out. Right now I've got this planned

3 unit of archers
3 unit of billmen
1 Unit of mercs with pikes
1 unit of crossbows/guns (haven't decided which yet. and I'm debating around mixing them together and calling them Heavy missile troops)
1 unit of knights
1 Dismounted MAA
1 unit of artillery

Im not super bothered by historical accuracy and were not playing a specific battle, just generic medieval. I'm just curious as to how far off this is? the bow to bill ratio is not as much of a concern as only having one unit of Cavalry. Should I add in more Horses?

[Mad Doc Morris]

I take it that the Basic Impetus armylists may give a fairly accurate ratio for a unit-based abstraction. Freely available here.
According to these, yours look reasonably Yorkist.

[Captain Blood]

Probably everything you could possibly need to know about this is stickied here: http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=59060.0

In summary though, your overall force looks a little light on longbowmen - although not as light as mine (because I'm not overly concerned about historical accuracy either  )
A lot of people advocate that armies of this period had something between 2:1 and 8:1 longbowmen versus hand to hand troops.

Someone will be along shortly to also tell you that mounted knights rarely saw action - Bosworth being the possible exception, with Richard III's famous charge.
Generally though, the plate armoured nobility and gentry dismounted and fought on foot with poleaxes and other nasty hand to hand weapons, alongside their retinues. Cavalry only tended to be used for pursuits, scouting and so on. So one unit of mounted knights is probably about right, if you think of them as a reserve, rather than an offensive arm.

I'm being supremely hypocritical again, mind you, because I have 40+ mounted men-at-arms in my generic WOTR army of c. 250 figures. And I do use them as shock troops...

Ah, history-schmystery... 

[hearts261]

Yeah. I'm Gonna base my force of that impetus list.
So now I'm shooting for
1 knights
1 dismounted knights
2 bill
3 bow
1 hand gun
1 pikemen
1 art

I realize the bow to bill was quite a bit higher than what I'm planning, but the Rules according to ral don't recommend anything close to real stats so i figure as were playing I'll bust out a, "fun fact: ect.." type deal.

[Arlequín]

Someone will be along shortly to also tell you that mounted knights rarely saw action...

That won't be me though.  

A single unit of 'knights' (knights, men at arms and lighter horse, all rolled into one) wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility... maybe even two. The 'plomp of spears' at Towton where in fact just that ('spear' was a contemporary term for any lance-armed armoured horsemen).

Where there was apparently a reserve body behind the three 'battles', the odds are that most of these were mounted too, if only to get them to where they were needed before dismounting.

Rule writers et al only have access to the same sources as everyone else, so how accurate are what they produce? There is no 'hidden lore' that relates to the WotR so "do what ye will!".  

I sort of imagine that an army based on the contents of the Perry boxes would work out, albeit that you would have too many 'knights' in reality (to my mind one box of 'foot knights' would supplement around 6 boxes of 'infantry', unless you had something like a 'Royal Household' in play as a single unit). Whole units of 'knights' is a bit anachronistic for the WotR though.

If you were modelling a 'Riding Retinue' at a much smaller figure scale though, it is not so bad a mix to buy a box each of everything (including the future light horse set) and just add more 'infantry' boxes at a later date.  

[Atheling]

That won't be me though.  

A single unit of 'knights' (knights, men at arms and lighter horse, all rolled into one) wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility... maybe even two. The 'plomp of spears' at Towton where in fact just that ('spear' was a contemporary term for any lance-armed armoured horsemen).

Where there was apparently a reserve body behind the three 'battles', the odds are that most of these were mounted too, if only to get them to where they were needed before dismounting.

Rule writers et al only have access to the same sources as everyone else, so how accurate are what they produce? There is no 'hidden lore' that relates to the WotR so "do what ye will!".  

I sort of imagine that an army based on the contents of the Perry boxes would work out, albeit that you would have too many 'knights' in reality (to my mind one box of 'foot knights' would supplement around 6 boxes of 'infantry', unless you had something like a 'Royal Household' in play as a single unit). Whole units of 'knights' is a bit anachronistic for the WotR though.

If you were modelling a 'Riding Retinue' at a much smaller figure scale though, it is not so bad a mix to buy a box each of everything (including the future light horse set) and just add more 'infantry' boxes at a later date.  

There is actually one battle that took place during the Cousin's War, Blore Heath where it is likely that a Frontal cavalry charge may have been made.

As Arlequin has pointed out there would usually have been some kind of cavalry reserve left behind for any persuit which may take place. There's not much point in beating your enemy if he then gets away and is there to fight another day. The Cousin's War's were brutal affairs with no quarter given in battle nor post the fighting.

Also, it is often imagined that this mounted group would be made up on the Scurrers. I'm not sure that we have any evidence of who made up the persuit party but I'm quite sure that there would have been many knights and possibly minor nobles would have joined the fray. After all one of the main attractions for all but the most mighty soldiers of going into battle was loot!

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

I think we get to caught up in defining set roles and divisions for Medieval troops that were not there, they were far more flexible and less constrained than we generally imagine from more recent periods of warfare.

We know 'scourers', 'skewrers', 'prickers' and 'harbingers' existed, because they appear in the Calais Garrison records. However they appear in very small groups (there were four in one group, as opposed to twenty odd 'spears' and nineteen mounted archers). Maybe composite units were formed from drawing them from across the retinues, but I imagine they were more like 'Indian Scouts' in the Plains Wars and merely assisted the spears and archers when they were wearing their 'light cavalry' hats.

The actual light cavalry role (with the exception of the Border Reivers, who were true light cavalry) was I believe, one of three roles which the 'spears' (essentially the knights, men at arms and what are annoyingly called 'retinue billmen' - although you'll never see the term in any 15th C document) performed within an army (the others being 'heavy infantry' and 'heavy cavalry'), in conjunction with the mounted 'Yeomen' (or Valettus) archers (essentially the 15th C middle class), who themselves were not merely 'donkey whallopers', albeit that the cost of entry into that class was somewhat cheaper than that of the 'spears'.

Atheling is spot on with mentioning Blore Heath, which indeed does appear to have been a mostly 'French-style' mounted action by the Lancastrians against a 'typically English' defensive position, with a wagon-laager securing one flank. Clifford's actions at Ferrybridge and the Yorkist pursuit of his men, does not seem possible unless all were mounted, at least at some point and of course Edward IV's harrying of Margaret's army before Tewkesbury and its resistance to that, are all classic 'light cavalry' affairs. Scant though descriptions are, there are a few others which appear to have been classic cavalry actions, at least in part.

Moving into the Tudor period we have the 'sudden' appearance of the demi-lance in army lists, as if they woke up one morning and thought "Hey we're Tudors now, let's totally change the way we fight". Their appearance was just one element of a process that marked a shift from almost totally infantry warfare against an opponent with superior numbers of mounted men, to domestic squabbles where the enemy had the same access to the same troop types as you did.

Fielding mounted troops was a tactical option and the usual "It would be fatal to do that in the face of massed longbows" argument does not hold up, as they were doing it by the end of the century in any case. Quite simply the archers of Agincourt were the cream of England's bowmen, selected for their skill... those of the WotR much less so and if you had taken a proportionate cross-section of a typical WotR army of the same size to replace Henry V's 'band of brothers', they would have lost - badly.

[Atheling]

I think we get to caught up in defining set roles and divisions for Medieval troops that were not there, they were far more flexible and less constrained than we generally imagine from more recent periods of warfare.

Good point. a prime example is the English picking archers in the first place as a primary 'troop type'. That they were picked for their archers skills of that it is certain, but also because they were flexible soldiers. They could be used to forage, raid, in their role as archers and fighting in hand to hand in sieges as well as battles. Very versatile troops. Similarly, the same goes for men at arms.

Clifford's actions at Ferrybridge and the Yorkist pursuit of his men, does not seem possible unless all were mounted, at least at some point and of course Edward IV's harrying of Margaret's army before Tewkesbury and its resistance to that, are all classic 'light cavalry' affairs. Scant though descriptions are, there are a few others which appear to have been classic cavalry actions, at least in part.

Agreed, it is almost impossible to mount an effective persuit without the horse!

Moving into the Tudor period we have the 'sudden' appearance of the demi-lance in army lists, as if they woke up one morning and thought "Hey we're Tudors now, let's totally change the way we fight". Their appearance was just one element of a process that marked a shift from almost totally infantry warfare against an opponent with superior numbers of mounted men, to domestic squabbles where the enemy had the same access to the same troop types as you did.

Yeah, this is where things start getting weird indeed. I don't believe the Demi Lances were were recruited to fight (mainly in Europe to remove them from their troublesome pastimes!!) at such an early stage. I *think* I have read that it wasn't until the time of James I of England (and Scotland) that there is any documented evidence of them being used in a Royal army. Though there is evidence that they fought at Flodden (not in a Royal army and most likely out of deseration!). I would say that most Scurrers were as Arlequin suggests, mounted men at arms without all their clobber on.

Fielding mounted troops was a tactical option and the usual "It would be fatal to do that in the face of massed longbows" argument does not hold up, as they were doing it by the end of the century in any case. Quite simply the archers of Agincourt were the cream of England's bowmen, selected for their skill... those of the WotR much less so and if you had taken a proportionate cross-section of a typical WotR army of the same size to replace Henry V's 'band of brothers', they would have lost - badly.

Possibly with the caveat that early in the Cousin's War this may not have been the case with all the unemployed but experienced soldiers returning from England from France; I would certainly agree. Also Henry, by all accounts distant and quite blunt in character had a manner if inspiring loyalty that many of the commanders in the Wars of the Roses lacked. After all, a national cause can be much more attractive(and also in terms of solidarity) than the arguments of the nobility over the throne.

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

I would say that most Scurrers were as Arlequin suggests, mounted men at arms without all their clobber on.

I would argue that as a whole the 'men at arms' as a group did not necessarily have that much clobber in the first place. Certainly there were those in full harness complete with barding - as a minority. Somewhat more would have full harness, but with no horse armour (why purchase it if you are likely to dismount?), but most would be in a variety of armour types (plate for leg and arms, helmet and a brigandine, etc.).

I sort of recall that the ratio of knights (as a social class and not implying that only knights wore full harness) was something like 1.3% of the serving man at arms total as early as the 1440s, with a typical mount being £5 (the minimum allowed), as opposed to the £100 thoroughbred the Duke of Somerset bought in the same period. Clearly the fully-kitted out 'knight' we imagine might be somewhat removed from the typical 15th C man at arms. The 'Beauchamp Pageant' shows the men at arms as a mix of the above types and okay it is an abstracted depiction, but might still be a fair representation of the whole for all that. The 1475 rolls show 'knights' as essentially the officers in each contingent (at around 1% of the whole again), versus larger numbers of 'Spears' and 'Archers'.

Certainly a knight or noble leading a relatively fast moving body of mounted men would need to shed some weight, although this might merely be a case of just not barding his horse. 'Light cavalry' elsewhere in Europe wore full plate, or as near as could be thought to be so:- French 'Archers' being the most obvious example perhaps and in Italy 'light horsemen' were merely men at arms without horse barding.

Possibly with the caveat that early in the Cousin's War this may not have been the case with all the unemployed but experienced soldiers returning from England from France; I would certainly agree.

Certainly the earlier you move towards the end of the French War, this is the case... but a very large proportion of the professionals sought jobs within nobles' households, which diffuses the numbers available as not all nobles took part in every battle and some not in any at all.

I do not know the number of 'English' veterans coming back from France over the years, but given the size of garrisons and armies raised across the 1440s and 50s, I doubt it was above 10,000 in total, particularly as some are found serving all over the place at different times.

With around 80 active nobles and assuming they each employed equal numbers (which obviously they did not), that's 125 each... not counting those who gave up soldiering altogether, got themselves hung or imprisoned for various petty crimes, or who took employment with the much more numerous non-noble knights (again not all of whom involved themselves in the WotR). With nobles raising anything between 500 and a couple of thousand men, that isn't many.

If you think on those lines and then look at Towton as being the last battle in which most veterans would have been involved in, take it as read that half of England's nobility were there (along with the corresponding 'average' of the veterans they employed), then you have perhaps 5,000 veterans and somewhere in the region of 20-45,000 men with no experience of war at all.

It's dodgy maths at best, but serves to illustrate that the impact of veterans might be less than we assume and that they could be swallowed up within the larger 'military' population as a whole.

It's a fair point though all the same and indeed by the looks of things the earlier battles do seem to have been mirror images of tactics (for good or bad) of the late HYW... which implies that veterans were applying what they knew or had experienced. The Lancastrians at Northampton for example, almost copy exactly the French redoubt some of them may have tried to scale at Castillon seven years earlier. 

As for demi-lances... they go beyond my ken mostly and I might indeed be premature in assigning the 'name' before the mid 16th Century... but the 'type' of men described is a different matter.